Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 28, 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”)

The vote was 92 in favor, 11 opposed and 6 not voting

(House Roll Call 286 at House Journal 25)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Cherry's statement, in which Senators Smith, Young, Scott and Emerson concurred, is as follows:

I voted "no" on House Bill No. 5763 because of all of the things that were kind of hidden in that thick substitute that was passed out at the last minute, earlier this afternoon. It's pretty clear why we went through all of these procedural hoops and steps to avoid clear, clean votes and clear, clean debates on this bill because there is some stuff in here that is simply indefensible.

There's the effort to somehow convince the public that we're providing a significant--$115.00--benefit increase. When, in fact, for most people, we are providing no benefit increase or a simple $15.00 increase. In fact, 40 percent of those who are unemployed in this state; those who get less than the maximum; those who are in greatest need receive no benefit increase here at all. That's 40 percent. Then half of the remaining 60 percent receive only a benefit increase of $15.00. That means for nearly 70 percent of the unemployed, their benefit increase is less than $16.00.

All of this is occurring after we have frozen maximum benefits at $300.00 back in 1995-- seven years of inflation eroding that amount; having gone into recession; having experienced the effects of the national catastrophe that occurred on September 11. The resulting unemployment that occurred not only here in Michigan, but across the country. Here in Michigan, people are having to go to the unemployment lines because of that incident. With all of that, we're saying to our unemployed that we cannot afford an increase for you that amounts to $16.00. All the while, during the last seven years, for each year of the seven years, we have provided businesses with unemployment tax cuts. In fact, one of the cruelest things in this bill is not only is it while we are providing deminimus benefit increase, we're providing a $60 million tax cut, while those who argue against benefit increases because they can't afford it. We're providing $60 million in business tax relief here. The interesting thing is how we provide that relief. We provide that relief by giving it and directing it to Michigan's biggest businesses. So that, in fact, what we do is shift the tax burden for unemployment compensation to the small Michigan hometown business.

On top of that, we not only are trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes as it pertains to the benefit increase, we're beginning now to, in fact, make it more difficult to collect unemployment compensation in a timely way. This bill introduces a shift week, in which instead of receiving your first unemployment check two to three weeks late, you now receive it four to six weeks late.

On top of that, what is very interesting is that this bill changes the burden of proof. Currently, if you are unemployed, you go down and file for unemployment compensation. The MESC checks with your employer to find out if you're laid off. Your employer has the opportunity to say, "No, I didn't lay that person off; that person quit voluntarily." But when the employer says that, the burden of proof is on the employer. This bill shifts the burden of proof to the employee. Everybody who goes down to file unemployment compensation is going to have to prove now that their employer laid them off and that they were not a voluntary quit. The burden of proof is on the employee because ultimately the object here is to deny people unemployment compensation benefits.

It also redoes the calculation on how severance pay is treated. It does that to delay the payment of unemployment compensation benefits. It also deals differently with what happens when a person receives an offer for work and what constitutes an offer for work. It changes the formula so that jobs that we have in the past felt weren't suitable offers of employment now become suitable offers of employment. What we want to do is force people back into menial labor so that they don't qualify for unemployment compensation, so that we can continue to take this $2.8 billion surplus in the unemployment trust fund up higher. Let's not have $2.8 billion; let's tax the unemployed so now it will be $3 billion, $3.5 billion, or $4 billion. All this is being done on the backs of the unemployed at a time of recession and a time of national emergency.

This substitute that we voted on today, the one the Senate passed, is a step backwards from what the House did. The House at least raised benefit levels $65.00 for those who were at the maximum. They didn't play games in trying to stretch out when a person receives a check. They didn't try to play games by attempting to disqualify them by changing the burden of proof. They didn't try to play games by changing the definition of what's suitable work. The House at least showed some sense of respect for those who find themselves temporarily at an economic disadvantage.

That's more than what we can say for what we did tonight. That's why we saw all sorts of procedural games. If the public really had an opportunity to look at what we did here, they would be aghast.

What I find as just an absolute unbelievable contrast is that we would do these things in this bill, while we have a bill sitting here on the Senate floor granting $30,000.00 a year, every year of a judge's life if that judge chooses to resign. If the unemployed could have that deal, but no, no. This body passed that bill to give those judges $30,000.00 a year to become unemployed, and we can't even give someone who's at less than the maximum a simple one dollar, two dollar, or three dollar benefit increase. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. That's why I voted "no" on this bill.

This amendment would increase the unemployment compensation to $415.00 a week and index it to 58 percent of the average work-week wage. You know, we look at an opportunity here to try and make individuals who have suffered a loss of employment a little bit whole. Not whole, but certainly to give them an opportunity to have enough money to meet some portion of each of their debts, so that when they do return to work, they aren't overwhelmed for the first few months with bills that are of such magnitude that they can't begin to pick up and catch up.

This is an opportunity for us to show a little compassion for our fellow citizens of this state, people who went to work every day, who earned their unemployment compensation, and who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs. The change, $115.00 a week across the more than 250,000 unemployed, would cost the unemployment compensation fund $244 million. That's a fund of $2.8 billion. It's a fund for which the employers have received a tax cut for each of the last seven years--a tax cut that equals approximately $200 million a year. The federal government through the Reed Act has expanded the number of weeks of eligibility and will pay the cost of that expansion. This isn't going to cost the state of Michigan $500 million. This is going to cost the state of Michigan $244 million-- $11,900.00 maximum per employee who has been laid off, per employee who qualifies for a full employment compensation rate and not all those employees do. This amendment for $11,900.00 is about 50 percent of our legislative salary increase.

Just last week, we had a bill go through here that proposed to give the judges, about 100 of them, an early retirement option of between $24,000.00 and $33,000.00, and we didn't bat an eye at that. For judges who are being paid $169,000.00 a year, we did not blink. But when it comes to paying people who are out of work who have no paycheck other than an unemployment compensation, a benefit that enhances their opportunity to meet their responsibilities and obligations, we get palsy. Well, shame on us. We ought to be looking out for the interest of people who go to work every day who pay their taxes here in the state of Michigan, people who are the backbone of a productive work force in the state of Michigan.

To turn down this amendment is a slap in the face to those unemployed citizens and to anybody else who faces unemployment in the future here in Michigan. It doesn't make the state employers look good. It certainly doesn't make the Michigan Legislature look like it has any understanding, sympathy, or compassion. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I voted "no" because I feel that this chamber should have taken more seriously the individuals who are making $30,000 a year or less. I think that wasn't done. The record ought to reflect that these individuals are working hard to achieve greater economic success for their loved ones and themselves and will not see a benefit increase with regards to the way this legislation exists.

I really witnessed something tonight that I didn't think I would ever see in this chamber. It seems to me we want this to be a Third World country--the have and have nots. I have just never seen it. It's like we don't even have a heart at all. I thought we were really coming together after 9-11, but we don't really care about people; only those who have and we want them to have some more. Those who don't, just let them hang on the corners. Just let anything happen to them.

This legislative body has demonstrated a true railroad job this evening, rather than conducting the business in a more democratic process. That's what's expected of all of you. You are truly in violation of the legislative process for which you were elected to, for which you swore to uphold, and you ought to let that be on your conscience.

I had voted "no" on the motion to combine these amendments because, quite frankly, I saw that as an attempt, Mr. President, to procedurally avoid a discussion of the merits of each amendment individually, which would have, in fact, highlighted some of the problems with the bill that's before us and offered an opportunity to correct those problems before it came to a vote. There are some important issues that were contained in each of those amendments dealing with the level of maximum benefits because the bill before us for the most part will simply increase the maximum benefit for most people at the maximum of $15.00--from $300.00 to $315.00.

Also, Mr. President, there was an amendment offered that would have provided a benefit increase for all those who are unemployed, and in fact, that probably is a more important amendment of all of those that were up there. But by combining these amendments, Mr. President, we want to avoid the discussion because ultimately we know that the public believes that these increases are long overdue. And what we are about here tonight, with motions to combine amendments, is to avoid that debate, avoid that discussion, and avoid doing what the public knows we ought to do.

Mr. President, it seems to me that if we can be there until 5 o'clock and then recess until 7:30 p.m., it's obvious no one's in a rush to get home. It's obvious that we have time to debate these amendments on their merits individually. And we needn't circumvent the process by going through a procedural motion that will make it more difficult for people to explain what they are attempting to do by their amendments and make it more difficult to explain to the public what the business of this body is.

After viewing what has taken place, I sat here attempting to read a bill which has many, many pages, finding, after reviewing the bill, the many, many flaws. I thought that I would offer an amendment that would address those flaws to about 2.25 million people in the state of Michigan. But I find myself coming here giving a "no" vote explanation because those who have the ability, and have the votes, have chosen not to even hear what those flaws are. What amazes me is that any of us, not one of us, should want to vote on a piece of legislation that, in my opinion, is majorly flawed.

Now if one was interested, one would ask what might that flaw be? Well, one thing I am finding is that about 40 percent of the people who would have to go for unemployment under this legislation the way it is written would not receive an increase at all. We're talking about those individuals who make $30,000 or less--who also have rent payments; who also have to purchase food; who also have clothing needs; who also have other necessities and will not see an increase at all. That means that you are making $30,000 a year and less, and we're about to pass some legislation that doesn't even address your concerns. But no, we're interested in procedurally cutting off any kind of discussion with regards to that, making sure that only those on the high end receive increases in their unemployment.

Now I don't know, but after what just took place and my wanting to take a different approach before this, I think this bill isn't anything to do with unemployment. This has to do with business relief. This is not an unemployment part. We're talking about legislation that proposes an additional $60 million in business relief. That's what we're talking about here--$60 million additional dollars of business relief--when, on the other hand, we don't want to provide relief to individuals whose household income is $30,000 and below.

But we want to cut off debate. We don't want to talk about that 40 percent of those in Michigan. We don't want to talk about the 2.25 million individuals whose adjusted gross income is below $30,000. Instead, we want to talk about those who make $30,000 or more. Then we want to squabble over the increase that we provide them, while we sit here, sitting back, wanting to procedurally make these moves; wanting to suggest that those who make $30,000 or less don't count, and I contend that you all ought to be reviewing the bill like some of us have over here as well.

I don't know how we can give over $200 million in relief prior to this. Now add another $60 million of relief. We don't return increased dollars to anyone making $30,000 or less, and we want to call this unemployment compensation? That's not what we have.

Instead, what we have is a process that is used at the expense of those individuals who make $30,000 or less because this chamber doesn't even want to listen or participate in making sure that they get equity as well. I would think, and would hope, that we would take another approach and that we would think it's important that we do that. It's unfortunate that I have to use my "no" vote explanation to indicate not only why, but to indicate what it is that this chamber is doing and what this chamber, I would hope, would do.

The truth of the matter is that the reason I voted "no" on combining all of these amendments, not just because my amendment was included, but because we have a responsibility to give relief to every individual in the state of Michigan. If we're going to give $260 million-plus to business, we ought to at least look at giving an increase in unemployment benefits to those who have a household income of $30,000 or less.

My "no" explanation on the combining of amendment nos. 2 and 5 through 8 is that it has unfairly given the majority an opportunity to not only railroad these amendments, but railroad the citizens of the state of Michigan. The people had a right to hear what the amendments were, what the arguments pro and con are on those amendments, and to see a vote go up on each one of them because that's the way they judge the performance of their elected officials. By combining them, you have abrogated that opportunity and their right as citizens to see how you would have preformed on each and every amendment.

It's a shortchange of people who pay you extraordinarily well to work here in this chamber to do their business in a representative government. It's a shortchange of people who are out there unemployed who have an opportunity with today's legislation to watch each member of this body and determine if they are representing their best interest, if they are looking out for them, and if the decisions that they make on each and every amendment will be of benefit or detriment to them.

I voted "no" because you cheated the citizens of the state of Michigan not because we didn't have a chance here, but because they didn't have a chance. I hope they don't forget it.

Reps. Wojno, Plakas, Hale, Lemmons, Reeves, Waters, Bogardus, Kolb, Hardman, Callahan and Hansen made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the conference report for HB 5763 because, while the bill provides a much-needed increase in the maximum benefit, the increase only applies to workers who are laid off and establish a new benefit year after the effective date of the act. Those currently collecting maximum benefits would not get an increase. Further, there is not a benefit increase for the 40 percent of laid off workers who are not at the maximum benefit rate. In fact, benefits for nearly 75 percent of these workers would be cut because of the penalty week that is in the bill. The penalty week would steal a week of unemployment benefits from laid off workers that are out of work between 4 and 26 weeks. It's a shame that we are refusing to give the state's unemployed workers a hand up at the time that the Unemployment Trust Fund has a cash balance of nearly $2.6 billion."

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the conference report for HB 5763 because, while the bill provides a much-needed increase in the maximum benefit, the increase only applies to workers who are laid off and establish a new benefit year after the effective date of the act. Those currently collecting maximum benefits would not get an increase. This is unfortunate at this time of high unemployment, when these increased benefits would provide a boost to families of laid off workers and a much-needed boost to Michigan's economy. Further, there is not a benefit increase for the 40 percent of laid off workers who are not at the maximum benefit rate. In fact, under this conference report benefits for nearly 75 percent of these workers would be cut because of the penalty week, or so-called 'waiting week,' that is in the bill. The penalty week would steal a week of unemployment benefits from laid off workers that are out of work between four and 26 weeks. It is a shame that we are refusing to give the state's unemployed workers a hand up at the time that the Unemployment Trust Fund has a cash balance of nearly $2.6 billion."

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the conference report for HB 5763 because, while the bill provides a much-needed increase in the maximum benefit, the increase only applies to workers who are laid off and establish a new benefit year after the effective date of the act. Those currently collecting maximum benefits would not get an increase. Further, there is not a benefit increase for the 40 percent of laid off workers who are not at the maximum benefit rate. In fact, benefits for nearly 75 percent of these workers would be cut because of the penalty week that is in the bill. The penalty week would steal a week of unemployment benefits from laid off workers that are out of work between 4 and 26 weeks. It's a shame that we are refusing to give the state's unemployed workers a hand up at the time that the Unemployment Trust Fund has a cash balance of nearly $2.6 billion. Our states workers deserve better."

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the first conference report for HB 5763 because, while the bill provides a much-needed increase in the maximum benefit, the increase only applies to workers who are laid off and establish a new benefit year after the effective date of the act. Those currently collecting maximum benefits would not get an increase. Further, there is not a benefit increase for the 40 percent of laid off workers who are not at the maximum benefit rate. In fact, benefits for nearly 75 percent of these workers would be cut because of the penalty week that is in the bill. The penalty week would steal a week of unemployment benefits from laid off workers that are out of work between 4 and 26 weeks. It's a shame that we are refusing to give the state's unemployed workers a hand up at the time that the Unemployment Trust Fund has a cash balance of nearly $2.6 billion."

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.

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.

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.

Senator Cherry's first statement is as follows:

I was one of the conferees on House Bill No.5763, and I know that my good friend the Majority Leader is going to provide some explanation of what the conference committee did do. I was a signer to that conference report because it did do a couple of things. It did increase benefits from the present maximum of $300 to a new maximum established by the conference report of $362, so there is a benefit increase for some laid-off employees.

It did retreat from previous versions of this bill that established some sort of waiting week. This conference report has no waiting week of any form in it. Additionally, it was my concern during the conference committee that it appeared to me that as it was drafted, none of the individuals presently claiming unemployment compensation and were at the maximum would receive this new increased benefit. During the conference committee deliberations, I offered an amendment that was unanimously approved by the conference committee that would have guaranteed that current claimants receive this increase. That is why I signed this report.

I must say that I signed it with some reluctance and will vote today in support of this conference report on the floor of the Senate here with some reluctance. Let me explain what that reluctance is. First of all, while we are increasing the maximum benefit, we should understand that about 40 percent of those who are currently unemployed or on the average generally are unemployed are not at the maximum benefit. They will see no increase in their benefit because of this package.

Additionally, if you understand that one's unemployment benefit is calculated based upon earnings and that if, in fact, the benefit level at the maximum had kept pace with the increase in earnings since it was first frozen in 1995, the maximum benefit would have risen to $415. This bill establishes it only at $362. Throughout this debate, there were arguments that we could not afford to go to benefit levels of $415--that somehow that would put the fund in distress--but this is a fund that has a surplus in excess of $2 million.

Interestingly enough, while they are giving these meager benefit increases, there are substantial tax breaks being given in this proposal to the tune of somewhere in the vicinity of $90 million on an annual basis. The tax breaks in this conference report on behalf of Michigan businesses are larger than what was in the Senate version and are larger than what was in the House version. It's pretty clear that economic frugality is not governing the level of tax breaks and the cost of those breaks in this package. So we're restraining benefit increases but not showing much in the way of restraint when it comes to the tax benefit. We should understand that while all this is happening, the MESC is getting about a $200--plus grant from the federal government.

Those are some of the reasons why I am casting this vote with some reluctance. All in all, this is a benefit increase, and the people are out there and need that benefit increase. I intend to vote "yes" so they can get it.


Senator Cherry's second statement is as follows:

I rise again in support of the conference report. I listened very closely and intently to the remarks made by my good friend and colleague, the Senator from the 29th District, as he explained his opposition to the bill. Much of what he said I have a very difficult time taking issue with. In particular, two of the provisions he talked about concern me in terms of the potential abuse that may begin to emerge because of the language in this conference report.

Number one, when you look at what happens when you shift the burden of proof on whether an employee left a job voluntarily or not, what you begin to understand is that any employer who communicates a lay-off verbally puts themselves in the position of disqualifying the employee because the employee has no proof that the lay-off was involuntary. The only time the employee will have proof that the lay-off was involuntary is if that lay-off is communicated in writing. That's a potential window of significant abuse.

One of the other issues is that provision that deals with the severance pay and how it is calculated in relation to the benefits one is eligible for. I am already hearing that in some lay-offs that are now transpiring, employers are taking the severance pay, which traditionally has not been treated as a penalty in relation to unemployment compensation, but would be here in this conference report. They're spreading the severance pay over several weeks, which is going to drag out the eligibility and benefits for a significant number of employees.

There are, because of this conference report, significant potential abuses. I think we have to wait and see if they emerge. It's their potential that gives me a great deal of concern in supporting this piece. It would be my hope, while these are very significant steps backwards and areas of very significant abuse, that the future Legislature and future Governor who is elected this fall, will take steps to correct these problems. Perhaps it would even behoove us, before we leave here, to take steps to bring these potential abuses to an end. Until we take those steps, I still intend to vote "yes," so that the benefits that are increased here can find their way into the hands of people who are unemployed, having difficult problems putting food on the table and providing shelter for their families. I don't think we can underestimate the significance of that.

Reps. Stallworth, Dennis, Waters, Daniels, McConico, Hardman, Bogardus, Phillips and Clark made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the second conference report for HB 5763 because the increase contained in this legislation will only help those unemployed persons that are receiving the maximum benefit. Over 100,000 current and many future unemployed persons in our state who are struggling to make ends meet will still receive no increase some 7 years after unemployment benefits were decreased. Furthermore, this legislation contains onerous provisions regarding how severance pay is treated. At the same time, this conference report increases business tax cuts and removes the threshold by which such cuts would be halted should the unemployment insurance fund become too depleted. This could put the fund in future jeopardy."

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This bill, while falling short of the promised benefits, is even more flawed in that it shifts the burden of proof relating to employee discharges from the employer to the employee. This shift has the potential to affect unemployment benefits for generations to come. This time bomb will continue to explode long after the Dollars set forth in this bill have been increased to a reasonable level.

This bill also short changes those people who are the most vulnerable in our economy, our lowest paid employees. These are the people we should provide an extra measure of safety. Instead, we will leave these citizens further behind.

I cannot trade off modest monetary gains for the major structural burdens this legislation imposes. I believe the only moral choice is to vote 'NO' on the bill as presented."

Reps. Jamnick and Lemmons made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This bill is a broken promise for unemployed workers in Michigan. They were promised $415 in weekly benefits, and find themselves restricted to a maximum of $362.00 That is a cruel hoax. Current unemployment benefits are the lowest in the region.

Moreover, this bill does nothing for unemployed workers who are not eligible for the maximum benefit--about 40% of all unemployed workers: those with lower incomes and those most in need of some relief. They are the forgotten people in this process!

This bill adds onorous language that shifts the burden of proof in contested layoffs to the employee--from the employer. It adds language that penalizes workers who receive severance benefits.

Under the guise of an increase in worker benefits, this bill provides substantial relief to employers--on top of the $1.2 billion in savings they have accrued over the past few years. This employer relief comes at a time when the Unemployment Trust Fund has a substantial balance--a balance that will increase as new annual unemployment premiums are paid, and as the Fund stands to receive over $290 million in Federal funds. Further, it grants to employers significant advantages in language that may preclude benefit payments that are rightly deserved.

The bill insults workers in this state in a time of need. But it reserves the cruelest insult for those who most need assistance. There is some good in this bill. Some people will see a modest increase in benefits. On balance, however, the shortcomings in this bill outweigh the gains. For these reasons, I voted no."