Democratic Lawmakers
Say Unemployment Compensation Bill Will Harm Vulnerable Ohio
Families
One-sided legislation will reduce benefits, increase
qualification barriers
Special to The Truth
House Democratic lawmakers last month called for significant
changes to be made to House Bill 394 (HB 394), legislation
to address the insolvency of Ohio’s unemployment
compensation system. After hearing hours of testimony that
highlighted the detrimental effects the bill will have on
Ohio workers, Democratic lawmakers on the House Insurance
Committee reiterated that they believe Ohio should pursue a
more balanced approach to unemployment compensation reform.
“The purpose of unemployment
compensation is to help families make ends meet while they
try to get back on their feet,” said Rep. Michael Ashford
(D-Toledo). “Unfortunately, this bill slashes unemployment
benefits and erects barriers to receiving unemployment.
Instead of working in a balanced way to correct insolvency
issues in Ohio’s unemployment compensation system, this bill
will disproportionately benefit employers while hurting
vulnerable Ohio families.”
Among the most drastic
changes proposed in House Bill 394 include cutting
unemployment compensation eligibility down from 26 weeks to
a minimum of just 12, depending on the state unemployment
rate, and requiring unemployed workers to wait longer after
applying before they can receive unemployment benefits. The
extra waiting period required by HB 394 would make it more
difficult for temporary and seasonal workers with
intermittent work histories to qualify for unemployment
benefits.
“I have deep reservations
regarding several provisions of this legislation. For
instance, this bill creates disincentives for Ohioans to
pursue short-term work,” said Rep. Heather Bishoff
(D-Columbus), ranking minority member on the House Insurance
Committee. “Under this proposal, individuals seeking
unemployment compensation may have to wait an additional
week to gain access to their unemployment benefits. This
disproportionately affects labor groups that may only have
projects lasting short periods of time.”
Lawmakers also expressed
concern regarding the impact the bill will have on the
poorest communities with high unemployment rates, such as
Appalachian counties and struggling urban centers.
“Under the stated goal of
making the unemployment trust fund solvent, HB 394 will
actually make Ohioans more vulnerable to being thrust into
poverty by drastically reducing eligibility for benefits,”
said Rep. Christie Kuhns (D-Cincinnati). “In addition, this
bill does not consider local variations in the unemployment
rate, the disproportionate impact on industries like
manufacturing and construction or the fact that some
populations – such as African Americans – have an
unemployment rate triple the state average. Provisions of HB
394 will make Ohio one of the most difficult states in the
nation in which to qualify for unemployment benefits. This
bill in its current form is bad for Ohio.”
Yesterday, Democratic members
of the Unemployment Compensation Debt Study Committee sent a
letter to the sponsor of HB 394, questioning the lack of
transparency surrounding the creation of the bill and urging
that input from organizations that represent Ohio employees
be included – rather than only recommendations from the
business community.
“As a member of the
bipartisan study committee, I spent months considering
testimony that included reasonable reforms to help
strengthen our state’s unemployment compensation system,”
said Rep. Michael Stinziano (D-Columbus). “I believe any
efforts to solve the unemployment compensation debt crisis
must include both employers and organizations that represent
workers. I am disappointed that this legislation lacks a
more balanced approach.”
After months of considering
testimony from a wide range of interested parties on how to
solve Ohio’s unemployment compensation debt crisis,
Democratic members of the Unemployment Compensation Debt
Study Committee submitted recommendations to the committee
chair for inclusion in a final report.
However, no final report was
ever produced, and the legislation currently being debated
in the House Insurance Committee does not reflect any
recommendations from the minority study committee members
and represents little of the testimony heard by the study
committee.
|
