Page images
PDF
EPUB

want to pinpoint things here that there might be some disagreement on. There was no thought of reversing any stand.

“Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. As I understand it, it doesn't reflect a reversal? "Mr. HAKE. Not in the least.

"The PRESIDENT. The resolution has been so rejected." 4. Statement of Milton 0. Loysen, representing the conference at hearings before the

Committee on Ways and Means, June 6, 1946 "When the law was first passed, it was believed wise to exclude small firms on the ground of administrative feasibility, and the act has never been changed in that respect.

“In the poll that we took last week in the conference, all but four States replying favored an amendment to the Unemployment Tax Act, to extend unemployment compensation coverage to firms employing one or more workers at any time, exactly the coverage of the old-age and survivors insurance. Casual labor would, however, be excluded.

“This sentiment confirms resolutions passed by our conference at earlier dates. It reflects actualities, since most States now cover firms with fewer than 8 employees, and 16 States cover firms with only 1 employee. Nothing that we have observed in the 10 years of experience and which experience as I may remind you covers the end of a depression, recovery, war and postwar reconversion, nothing we have observed indicates there is any less need for unemployment protection for the man employed in the small store, than for the man engaged in a large public utility. And although not all owners of small establishments may be aware of it, their problem of obtaining adequate labor supply in competition with large-scale industry, would I think be somewhat alleviated if they provided the same social-insurance protection as large firms do.

“The States are now prepared, and administratively, to handle these additional accounts. In fact, the administrative advantages overshadow the disadvantages of handling a large number of small accounts. * * *

"It may be asked also why the States recommend amendment of the Social Security Act in this respect, when they are free to extend coverage themselves and in fact, many of them have already done it. We recommend it, and because it is our understanding that the original Federal interest was in coverage of the specified employments, and the limitation by size of firm was purely to spare the States an administrative problem, since this problem no longer exists, the Federal interests would seem to suggest repeal of a restriction for which there is no longer any need." 5. Excerpt from the minutes of the national executive committee meeting, February

13-16, 1950 "President Teets suggested four proposals that might have some chance of favorable action. These were:

[blocks in formation]

“(3) Coverage of one or more. The last action on this subject placed the conference on record as favoring the extension of coverage to employers of one or

more.

“These four proposals were discussed at length by the committee. The committee recognized that it could not itself commit the conference to these proposals in their entirety as the conference legislative program, but would have to refer them to the individual States for action.6. Excerpt from letter from President Teets to all State administrators, April 19, 1950

"With one exception, the States were unanimous in their expressed desire to join with the Bureau in getting the 'quickie bill' passed, to include:

*

"(3) Coverage of one or more.” 7. Resolution IX, adopted November 1, 1951, at 15th annual meeting

Resolved, That the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies affirms its support of the principles embodied in and reflected by H. R. 4133, the Employment Security Administrative Financing Act of 1951.”

(Section 8 of H. R. 4133 provided that “The term 'employer' means any person who, at any time during the taxable year, has one or more individuals in employment.")

8. Excerpt from testimony of Marion Williamson, representing the conference, at

hearings before the Subcommittee on Unemployment Insurance of the Committee

on Ways and Means, April 2, 1952 "Enactment of H. R. 4133 would give effect to basic principles which would further strengthen and preserve the State systems.

“These may be summarized as follows:

[blocks in formation]

(6) Redefine the term 'employer' to cover, under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, employers of one or more.” 9. Excerpt from testimony of Bernard E. Teets, representing the conference, at

hearings before the Subcommittee on Unemployment Insurance of the Com

mittee on Ways and Means, April 2, 1952 "* * * the interstate conference feels that the lowering of coverage from eight or more to one or more is long past due. * * * Congress has taken no action with regard to covering 372 million workers who have never had any coverage, workers who are subject to the same hazards of unemployment as all other workers, and it seems to me that there is a field in which Congress can well take some action." 10. Resolution II, adopted September 17, 1952, at 16th annual meeting

Resolved, That the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies affirm its support of the principles embodied in and reflected by H. R. 4133, the Employment Security Administrative Financing Act of 1951; and be it further

'Resolved, That it is the sense of this conference that securing favorable action on such a bill is to be the primary objective of the conference officers during the 1952–53 conference year.” 11. Excerpt from first report of the 1953–54 legislative committee, May 14, 1954

“The following resolution was passed unanimously and referred to the conference president with the recommendation that positions indicated be presented as those of the conference to the House Ways and Means Committee at its hearings on the bill, H. R. 8857:

'Resolved, That (1) The provision of H. R. 8857 which would reduce employment covered under the Federal Act from 8 or more in 20 weeks to 1 or more at any time be amended so as to strike out “at any time,” making the reduction, then, from 8 or more in 20 weeks to 1 or more in 20 weeks; provided that this reduction, amended as recommended above, is clearly recognized to be only a modification of an existing and already accepted Federal standard and not the creation in any sense of a new Federal standard in an area hitherto reserved to State discretion.'"

Selected data on unemployment compensation

Legal range of benefits

Weeks duration

Benefits
paid in

1953 (in
thousands)

Average

actual
duration
in 1953
(weeks)

Federal
grants to

States,
fiscal year

1953 (in
thousands)

Federal
tax collec-
tions, fiscal
year 1953
(in thou-
sands)

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

$962, 221

10.1

$196, 323

$275, 825

11+
12.
10.
10.
15-10+-
10.
15-10
11.
12+
7+
20.
20.
10.
18+-10.
12+6+
6+
6+
26
10.
20.
7+
21+-6
9+
15.
16.
(2).
20
10.
10.

20
26.
20.
16
26.
20-26
26.
26
20.
16
20
20
26
26
20
20.
20.
26.
20
20
26
26
26.
26.
16.
21.
20.
20
26.
26.
26.
24.
26.
26

10,520
5, 641
2,568
6,014
97,363
2,117
7,966
1,167
2, 365
7, 780
10, 226

2, 858
3,684
51,085
16, 748
5,088
7,041
17,665
10, 356

5,788
11, 911
41, 081
39, 485
11,021

6, 641
15, 534
2, 347
2,577
1,567
5, 877
59, 757

2, 455
178, 597
20, 973

1, 987 32, 542

12.1
9. 7
8.7
9.3
11.4
9.3
6.3
7.9
10.7

9. 2
10.3
11.2
10.9
9.1
7.1
8.7
8.7
13.0
12.6
9.7
7.6
10.0

7.1
11.3
10.1

8. 2
10.8
8.9
9.1
10.6
10.7
10.6
11.9
10.9
12.5
9.2

2,841

659
1,672
1, 943
19,775
1,508
3,002

431
1, 230
3,163
3,051

634

967
9, 292
3,339
1,650
1,509
2,329
2, 806
1,053
3, 203
8, 878
8,837
3, 108
2,089
3, 451
1, 022

953
575

943
8, 934
1,021
29, 586
3, 731

664

3,193

395

914
1,337
21,516
1, 861
5, 634

793
1,564
3, 281
4,030

637

648
20,833
8,654
3,000
2,477
3, 105
3,323

393
4, 294
10, 664
15, 893
4, 013
1, 276

607

688
1, 371

315

955
11, 586

707

35, 956 4,948

373 19, 253

20

20.

State

Statutory mini

mum number of
workers and
period for em-
ployer coverage

Benefits 1

United States.

10.
$5-$7.
$7.
$10.
$7

$11

$6-$7

$5
$10.

$10.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona.
Arkansas
California.
Colorado.
Oornecticut.
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia.
Hawaii.
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas.
Kentucky.
Louisiana
Maine.
Maryland.
Massachusetts.
Michigan.
Minuesota.
Mississippi.
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska..
Nevada
New Hampshire-
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York,
North Carolina.
North Dakota.
Ohio.

See footnotes at end of table, p. 102.

8 in 20 weeks.
1 at any time
3 in 20 weeks.
1 in 10 days.
1 at any time.
8 in 20 weeks.
4 in 13 weeks.
1 in 20 weeks.
1 at any time.
8 in 20 weeks.

do
1 at any time

do.
6 in 20 weeks.
8 in 20 weeks
8 in 15 weeks.
8 in 20 weeks.
4 in 3 quarters.
4 in 20 weeks.
8 in 20 weeks.
1 at any time.
1 in 13 weeks
8 in 20 weeks.
1 in 20 weeks 3
8 in 20 weeks.

do.
1 in 20 weeks.
8 in 20 weeks.
1 at any time.
4 in 20 weeks.
4 in 20 weeks.
1 at any time.
4 in 15 days.
8 in 20 weeks.

$5.
$5.
$5.
$8
$5.

$22.
$35-$70.
$20-$26.
$22.
$30.
$28-$35.
$30-$45.
$25
$20
$20.
$26.
$25.
$25.
$27-
$27
$26.
$28.
$28.
$25.
$27.
$30-$38
$25 2
$30-$42
$30..
$30.
$25.
$23.
$26.
$30-$50.
$30.
$30.
$30.
$30
$30.
$26-$32
$30-$35.

$6-$8.

10-$12.
$11.
$3
$0.50 2
$7.
$10.
$8-$11
$7
$10.
$10.
$10.
$7.
$7-$9.
$10-$12.50

26.

13.
12
26.
26.

do.

3 at any time.

12-9+

26.

8, 619

Selected data on unemployment compensation—Continued

Legal range of benefits

Weeks duration

Benefits
paid in

1953 (in
thousands)

Average

actual
duration
in 1953
(weeks)

Federal grants to

States, fiscal year

1953 (in thousands)

Federal
tax collec-
tions, fiscal
year 1953
(in thou-
sands)

Minimum Maximum

6+

8+ 13. 10+-7+ 18. 10. 22 5. 16-15. 20 6. 15 2. 108..

22 26. 26. 26 18. 20. 22 24. 26.

$7, 251
19, 208
102, 359
12,565
9,055

730
16, 369
11,891
3, 168
1, 299
8, 203
29, 027
13, 954
17, 934

814

10.7
10.4
9.8
9.9
10.1

9.3
11.0

9. 2
10.1
9.1
7.8
11.3
9.5
8. 2
7.2

$2, 132

2, 373
14,981
1, 717
2, 315

512
3, 009
7, 299
1, 379

634
1, 890
3,960
1, 428
2,981

608

$2,389

2, 799
23, 877
1, 858
2, 483

411
3,932
10, 701

937

507
4,051
4, 182
3, 316
6, 517

376

20

16. 26. 21. 26+ 26

State

Statutory mini

mum number of
workers and
period for em-
ployer coverage

Benefits 1

Minimum Maximum

Oklahoma..
Oregon.
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island
South Carolina..
South Dakota.
Tennessee
Texas.
Utah...
Vermont-
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia.
Wisconsia.
Wyoming

8 in 20 weeks.
4 in 6 weeks
1 at any time.
4 in 20 weeks.
8 in 20 weeks.
do..
do..

do.
1 at any time.
8 in 20 weeks.

..do.
1 at any time..
8 i 20 weeks.
6 i 2 18 weeks.
1 at any time.

$10.
$15.
$10.
$10.
$5.
$8.
$5.
$7
$10.
$10.
$6.

$28.
$25.
$30.
$25.
$20.-
$25.
$26.
$20.
$27.50.
$25
$21.
$30.
$30.
$33
$30-$36.

$10.

$10..
$10
$10-$13

1 When 2 amounts are given, higher includes dependents' allowances, except in Colo-
rado where higher amount includes 25 percent additional for claimants employed in
Colorado by covered employers for 5 consecutive calendar years with wages in excess of
$1,000 per year and no benefits received.

2 If the benefit is less than $5 benefits are paid at the rate of $5 a week; no qualifying
wages and no minimum weekly cr annual benefits are specified.

3 Employers of less than 8 outside the corporate limits of the city, village, or borough
of 10,000 population or more are not liable for contributions unless they are subject to the
Federal Unemployment Tax Act.

Source: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Division of
Actuarial and Financial Services, June 7, 1954.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, sir, for the information you have given and also we thank your associates.

I am going to ask at this point unanimous consent that Hon. Carl D. Perkins be permitted to file a statement in the record and also that Mr. Luther C. Steward, National Federation of Federal Employees, be permitted to file a statement in the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF LUTHER C. STEWARD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION

OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we are appearing in support of H. R. 6537 and H. R. 6539 under consideration by this committee which propose to add to the present Social Security Act a new title XV, entitled "Unemployment Compensation for Federal Workers.” We wish most heartily to endorse this proposal.

In order that recruitment of manpower for Federal agencies may be carried on to the best possible advantage and without delay, it is imperative that an existing discrimination running against civilian Federal employees as compared to employees of private business and industry be removed.

I refer to the fact that those employed by private corporations or firms, when separated from their jobs, receive unemployment compensation in accordance with the law of the State where employed. Federal employees have no such protective provision of law.

In the absence of any provision for unemployment compensation for Federal civilian employees it has become a fairly general practice to accumulate unused annual leave to cushion the impact of separation from the service.

It is apparent that in the interest of our people as a whole, of the Government as an employer, as well as to correct an injustice now imposed upon civilian Federal employees, there should be enacted into law without delay the provisions of these bills, in order that recruiting of essential personnel may proceed without delay at the present time, and when reduction in force occurs employees who have rendered faithful service for the Federal Government may be placed on a parity with those in private employ and be afforded an equal cushion to tide over during a period of unemployment.

(For statement of Hon. Carl I. Perkins, see p. 294.)

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Oris V. Wells, Administrator of Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Wells, you have an associate with you, I believe.

STATEMENTS OF ORIS V. WELLS, ADMINISTRATOR OF AGRI

CULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE; AND LOUIS J. DUCOFF, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FARM POPULATION AND RURAL LIFE BRANCH, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Louis Ducoff.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will give Mr. Ducoff's full name and the capacity in which he appears you may proceed.

Mr. WELLS. I am Oris V. Wells, Administrator of Agricultural Marketing Service in the Department of Agriculture, and this is Louis J. Ducoff, Assistant Chief, Farm Population and Rural Life Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to appear here today to express the viewpoint of the Department of Agriculture on the provisions of H. R. 8857, a bill to extend and improve the unemployment compensation program. We appreciate the opportunity of testifying on this proposed legislation.

« PreviousContinue »