On February 17th, President Obama signed what is commonly referred to as the “stimulus package.” It contains three provisions designed to increase unemployment compensation (UC) payments and provide incentives for states to expand the number of individuals eligible for these benefits. There has been a lot of discussion in the media about these provisions, and it is important to understand how they impact Louisiana.
The first provision allows claimants to continue to receive Emergency UC (EUC) benefits in addition to the six months of benefits already provided under our law. The funding comes from federal general revenues. Some 6,000 Louisiana claimants are receiving EUC benefits, which will expire at the end of this year.
A second provision creates a $25 weekly benefit that every Louisiana claimant will get through June 30, 2010. This additional benefit is also appropriated from federal general revenues. Louisiana is among a handful of states that has a minimum weekly benefit amount of $25 or less. The extra $25 per week will result in some low-wage workers receiving more in UC than they earned prior to becoming unemployed, which could discourage some individuals from actively seeking work.
The final provision, and the one that is generating most of the controversy, would transfer pro-rata shares of $7 billion to states from federal UC taxes paid exclusively by employers. States will receive this money in exchange for enacting or maintaining certain UC laws on their books.
To obtain its portion of this $7 billion, Louisiana must enact a more costly “alternative base period” calculation of benefits, which only 18 states–none in the south–have chosen to voluntarily put in their laws. Louisiana must also adopt at least two of the following provisions:
1)Individuals shall not be denied benefits because they refuse to accept or actively search for full-time work.
2)Individuals shall not be disqualified from benefits if they quit work for a “compelling family reason” over which the employer has no control.
3)Individuals will receive an additional six months of benefits if they enroll in state-approved or federal Workforce Investment Act training.
4)Individuals will receive dependents allowances of at least $15 per dependent.
It is important to note that, as the stimulus package was moving through Congress, an amendment was proposed to give states this money without the strings attached. However, the amendment was rejected because the leadership in Congress insisted that these permanent benefit expansions had to be part of any additional distribution to the states.
The purpose of our federal/state UC system has always been to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of what happens at the workplace and not at home, and who genuinely desire to rejoin the workforce. Adoption of the expensive expansions in the stimulus package would constitute a significant departure from this.
One should also consider the impact of such changes on Louisiana’s unemployment trust fund. The business community has fought for decades to protect the fund’s solvency in order to provide benefits for deserving claimants. Enactment of the benefit expansions would jeopardize it’s future solvency. If the fund declines, lower benefits for all of Louisiana’s unemployed and higher state UC taxes for its employers will kick in. So, while a new group of individuals would get benefits, the unemployed already eligible might see their benefits reduced.
This is not free money. It comes at a price. Some say Louisiana should take it anyway. The fact is that the cost is too dear–for employers and the unemployed alike.
# # #
02-27-09
Jim Patterson, Vice President and Council Director for LABI’s Employee Relations Council, contributed to this column.
What does getting unemployed through no fault of your own have to do with being a dependent? C'mon Kp, get real............ Written by
on 3/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
More bureaucracy means more government workers and more people dependent on government. That means more citizens who will vote for the party that confiscates the sweat and toil from other citizens for these dependents' benefit. That's an "improvement" as any socialist will tell you. Written by kpf, coming soon to a re-education camp near you
on 3/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well, if you get stuck on unemployment I suppose you would have to answer that question for yourself...... Written by
on 3/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Is it an improvement or more bureauracy? Written by Shazzbot
on 3/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I thought it was interesting that the author felt it necessary to point out that no southern state was among the 18 that had adopted the expanded benefit system. There's always a first time for making improvements. Written by David Quidd
on 2/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
To the extent that the $25 provision is the be-all-and-end-all of the changes this would cause, you have a valid point. As far as "leaders ... who know what's best constantly looking out for us" - surely you are describing the Nanny State political party, not our business leaders? David Broder's article in the TP today says it best; Obama is quite the gambler - also very ambitious with his agenda; as with any gamble, sometimes you win, and .... (you know the rest). Written by kpf
on 2/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that this is nitpicking. $25 extra per week is living life high on the hog, huh? Whatever business wants in its eternal quest to hold tightly to every possible nickel and dime is what's always best for all of us. We are so blessed to have such leaders as the author of this article who know what's best constantly looking out for us, are we not? Written by The true story is
on 2/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I salute Mr. Sabuldowsky for including this article which comes to a different conclusion than he on the issue of the UC insurance adding long-term costs to the states. Having carefully read the bill - I do not have a clue if there are long-term costs or not - and so appreciate ALL opinions on the matter. As a reader of this political site, I do appreciate the diversity of opinions, Stephen, the only diversity worth consideration, IMHO. Thanks. Written by kpf
on 2/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I don't know who this 'Business' leader is, but whoever it is probably is about as dumb as a box of rocks..... Most of our leaders, in whatever format they appear in or as are for the most part pathetic abstracts of pre 30's vacuum cleaners.... Written by
on 2/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
~ ~ ~ ~>Individuals shall not be denied benefits because they refuse to accept or actively search for full-time work< ~ ~ ~ ~ So what? Chances are if they got laid off from a part time position, they will not be collecting as much as a full time position worker that was laid off will be paid, and if what they want or need is another part time position what business is that of the state?……. What’s the big deal???
~ ~ ~ ~>Individuals shall not be disqualified from benefits if they quit work for a “compelling family reason” over which the employer has no control<~ ~ ~ ~ What is considered compelling? A person has to work X amount of quarters before they can collect unemployment anyways…..
~ ~ ~ ~>Individuals will receive an additional six months of benefits if they enroll in state-approved or federal Workforce Investment Act training. <~ ~ ~ ~ ISN’T THIS THE TYPE OF THING BOOBY IS SUCKING TAX DOLLARS FOR DURING HIS MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES ANYWAYS? Sheeeesssssssshhhhhhhhhhh…
~ ~ ~ ~>Individuals will receive dependents allowances of at least $15 per dependent. <~ ~ ~ ~ Well, if there were thousands upon thousands of “OctoMommys” out there I would say that would be a problem… What are dependents? Uhhhhhh Children? Mentally deficient people? Elderly people that need things like medicine? Disable people in their care that they work to support? What in the flying fluck is wrong with Boobie?????? 1, 2, 3, 4….. Hell, they are all o.k…………….. And unemployment insurance is not a tax, it is an insurance policy……. Based on percentages, and the rate of pay an employee is compensated with during its work actions…….
Written by
on 2/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE