Most Recent Comments

1) Journal Statement by Senator Emerson [by Admin002 on April 21, 2002]
While I appreciate the comments of both of the previous two speakers, I rise to oppose the conference report. I think there is very little positive in here and much more negative than positive. Essentially, when you do not do anything for those at less than the maximum level, you leave out any increase for 40 percent of the people on unemployment who are the people at the lowest end of the income level, the people at the lowest end of employment levels, and they get absolutely no increase. The increase in here for those people at the maximum is an increase that may have kept up with inflation. It is certainly far less than wage inflation that has occurred since the last time there was an increase, and if we had kept up with wage inflation, we really would have an increase of $415.00.

But once you get beyond those two glaring reasons why I would vote against this, I think there are a number of issues that are hidden in this bill. While people think there was give and take in this bill, I think there was more take than give. When you change the burden of proof standards and shift the burden from the employer to the employee, that's a significant change from what has occurred historically in the unemployment law. The requalification for people is significantly increased here, and there will be fewer people requalifying for unemployment benefits, which means you'll have more people out there without any benefits in the future.

The severance pay provision uses severance pay to count against people in many situations when they choose to take severance pay over a longer period of time knowing they are close to retirement. Those people will no longer be eligible for unemployment but will be permanently out of work and living on far less money until they qualify for their retirement. I think on the whole when you consider all of the tax cuts that are in here that are no longer triggered by a fund balance in the unemployment trust fund, we have given much more to those who need it the least, and we have given the least to those who need it the most. And for that reason, I'm voting against this conference report.
Reply

2) Journal Statement by Senator Goschka [by Admin002 on April 21, 2002]
I am a very proud member of the United Steelworkers Local No.12934. It has been my very huge honor not only to represent my entire district, but certainly the genuine needs and concerns of everyday working people. That is because I am one. I am labor. On September 24, 1982, I was laid off from a job that I had held for five and a half years, as a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local No.39. I went for a year and a half without a job. I qualified for welfare and food stamps. It's ironic that today I now chair the FIA budget, and I am very thankful for that. I'll never forget the experience. But before I qualified for the welfare and the food stamps, I was on unemployment. I was thankful for my unemployment. I was thankful when then-U.S. Senators Levin and Riegle both voted for an extension because that meant an awful lot for me.

So today as I vote in favor of this bill, I am very thankful for the leadership of both chambers. They were able to remove the waiting week because when people are laid off, they need the check now. They need the income now. They don't want to wait for it. More importantly, they cannot afford to wait for it.

There is also in this bill an increase. Is it everything that we would have? Well, let me say that an increase is an increase is an increase. This is a good bill because it does remove the waiting week. It does give the increase to those who are unemployed in our state. I am proud that when we have the vote, I believe it will pass, and we are standing up for the working people of the state of Michigan.

I've always taken pride that I never forgot where I came from. I came to the Legislature on January 1, 1993, having walked off a fork truck on December 31, 1992. We must never forget where we come from and who we represent. Today, as I cast a "yes" vote, I'll be thinking of all the working men and women in my district--union and non-union; everyday people. Those are the people who truly make Michigan so great. Today, we're remembering them.

I hope unemployment never befalls anybody in this place. It's a terrible thing. I've been through it. We're standing up for those who will be unemployed, and I applaud this bill.
Reply

3) Journal Statement by Senator Hoffman [by Admin002 on April 21, 2002]
I rise in support of adoption of House Bill No.5763. I've been in the Legislature for nearly 20 years, and it is truly pleasurable to serve when you really get compromise. This bill really represents compromise. You see the strongest labor organizations in this state butt heads with the strongest of the business community, and the results many times leave one side feeling that they've been taken advantage of over the other. But this conference report really represents a good compromise. I think it represents the best interest of the Legislature--both the House and the Senate--both labor and business. It's rare when you can actually hammer out a compromise like that.

It's nice to have calls come into my office this morning from the business community asking me to support adoption of the conference report and then also have messages in my office from the labor community saying this is a good bill, support it.

I just want to take a moment to thank the conferees both here in the Senate and in the House for persevering. I think that this is a good day for the working people in Michigan. Many times we don't get enough thanks for the good work that we do, and again to the conferees, job well done; thank you.
Reply

View Full Conversation