Evening star., 1935-04-28
BY JOHN C. HENRY.

BY JOHN C. HENRY.
While hesitant Congress ponders
over the question Of approving some
form of national unemployment
insurance legislation. a diminishing
number of State Legislatures are
marking time-awaiting the guidance
of Federal action before swinging into
line
Forty-four of the 48 State Assem-
blies have been in session this Winter.
Less than half of that number still
are meeting and only three OF those
already adjourned ventured to pass
any such legislation before congress
sional action blazed q trail. The more
venturesOme Assemblies were those OF
Utah, New York and the State Of
Washington.
In New Hampshire the Lower House
adopted an unemployment insurance
law by unanimous vote. but between
the two branches of the Legislature
the measure has been waylaid. Unless
the congressional mind is made up
soon, the New England attempt prob
ably will languish and die.
Two Await U. S. Action.
OF the three noted above, only one
is intended to become effective without
regard to Federal action. That one.
the Byrne-Killgrew measure in New
York. follows in = general way the
outline OF the pending Federal Dill.
Taxation beginning on January l.
1896, the law levies a contribution OF
l per cent of pay rolls on employers
engaging more than four persons. In
1887, the tax increases to 2 per cent
and in 1898 it jumps to 3 per cent.
at which figure it is intended TO
remain. No levy is made upon en-
ployes or the State.
In its coverage. the New York law
exempts farm laborerS, non-manual
employees earning more than $50 per
week. public employees and those work
| ing for non-proht institutions. Bene-
! fits have q range OF IS as minimum
and SIS as maximum per week, the
period being restricted to is weeks
in any calendar year Among other
qualifications, provision is made for
/ a waiting period of three weeks be-
! fore benefit may be paid.
| Benefit payments are to begin on
January l. 1888. two years after the
first taxes are levied.
| Washington Has Plan.
| In the State of Washington pooled
fund insurance plan also has been
approved. Following the !. and 3
per cent tax idea on employers pay
rolls during the first three years. the
Washington law calls in addition for
levy of l per cent on employees
wages. Employers OF four or more
persons are included in the scope OF
the act.
In spite of the increased taxation
feature, the Washington State law
contemplates no greater benefl1s than
that of New York. in fact longer
waiting period of six weeks Is required
before payment of initial benefits.
Maximum payment is set at sl5. with
coverage being given no more tnan
IS weeks in each year.
The Utah legislature, however,
chose to follow the lead of Wisconsin,
pioneer among States experimenting
with unemployment compensation.
Adopting the individual reserve plan.
the Utah law taxes employers 3 per
cent of their pay rolls until reserve
has been accumulated amounting to
s75 per worker. The rate then drops
to / per cent, and, after accumula-
ton Of 500 per employe, contr1ou-
tions cease temporarily.
Benefits range between IS and SlS
I per month. with is weeks being the
maximum period.
| Utah Law Elastic
Recognizing the uncertainty Of the
congressional mind and desirous that
! the State should benefit in any event
! by national legislation. the Utah Law
/ includes an elastic provision by which
/ the Governor Of the State may alter
| the set-up in whatever degree neces-
| sa'- to make it conform to Federal
i re .rements In view of the present
/ fo.ln of the Federal legislation BY
which the individual reserve plan Is
ruled ineligible to receive tax re-
| bate from the Federal Government,
this elasticity in the Utah law may be
! the means of saving 1t.
In the suspended animation noted
/ in New Hampshire. . pooled fund plan
| calls for contributions from both en-
! ployers and employees. The former
| starts at per cent and rises to )
| per cent, as does the national tax,
while the employe levy is one-half of
per cent for 1885 and l per cent
| thereafter In this hw is contained
o merit clause somewhat similar to
that proposed in the pending Ellen
bogen bill for the District. Employers
who succeed in stabili1ng their in
dustries would be rewarded by . re-
duction In tax rate.
Difference in Contribution.
| bogen measure, the greatest difference
in these newly enacted or proposed
State laws is that of State contribu-
ton to the fund. Where the Ellen
bogen bill called for no empioye con-
| tribution, but one from the District
Government equaling 1 per cent OF
the private pay rolls, the above men
toned laws make no requirement Of
the individual States.
Nor do any Of the State laws make
allowance for such a long period of
benefits each year, their range being
IS and Is weeks, while that proposed
for the District was 26 weeks in o
single year.
Although special conditions of the
various local Legislatures may alter
| the estimates somewhat. the Presi-
| dents special committee on economic
security has estimated that the fol-
| lowing numbers of workers would be
| affected in the States already enActfnE
laws: New York. 1000, 600: Wisconsin,
$50 600: Washington, $4,000, and
Utah, $4,000.
80 Bills introduced.
| With more than 30 unemployment
| insurance bills having been introduced
in these a Legislatures these are the
results thus far. Aside from New