« PreviousContinue »
basis of individual experience. This has led to most disastrous forms of rate reduction, lowering employers' taxes not because they have actually stabilized employment, but because they have successfully kept former employees from receiving benefits.
Passage of the Forand bill would thus bring many improvements in unemployment insurance. We would, however, like to see this bill go even further.
For example, we believe it would be desirable to introduce another standard in connection with the ceiling that States place on individual benefits. If a State's average weekly wage is lower than the national average weekly wage, then we believe that the ceiling on benefits in that State should be two-thirds of the national average rather than the State average. Our unions have been successful in collective bargaining in wiping out many regional wage differentials. We think it would be better to avoid too great variations in ceilings among States, especially where the State average is reduced by a heavy proportion of low-paid industries as compared to high-paid occupations.
Another change which we should prefer would be to require that the individual's primary benefits should be not less than 65 percent of his weekly wages, with additional amounts for dependents.
But rather than dwell on these further improvements, let me urge in the strongest terms that you set Federal minimum standards for benefits, for duration, and for disqualifications, and that you adopt the other provisions in the Forand bill.
If Congress instead enacts the two Reed bills, H. R. 5173 and H. R. 8857, the net effect will not be progress but severe damage to the protection now afforded our members. Combined with the inadequate appropriations so far made available for the Federal and State agencies, such action will present a black picture as unemployment grows.
In closing, I request that my supplementary statement, with attachments, be incorporated in the record as part of my testimony.
Mr. KEAN. Mr. Carey, is this the supplementary statement that I have in my hand?
Mr. CAREY. We have some additional material that we would like to have included in the record.
Mr. Kean. It is not too voluminous, is it?
Unemployment insurance under State laws
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas. California Colorado. Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia. Florida Georgia Hawaii. Idaho. Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas. Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi. Missouri. Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire. New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio. Oklahom. Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas. Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
1.2 2.7 1.5 1.5 2.1 1.0 1. 8 .6 .7
.7 1.7 1.1 .7 .5 1.0 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.0 2. 7 1.5
.5 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.3 2.3 1.2 1.5 1.1 1. 1 1.2 1.0 2. 7 1.6
maximum duration of benefits
5 5 5 10 10 5
10 15 10 10 5 8 5
28 25 30
11+-20 12 -26 10 -20 10 -16
15 -26 10-26 -20-26
15 - 26 11 -26 12+-20
7+-16 20 -20 20 -20 10 -26 18+-26 12 +-20 6+-20 6+-20 26 -26 10 -20 20 -20
9+-20 15 - 26 16 -16
-24 20 -20 10 -20 10 -26 26 -26 13 -26 12-24 26 -26 26 -26 20 -20 12 -26 6+-22 8+-26 13 -26 10+-26 18 -18 10 -20 22 -22
20 25 26
25 22 30 30
1 Where 2 figures are shown, the smallest does not include dependents' allowances.
6 W, C-18
9,000 13, 500
4 350 600 350
8,000 7 5,000- 4 8,000
Yes. 14 120 days—$450 No.
13 60 days No
es. No. Yes
6633 2 50 -6633
6 W, C-18
31. 50- 45, 50
25.00 3 23.08- 42.69
2 42.00 2 23.08- 43. 85
1 Benefits may not exceed period of time or amounts indicated.
2 The lower figure represents the benefit for a single worker; the higher the maximum
3 Covers only specified dust or pulmonary diseases and/or diseases caused by the
4 The lower figure represents payments to a widow only; the higher maximum pay-
5 Plus $10 par lependent.
8 “W” means payment to widow until death or remarriage. “O” means payment to children until age specified.
7 Or 4 times the average annual earnings whichever is less.
8 Period may be extended for additional time and amount not exceeding $250 within
9 Divided into $1,000 for hospital services and $500 for medical and surgical. Commis-
10 $39 to average weekly wage.
12 After maximum weeks of payment, reduced benefits may be paid until children reach the age of 18, in Delaware, the age of 16.
13 Commission may extend to 1 year.
14 Hospitalization for 120 days in addition to the $450 total medical and surgical allow-
15 Full coverage optional with employer.
See CIO publication No. 202: Workmen's Compensation-A Story of Failure, 15 cents
NOTE.–For a more complete comparison of the laws, write to the Superintendent of
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IN BEHALF OF THE
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS BY JAMES B. CAREY We should like to have introduced in the record certain important documents dealing with unemployment insurance which further explain many of the points touched on in my main statement. The documents can be conveniently grouped under the heads that are indicated, and we should like to have each one appear in the record immediately following the point at which it is mentioned in the following list: Official CIO policy
The CIO convention in November 1953 unanimously adopted a resolution on unemployment insurance and the employment service. The need for better benefit provisions
Prof. Richard Lester of Princeton University prepared a statement in support of the resolution on benefit ceilings adopted by the Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security on January 26, 1954. This provides a valuable analysis of the lag of benefits behind weekly wages, and on the reduction of employer tax rates.
President Eisenhower in his economic report to the Congress on January 28, 1954, urged that unemployment insurance benefits be raised. Two sections of his report are especially relevant.
The Joint Committee on the Economic Report to the Congress endorsed the President's recommendations in several significant paragraphs on pages 7 and 8.
The Secretary of Labor, as requested by President Eisenhower, sent a letter to all State governors on February 16, 1954, regarding improvements in the State laws. This letter summarizes the case for higher benefits and longer duration, and the attachments contain much valuable information.
The Secretary refers to the resolution of the Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security which recommended that in each State the maximum weekly benefit amount should be equal to at least 60 to 67 percent of the State's average weekly wage. The statement by Professor Lester, already mentioned, was prepared in support of this resolution.) The need for Federal action to improve benefit provisions
The 20th National Conference on Labor Legislation adopted a report by its resolutions committee supporting Federal standards for benefits and duration. The relevant part of this resolution is attached. The conference was made up of State Labor commissioners and representatives of labor organizations from over 40 States.
An analysis of the lack of proper representation of urban areas in State legislatures was presented in the CIO Economic Outlook in August 1953. We should like to have the entire text included without the illustrations.
The Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security, in January 1954, unanimously adopted a statement on the functions of the Federal Government in regard to unemployment insurance. The Council also unanimously agreed to transmit to the Secretary of Labor separate reports prepared by the public, employer and employee members of its Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as “broadly representative of the viewpoints of the three groups who compose the membership of the Council.” The statement of the public members favors Federal minimum standards in regard_to benefits and duration, as the relevant excerpt shows. The actions of the Federal Advisory Council are significant because the public members are chosen as experts from the universities as well as from representatives of such representative organizations as the veterans groups and B'nai B'rith. The authors of this statement are Dr. Eveline Burns of Columbia University and Prof. Richard Lester of Princeton University.
OFFICIAL CIO POLICY
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
During the past year we have continued the struggle for an adequate employment security system against the powerful opposition of certain employer groups who have never really believed in unemployment insurance.
In spite of strenuous efforts by our affiliates to improve State legislation in 1953, less than half the State legislatures which met raised maximum benefits and less than one-fifth increased duration. Over one-third of the States still will not pay