Evening star., 1935-08-15

opposes elimination of the District
Government contribution and reduce
ton In the number Of weeks Of benefit
payments, he fayors the Senate change
in extending the plan to all employers
Of one or more persons. Ellenbogens
original bill would not have affected
an employer unless he had -four or
more" employees.
In view of the Senate's decision to
apply the law to every commercial
employer of one or more 1t would be
much more costly to the city as
whole to restore the House provision
for a municipal contribution than 1t
would have been under the original
House bill.
ID. c. Government Called Upon.
The House provision which the
Senate Committee struck out called
on the District Government to put into
the unemployment fund annually !
per cent of the pay roll OF all employ
ers subject to the act. The estimate
that this / per cent city tax would
amount to at least $1.250,000 year
was based on the belief that only en-
ployers of four or more workers would
be subject. In other words, 1t was
figured that the maximum per cent
payroll tax on employers Of four or
more persons would produce about
$4,400, 900.
But, If the bill is to apply to en-
ployers of less than four workers,
obviously a District tax figured at /
per cent of the total pay roll Of en-
ployers affected would be greater than
81 ,250,000. If the law is to include
every concern that employs one or
more workers, 1t will produce an EN-
ployerS' reserve fund considerably in
excess Of the $4.400,000 year ex-
cted under the House bill.
Therefore, If the House accepts the
amendment applying the tax to en-
ployers having even ont employe, the
Senate's action in cutting out the Dis
trict tax contribution becomes doubly
important. In other words, II the
conferees should keep the Senate def
milton Of "one or more" employees and
clause for q District tax contribution,
the District would face greater reve-
nue. raising problem. 1t also was
pointed out today that the same in
dividuals paying the direct pay roll
tax also would be called on to help
raise the city tax contribution to the
fund.
No State Tax Voted Yet.
Representative Ellenbogen contends
no law is sound that does not call for
a Government contribution to the un-
employment fund. The Commission
ers, on the other hand, have empha-
sized before the Senate Committee
that no State has yet voted a State
tax into its unemployment law.
Ellenbogen also will try to restore
the House provision giving the Ma
tional Social Security Board control
of the law instead Of District agency.
He will argue that the workmen's
compensation law has been Satisfac-
torily administered by the United
States Employees Compensation Com
| mission.
Chairman King of the Senate group,
however, believes in allowing the Dis
trict as much control as possible over
the administration Of its own laws,
just as the States will supervise their
unemployment plans.
! Conference Path Smooth.
! No difficulty is expected in confer
ence over other Senate changes. such
as applying the pay roll tax gradually,
starting benefit payments after two
years instead Of one, and reducing
the pay roll tax after 1910 of en-
ployers who show a good record for
providing steady employment.
In urging Congress not to go beyond
the general trend of State unemploy-
ment laws. the Commissioners, in their
report to the Senate, said the District
is not typical OF industrial centers and,
therefore, is not an appropriate place
to use as an experimental ground to
work out a model unemployment plan.
The only question likely to require
conference on the blind pension
bill is the Senate provision to allow
the Commissioners to recover part Of
the pension payment from immediate
relatives of beneficiaries If they are
financially able to pay. Ellenbogen
does not object to this in the old-age
pension bill. but does not believe 1t
should be in the blind bill.