« PreviousContinue »
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:
“(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
“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:
(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
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
1, 987 32, 542
35, 956 4,948
373 19, 253
mum number of
See footnotes at end of table, p. 102.
8 in 20 weeks.
3 at any time.
Selected data on unemployment compensation—Continued
Legal range of benefits
Federal grants to
States, fiscal year
1953 (in thousands)
8+ 13. 10+-7+ 18. 10. 22 5. 16-15. 20 6. 15 2. 108..
22 26. 26. 26 18. 20. 22 24. 26.
16. 26. 21. 26+ 26
mum number of
8 in 20 weeks.
1 When 2 amounts are given, higher includes dependents' allowances, except in Colo-
2 If the benefit is less than $5 benefits are paid at the rate of $5 a week; no qualifying
3 Employers of less than 8 outside the corporate limits of the city, village, or borough
Source: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Division of
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.