1 Effective January 1, 1956; in States noted, by operation of provisions in State law that employers subject to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act are subject to the State employment security law.

Weekly benefit amount abbreviated in columns as wba.

1 When State uses a weighted high-quarter formula, annual-wage formula or average-weekly-wage formula, approximate fractions or percentages are figured at midpoint of lowest and highest normal wage brackets. When dependents' allowances are provided, the fraction applies to the basic benefit amount.

When 2 amounts are given, higher includes dependents' allowances except in Colorado 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; duration for such claimants is increased to 26 weeks. Higher figure for minimum weekly benefit amount includes maximum allowance for one dependent; in Michigan, for one dependent child or two dependents other than a child. In the District of Columbia, same maximum with or without dependents. Maximum augmented payment in Massachusetts not shown since any figure presented would be based on an assumed maximum number of dependent children at $3 each, up to average weekly wage. In Alaska, the maximum for interstate claimants is $25 and no dependents' allowances paid.

'In States noted, fully weekly benefit is paid if earnings are less than onehalf weekly benefit and one-half weekly benefit amount if wages are one-half Weekly benefit but less than weekly benefit.

In States with weighted schedules, the percent of benefits is figured at the bottom of the lowest and of the highest wage brackets; in States noted, the percentages at other brackets are higher and/or lower than the percentages shown.

to his high quarter wages but are enough to qualify for any lower amount, will be able to receive a lower benefit amount. Vermont added a similar stepdown provision but limited it to the next lower benefit amount and South Carolina deleted such a provision. Alabama deleted its provision that a claimant could not get benefits for a week

? Figure shown applies to claimants with minimum weekly benefit and minimum qualifying wages. In Delaware and Utah, statutory minimum. In Texas, alternative qualifying wages of $250 in high quarter and $125 in another quarter may yield benefits of $10 per week for 9+ weeks. In other States noted, if qualifying wages are concentrated largely or wholly in high quarter, weekly benefit for claimants with minimum qualifying wages may be above minimum weekly amount and consequently weeks of benefits may be less than the minimum duration shown.

Because of high qualifying wages, minimum duration is high for claimants with low benefit amounts; minimum duration for claimants at other levels is 15 weeks in California and 10 (by statute) in Illinois.

Employers of fewer than 4 (not subject to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act) outside the corporate limits of 21 cities of 10,000 population or more are not liable for contributions.

10 If the benefit is less than $5, benefits are paid at the rate of $5 a week; no qualifying wages and no minimum weekly or annual benefits are specified. 11 No partial benefits paid, but earnings not exceeding the greater of $15 or 1 day's work of 8 hours are disregarded for total unemployment.

12 Waiting period is 4 "effective days" accumulated in 1-4 weeks. Partial benefits are one-fourth of weekly benefit amount for each of 1 to 3 effective days. An "effective day" is the fourth and each subsequent day of total unemployment in a week for which not more than $36 is paid.

NOTE: Prepared for ready reference and comparative purposes. Because of the impossibility of giving qualifications and alternatives in brief summary form, the State law and State employment security agency should be consulted for authoritative information. In general, the State laws cover employment in most types of business and industry, except employment for railroads which is covered by a separate Federal law.

Source: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security.

of unemployment unless he had worked less than 160 hours and earned less than $180 during the 3 weeks immediately preceding the week of unemployment. Kansas and Tennessee made it more. difficult for some claimants to qualify by requiring earnings since the beginning of the preceding benefit year.

369411-56

Benefits

Maximum Weekly Benefit Amount. As in recent years, the emphasis in the 1955 State legislatures continued to be on increasing the maximum weekly benefit amount rather than extending the duration of benefits. Thirty-two jurisdictionsmore than in any previous year-increased the basic maximum weekly benefit by amounts ranging from $1 to $10. In 3 States, Alaska, and Hawaii, the increase was $10. The Alaskan increase, however, is for intrastate claimants only; the maximum benefit amount for interstate claimants was reduced by $10. In 11 States, the increase varied from $5 to $8 and in the remaining 16 States, it was only $1 to $4. Two other States which did not increase the basic maximum weekly benefit amount increased the maximum augmented benefit for claimants with dependents.

Maximum basic weekly benefit amounts now range from $24 in Virginia to $36 in New York and Wisconsin and $45 in Alaska. Prior to the 1955 legislative sessions, the range was from $20 to $35 and only 2 States with only 2.3 percent of the 1954 covered workers had maximums of over $30. Sixteen States with 51.2 percent of the covered workers now have a basic weekly maximum benefit of over $30. Sixteen others, with 18.5 percent of the covered workers, now have a $30 maximum. Thus, as a result of the changes enacted in the 1955 legislative sessions, 32 States with 69.7 percent of the covered workers have a maximum of $30 or more as compared with 20 States with 59.9 percent of the covered workers prior to the sessions. Significantly, the trend toward weekly benefit maximums of over $30 has occurred in the 16 States which account for over one-half of the covered workers.

Following is a tabulation of maximum weekly benefit amounts by the number of States:

Even with the higher maximum weekly benefit amounts enacted during the 1955 legislative sessions, the maximum weekly benefit amount is 50 percent or more of the average weekly wage in only 7 States with 12.8 percent of the 1954 covered workers; 40 to 49 percent in 30 States with 60.9 percent of the covered workers; and below 40 percent in 14 States with 26.3 percent of the covered workers. By the way of comparison, the 1955 increases have not reestablished the relationship between wages and benefits which existed at the beginning of the program. In 1939, the maximum weekly benefit was more than 50 percent of the average weekly wage of covered workers in 48 States. After 1953, 3 States had maximum basic benefits which were more than half their respective 1952 average weekly wage.

Dependents' Allowances. At its 1955 legislative session, Illinois added what is in effect dependents' allowances for claimants whose weekly benefit amount exceeds $28 but requires additional earnings as well as specified numbers of dependents (1 to 4) for benefits of $28.50 to $40. Arizona repealed its dependents' allowance provision. Alaska decreased by $10 the maximum allowance for claimants with dependents. Connecticut and Ohio increased both the basic and augmented weekly benefit amount. The Connecticut increase in the augmented benefit from $45 to $52 results from the provision in the law that maximum dependents' allowances may be as much as onehalf the increased basic weekly benefit amount. Michigan and North Dakota which did not increase the basic maximum weekly benefit amount increased the maximum augmented benefit payable to claimants with dependents. In Michigan, the average weekly wage necessary to receive the maximum $54 was increased from $80 to $106. Nevada provided the same allowance for the first dependent as for other dependents but made no change in the maximum basic or augmented weekly benefit amount.

Minimum Weekly Benefit Amount. Seven of the 33 jurisdictions which increased the maximum basic weekly amount also increased the minimum weekly benefit by amounts varying from $1 to $7,

• Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Washington.

and 1 State (Maine) decreased its minimum by $3. The minimum weekly benefits in State laws vary from 50 cents (payable in $5 amounts if the computed rate is less than $5) to $17. Twenty States now provide a minimum basic weekly benefit of $10 and 3 others a higher minimum.

Computation of Benefit Amounts. Oregon and Pennsylvania were the only States to make significant changes in their formulas for determining weekly benefit amounts in 1955. Most other States that enacted increases merely extended the formulas up to the new maximums. Oregon changed from an annual wage formula, in which benefits are computed as a percentage of annual wages, to a formula which bases benefits on wages in the quarter of the base period in which wages are highest. Pennsylvania changed its formula from 25th of high-quarter wages to the greater of 25th of high-quarter wages, or 50 percent of full-time weekly wages.

Ten States modified their existing benefit formulas. As a result, 7 States will increase benefits to all or some claimants who are eligible for benefits below the maximum amount. Two other States lowered benefits for most claimants eligible for benefit amounts below the maximum. In another State, the change in the weighted schedule lowered benefits for some claimants and increased them for others.

re

Partial Earnings Allowance. Eight States 7 vised their laws in 1955 to increase benefit payments to claimants who are partially unemployed. As a result, 40 States now provide an earnings allowance in terms of dollars which is uniform for all claimants; the amount of the allowance varies from $2 in 8 States to $15 in 1 State. Six State laws express the allowance as a fraction of the weekly benefit amount varying from one-fifth to one-half of the weekly benefit amount. Four States provide that the full weekly benefit amount is paid if the wages earned are less than one-half of the weekly benefit amount and one-half of the weekly benefit is paid if the wages earned are as

'Alabama, Arkansas, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

'Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont.

much as one-half but less than the full weekly benefit amount.

Determination of Benefit Weeks

Maximum Weeks of Duration. Seven States, with 12.2 percent of the 1954 covered workers, increased by 2 to 6 weeks the maximum weeks for which unemployment insurance benefits may be paid. Significant was the Pennsylvania change from a 26-week variable period to a 30-week uniform period. Thus, Pennsylvania is the first State to allow 30 weeks of benefits for eligible claimants. Five other States now provide 26 weeks of benefits for all eligible claimants. In 20 other States, some claimants may receive benefits for a maximum period of 26 weeks and in another State for 262 weeks. The 27 States with a maximum potential duration of 26 weeks or more account for 73.3 percent of the 1954 covered workers.

Minimum Weeks of Duration. Ten States increased and four decreased the minimum weeks of duration for claimants eligible for the minimum weekly benefit amount. The minimum weekly benefit amount was increased in 2 States and decreased in 1 of these 10 States; in the 4 States which decreased their minimum weeks of duration, the minimum benefit amount was increased.

Base Period and Benefit Year. Alaska and Illinois amended their laws in 1955 to change both the base period and benefit year from a uniform to an individual basis. With this change, claimants' benefit rights in both these jurisdictions will be based on their more recent employment experience. Only seven State laws now provide a uniform base period and benefit year. Six other States made minor technical changes in their definitions of these terms in 1955.

Eligibility and Disqualifications

Availability for Work. Four States made some change in their availability provisions in 1955. Delaware added a proviso that claimants who become ill or disabled after filing a claim and registering for work are not ineligible for benefits if no suitable work is offered after the beginning of such illness or disability. Seven States now have

such a provision. Delaware also provided that individuals involuntarily retired shall be required to be available only for work which is suitable for the individuals in view of their age, physical condition, and other circumstances. New Hampshire changed its law so that (1) a claimant must be available for suitable work, (2) a woman claimant need not be available between the hours of 1 and 6 a. m., and (3) an individual not available for work outside a home is disqualified from benefits. Wisconsin continued by statute the practice of allowing an individual up to 6 weeks to seek new work substantially in line with his job skill and prior pay. Tennessee added a provision specifying that registering and reporting at an employment office meets the "actively seeking work" requirement.

Disqualification. Disqualification legislation in 1955 also followed the same pattern as in recent years. Some States made alleviating changes in the circumstances or conditions under which benefits are paid or in the length of the period for which benefits are denied but a number of the amendments were more restrictive in nature, with several States adding reductions of benefit rights equal to the number of weeks of disqualification. With

respect to the three major causes for disqualification-voluntary leaving, discharge for misconduct, and refusal of suitable work without good cause 23 States made 1 or more changes and 10 of these amended their laws for all 3 causes. Much more restrictive provisions for all 3 causes were enacted in 6 of the 10 States but affect only 3.4 percent of the total 1954 covered labor force. Eighteen of the 23 States, as well as 8 others, changed conditions under which benefits are payable, such as disqualifications for unemployment due to pregnancy or to marital obligations, for receipt of other remuneration, for fraudulent misrepresentation to obtain benefits, or involvement in labor disputes. Following is a tabulation of major or other causes for disqualification by the number of States that amended their unemployment insurance laws in 1955:

ILO Study of Unemployment Insurance Plans, 1955

SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAMS aimed at alleviating the effects of unemployment have been functioning in some countries for many years. In 1955, about one-fourth of the countries of the world had adopted legislation providing for some kind of social security plan to deal with unemployment. The International Labor Office has published the results of a study of these unemployment insurance plans throughout the world.1

One of the chief purposes of the study is to make available information for countries that wish to provide security against unemployment for the first time; it is also intended to be of help to other countries wishing to modify and improve existing plans.

The first unemployment insurance plans were rooted in the European trade union movement and various fraternal and mutual-aid societies. Eventually, they proved to be of only limited effectiveness because of the excessive cost to the participants and because of their limited and specialized coverage. From them, however, developed the voluntary plans established by employers and those subsidized in varying degrees by municipalities. The ILO study divides the historical development of unemployment insurance into three phases. The first phase was marked by the absence of any public or employer participation and continued until approximately the last decade of the nineteenth century. The second phase consisted of the appearance of employer-initiated benefit plans during the first few decades of the

1 Unemployment Insurance Schemes, Studies and Reports No. 42, Geneva, 1955.

twentieth century. The third phase was marked by the initiation of municipal subsidies for voluntary plans and extended from about the last decade of the nineteenth century to the second decade of the present century; from these plans, national unemployment insurance programs evolved.

Realizing that neither voluntary plans nor smaller units of government could deal successfully by themselves with the problem of unemployment, France, Norway, and Denmark enacted the firstnational laws on unemployment insurance during the first decade of the 1900's. In 1911, Great Britain instituted the first compulsory unemployment insurance program. Since then, 8 countries have introduced voluntary plans and 12, including the United States and Canada, have instituted compulsory programs; several other nations have enacted laws providing for financial assistance during unemployment and dismissal benefits. In 1955, a total of 22 countries had unemployment benefit programs in operation, 15 of them are compulsory insurance plans, 3 are voluntary insurance plans, and 4 involve unemployment allowances provided on other than an insurance basis.

The scope of protection provided by each of the plans existing in 1955 was generally based upon several factors: the relative needs of the various groups of workers for such protection; financial considerations; and administrative considerations. The three types of unemployment security (compulsory, voluntary, and noninsurance) differ in coverage. Nearly all compulsory laws cover wage and salaried workers generally and specify exclusions instead of enumerating specific industries or occupations to which the insurance applies. The scope of voluntary insurance plans is largely contingent upon the existence of an insurance fund in the occupation and locality and to a lesser degree on factors such as age, nationality, and type of employment; similar factors limit the extent of allowances under noninsured unemployment plans. Provisions governing eligibility or ineligibility for benefits also differ widely. Experience in the different countries has shown the necessity for precise and sometimes elaborate rules to define the conditions under which unemployed workers may receive benefits. Yardsticks of eligibility involve many criteria, the most important being: (1) ability to work; (2) availability for work; and

(3) willingness to work. On the other hand, the most common grounds for disqualification are voluntary leaving of employment, discharge for misconduct, loss of job due to a labor dispute, refusal of an offer of suitable employment, and receipt of certain types of income such as dismissal payments, other social security benefits, and earnings from other gainful work.

Once the rules for qualification have been promulgated, the qualifying period and the reference period can be determined. Although existing plans differed widely with respect to a qualifying period, around 6 months was most commonly provided in 1955; the length of the basic reference periods differed even more than did the qualifying period but the most common duration was 12 months preceding unemployment.

Rates and duration of benefits also varied among countries. Because the ILO study presents the rates in terms of the national currency of the respective country, their utility is limited for comparative purposes. The majority of existing plans provide for a period of over 20 weeks during which benefits may be drawn; there is some tendency for the maximum benefit period to approximate 6 months. Waiting periods before which unemployment benefits are paid usually vary from 1 to 7 days in existing plans; in some plans, the normal waiting period may be extended up to specified maximums; it also may be waived if the insured worker has served for another period of unemployment during the year.

In effect, most current plans are financed by a single nationwide fund supplied by contributions from three sources: (1) insured employees; (2) employers; and (3) the national government. Under the most common method of financing, revenues are secured from all three available sources. The distribution of revenues in each country is administered by agencies set up to meet the requirements of individual plans.

The accompanying table is a composite of the information contained in various tables in the ILO report.

Each of these countries embodied the principle of national subsidization of voluntary funds in its original laws, France and Denmark have not adopted compulsory unemployment insurance up to the present day.

The qualifying period sets a specified minimum of time in which claimants must have been engaged in insured employment. The reference period limits the qualifying period to recent employment.