Public Act 192 of 2002

      Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Rep. Randy Richardville (R) on February 28, 2002, to increase the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $415. The bill would also add a benefit deductible in the form of a one-week waiting period before the first payment. Because of existing delays between a layoff and the first unemployment check this would not necessarily mean a longer wait, but it would mean one less payment to those who are unemployed for less than the maximum 26 weeks of coverage. The bill would consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits. It would also require Indian tribes which are employers to come under the state unemployment insurance system.
  • Referred to the House Employee Relations, Training and Safety Committee on February 28, 2002.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. Bruce Patterson (R) on March 5, 2002, , that is he moved to return to the Unemployment Relations Committee the version of the bill the committee had reported to the full House earlier the same day. The substitute would have increased the weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $362, instead of to $415, which is the amount set by the bill as introduced. $362 is the amount the current benefit would be had it kept up with inflation since being set at $300 in 1995. $415 would be a 15-percent increase above the inflation-adjusted level. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on March 5, 2002.
  • Substitute offered in the House on March 14, 2002, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which increases the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $375, eliminates the “waiting week” provision, and requires all beneficiaries to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation, rather than the current system of a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent depending on how many weeks of benefits have been collected. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on March 14, 2002.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. Jack Minore (D) on March 14, 2002, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which increases the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $415, increases the non-maximum benefit by approximately five percent, does not include a “waiting week” provision, does not consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits, and does not require all beneficiaries to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation, but instead leaves in place a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent depending on how many weeks of benefits have been collected. The substitute failed 47 to 56 in the House on March 14, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Rose Bogardus (D) on March 14, 2002, to increase the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $415, instead of to $375. The amendment failed 49 to 54 in the House on March 14, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Virg Bernero (D) on March 14, 2002, to strip out a provision which considers severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits. The amendment failed 51 to 51 in the House on March 14, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. William O'Neil (D) on March 14, 2002, to increase the non-maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit by approximately five percent. The amendment failed 50 to 52 in the House on March 14, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Julie Dennis (D) on March 14, 2002, to increase the cap on the non-maximum aggregate unemployment insurance benefit. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 14, 2002.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. David Woodward (D) on March 14, 2002, to make individuals who have been forced to leave work because of domestic violence eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The amendment failed 48 to 48 in the House on March 14, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. David Woodward (D) on March 14, 2002, to make part time workers eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The amendment failed 46 to 54 in the House on March 14, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Passed 92 to 11 in the House on March 14, 2002, to increase the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $375. The bill would consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits, and requires all beneficiaries to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation, rather than the current system of a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent depending on how many weeks of benefits have been collected. Finally, the bill would lower by 80-percent the non-chargeable benefit tax on employers who have had no benefit claims for five or more years. This is a tax for the portion of unemployment insurance benefits and costs which are not attributable to a particular employer (the “socialized costs”).
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on March 14, 2002, to increase the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $375. The bill would consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits, and requires all beneficiaries to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation, rather than the current system of a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent depending on how many weeks of benefits have been collected. Finally, the bill would lower by 80-percent the non-chargeable benefit tax on employers who have had no benefit claims for five or more years. This is a tax for the portion of unemployment insurance benefits and costs which are not attributable to a particular employer (the “socialized costs”).
  • Substitute offered in the Senate on March 20, 2002, to replace the House-passed version of the bill with one that would increase the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $315, and increase the additional dependent benefit from $6 to $20 per person, up to a maximum of five dependents, or a potential total maximum weekly benefit of $415. It would also lower the amount of an employee's pay on which on which the unemployment insurance assessments of employers are based. The substitute was amended to shift the first week's benefits to become the last week’s, so a beneficiary would get one less payment at the start and one more at the end, and to not consider fraudulent claims when assessing an employer’s lay-off record. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 20, 2002.
  • Amendment offered by Sen. John Cherry (D) on March 20, 2002, to strip out a provision that would shift the first week's benefits to become the last week’s, so a beneficiary would get one less payment at the start and one more at the end. The amendment failed 19 to 17 in the Senate on March 20, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Substitute offered by Sen. John Cherry (D) on March 20, 2002, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which increases the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $415 increase the additional dependent benefit from $6 to $20 per person, does not include the “waiting week” provision, and indexes the benefit rates to inflation. The substitute failed 19 to 18 in the Senate on March 20, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Sen. Bob Emerson (D) on March 20, 2002, to accept a motion that a series of amendments offered by Democratic Senators be considered in a single vote (see roll call number 318, labeled "Young amendment"). The amendment passed 21 to 16 in the Senate on March 20, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Sen. Joe Young, Jr. (D) on March 20, 2002, to increase the non-maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit by approximately five percent, and strip out a provision which would shift the first week's benefits to become the last week’s, so a beneficiary would get one less payment at the start and one more at the end. The amendment failed 17 to 20 in the Senate on March 20, 2002.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Passed 20 to 17 in the Senate on March 20, 2002, to increase the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $315, and increase the additional dependent benefit from $6 to $20 per person, up to a maximum of five dependents, or a potential total maximum weekly benefit of $415. The bill would also lower the amount of an employee's pay on which the unemployment insurance assessments of employers are based, and lower the non-chargeable benefit tax on employers who have had no benefit claims in five or more years. It would consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits, and require a beneficiary to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation at any time (rather than a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent over time). Finally, the bill would require an Indian tribe which lays off an employee who then collects unemployment insurance benefits to reimburse the state unemployment insurance fund, or alternatively, to regularly contribute to the fund on the same basis as other employers.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on March 20, 2002, to increase the state maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $300 to $315, and increase the additional dependent benefit from $6 to $20 per person, up to a maximum of five dependents, or a potential total maximum weekly benefit of $415. The bill would also lower the amount of an employee's pay on which the unemployment insurance assessments of employers are based, and lower the non-chargeable benefit tax on employers who have had no benefit claims in five or more years. It would consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits, and require a beneficiary to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation at any time (rather than a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent over time). Finally, the bill would require an Indian tribe which lays off an employee who then collects unemployment insurance benefits to reimburse the state unemployment insurance fund, or alternatively, to regularly contribute to the fund on the same basis as other employers.
• Failed 4 to 94 in the House on March 20, 2002, to not concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill, and sent it to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on March 20, 2002, to not concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill, and sent it to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
• Failed 49 to 55 in the House on April 10, 2002, the first House-Senate conference committee report, which would increase the weekly maximum unemployment benefit to $415 for the first six weeks a person is out of work, $390 for the next 10 weeks, and $360 for the final 10 weeks. The conference report includes a modified “waiting week,” however a worker who found a new job within four weeks would receive the benefit that would have been paid without the waiting week.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on April 10, 2002, the first House-Senate conference committee report, which would increase the weekly maximum unemployment benefit to $415 for the first six weeks a person is out of work, $390 for the next 10 weeks, and $360 for the final 10 weeks. The conference report includes a modified “waiting week,” however a worker who found a new job within four weeks would receive the benefit that would have been paid without the waiting week.
• Passed 34 to 3 in the Senate on April 11, 2002, the second House-Senate conference committee report, which would increase the weekly maximum unemployment benefit from $300 to $362, with no “waiting week.” This final compromise version of the bill contains provisions to consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits, require a beneficiary to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation at any time (rather than a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent over time). It would also lower the amount of an employee's pay on which the unemployment insurance assessments of employers are based from $9,500 to $9,000, and lower the non-chargeable benefit tax on employers who have had no benefit claims in five or more years.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on April 11, 2002, the second House-Senate conference committee report, which would increase the weekly maximum unemployment benefit from $300 to $362, with no “waiting week.” This final compromise version of the bill contains provisions to consider severance pay in determining when a claimant would first be eligible for benefits, require a beneficiary to accept alternative work that pays at least 70% of the previous compensation at any time (rather than a sliding scale of 80-percent dropping to 70-percent over time). It would also lower the amount of an employee's pay on which the unemployment insurance assessments of employers are based from $9,500 to $9,000, and lower the non-chargeable benefit tax on employers who have had no benefit claims in five or more years.
• Passed 92 to 13 in the House on April 11, 2002.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Signed by Gov. John Engler on April 26, 2002.