Evening star., 1935-02-17
Unemployment Compensation
Plans for District Differ
amount of Benefit, When Payment
Should Start and Its Duration Essen
tiaI Features Which Must Be Settled.
BY j. A. O'LEARY.

BY J. A. O'LEARY.
The question of what system Of
unemployment compensation should
be enacted for Washington, and how
extensive its benefit provisions should
be, will be a live issue soon in the
House and Senate District Commit
tees.
Anticipating passage Of the Nation
wide social security program-of
which unemployment insurance is
one feature-members of Congress al
ready are considering what type Of
bill to write for the District
in their capacity as local legislators.
When civic, trade and labor organi-
ZationS come to consider the problem
they will find several widely different
general methods to be debated.
ElIenbogen Bill Provisions.
To start with there is the Ellen
bogen bill, introduced in the House a
few days ago. This proposes the So
called Statewide pool system Of
placing all employers contributions in
one fund and calls for q program Of
benefits that would require the Dis
trict government to raise through new
taxation between $3.50 900 and 81 ,500,-
600 annually, in addition to the 3 per
cent payroll tax to be collected from
employers.
This measure differs substantially
from the plan Senator Wagner of New
York put forward for the District in
the last Congress. Unlike the Ellen
bogen bill, Senator Wagner'S original
bill, which died with adjournment
last Summer. followed the general
theory of the Wisconsin system of
giving industries the option of either
working out voluntary unemployment
reserve plans or going into the gen.
eral governmental fund. The Wagner
bill was confined to the 8 per cent
payroll tax on employers without
additional general tax on the COM
munity as whole.
Compromise Arrangement Likely.
Senator Wagner has not yet rein
troduced his bill since this Congress
met, but Is studying the subject and
has said he probably will reintroduce
it with notifications in its original
terms. The Senator indicated he has
in mind some compromise arrange
ment.
incidentally, there is only one
State in the Union with an unemploy-
ment reserve law In operation at the
present time-Wisconsin-and the
general theory of that law was en-
bodied in the original bill Senator
Wagner proposed for the District.
Legislatures Of other States are pre-
pairing to take up the subject as soon
as they know what final terms Con-
gress will lay down in the national
security law to enable States and the
District to obtain the Federal assist
ance contemplated by the national
law.
No General Tax Proposed.
The Legislature of New York has a
bill before it now that follows the
basic idea Of the Statewide pool sys-
tenn in the Ellenbogen District meas
ure, but New York is not proposing
any general tax TO provide a State
contribution on top of the 3 per cent
employers pay roll tax.
In drafting its law three years ago
the Wisconsin Legislature appropri.
ated $25,000 to assist employers ir
establishing voluntary unemployment
reserve plans, but did not provide fol-
regular State tax to supplement the
employers pay roll tax. The House
bill would require the District gov
ernment to make a regular contribu-
ton equal to l per cent Of the pay
roll of all employers affected by the
law, and Representative Ellenbogen
Democrat, Of Pennsylvania, has re-
vived the suggestion that Congress
enact local income tax to meet this
new municipal obligation.
Essential Features.
The essential features of any un-
employment compensation plan are:
How large a benefit shall be paid
how soon should 1t start and how long
a period Of unemployment should be
provided for?
One Of the main differences between
the Ellenbogen bill and Senator Wag-
ner's bill of last year is in the dura-
tion of benefit payments. The House
measure allows for a maximum oi
rs weeks of benefit payments in a
year, while the Wagner bill called fol-
is weeks in a year. The bill now
pending in New York contemplates
is weeks.
The Ellenbogen bill also goes fur
ther by providing for additional ben
efits beyond this 26-week yearly max
imum.
Under this additional benefit clause
an employe who had received the max.
imum benefits allowed for the one.
year period, could receive additiona
benefits In the ratio of one week o1
total unemployment benefit for each
unit of 20 weeks of employment &C.
curing within the 265 weeks (fvt
years. preceding the most recent weel
Of employment. and against which
benefits had not already been charged
under the law
Under the Ellenbogen plan, a work
er would be eligible for benefit pay
ments if he had accumulated either 3!
weeks of employment within the pas
two years, or 20 weeks of work within
the preceding year.
SIS a Week Maximum.
Both plans are substantially tn,
same as to the rate of payment, hav'
ing the same maximum payment o.
SIS week, and both call for a wait
ing period Of three weeks.
The benefit provision of the origina
Wagner bill was: Not to exceed SIS I
week, or so per cent of the averag,
weekly wage, whichever is the lower.
The benefit clause of the Ellen
bogen bill is: 40 per cent of the work
ers weekly wage, plus 10 per cent i
he has dependent wife, and an ad
ditional per cent for each dependen
relative in his household. In no case
however, could the weekly benefit ex
ceed SIS, or 65 per cent Of his wage
whichever Is the lower.
The main differences, therefore, II
the two plans are in the length O
time benefit payments would continu'
and in the method of administering
the system. as between the genera