Evening star., 1940-02-08
DC. Job Insurance Amendment
Threatened From Two Sides
National Interests Hit Liberalization
Of Benefits; 'Looseness' in Bill Cited
Continued From First Page)

Continued From First Page)
a more considered examination of
its provisions. He opposed the bill
in It's present form.
A similar position was taken by
Arthur j. Sundlun, president of the
Merchants and Manufacturers As
sociation, who declared some delay
should be granted to permit essential
corrections in the present language
of the bill.
The bill, approved by the House
District Committee, is scheduled to
come up for House action Monday.
AS generally understood, and be-
cause present pay roll taxes are roll
ing up huge and increasing unem-
ployment reserve fund, the proposed
bill, while reducing the District pay
roll tax rate from to 2.7 per cent,
would boost the maximum unem-
ployment benefit payment from SIS
to $40 week, and lengthen the basic
duration of payments to the eligible
Jobless from 16 to 20 weeks. Some
persons insisted the liberalization
goes beyond these points, by reason
of other provisions of the new bill.
Highest Rate in Country.
Anxious to see a reduction in the
Districts pay roll tax, now the high
est fiat rate in the country, Mr.. Will
liams voiced belief that the Wash
ington Board of Trade, and District
employers generally, would not op-
pose some liberalization of benefit
payments, but he did declare the
pending plan, in some instances,
would far exceed State scales.
Mr.. Williams said the reasons for
the boards action in seeking to defer
action on the bill, which the group
previously had Endorsed in principle,
was that examination of the meas
ure in the past 10 days had disclosed
many technical provisions needing
revision. He added that the bill
would amend the present law Ito
the point where its benefits and tax
ing provisions are out of line with
those in nearly every other jurisdic-
ton in the country"
Findings that the present tax rates
are producing approximately $4,000
600 annually in excess of benefit pay
.ments were termed IAN unWhole-
some condition" No State or Ter
ritory, he added, is paying rate
of more than 81 per cent and some
employers in several States were
paying considerably less. He stressed
also that majority of the States
have made arrangements to comply
with provisions of the Federal law
which limit collections to the first
$4,000 of any persons salary during
the year, one provision proposed
in the pending bill.
Sees Operation Tested.
Mr.. Williams said he believed
there has been a sufficient amount
of operation here to justify a re-
quest that an experience rating plan
be placed in effect. He asked for
drastic" revision of the clause deal
ing with calculation of benefits for
the partially unemployed workers.
He added:
There are many other details OF
the bill which are so technical and
so important in their implications
that the Board of Trade feels 1t
must oppose passage of the leglsla-
ton in it's present form and request
postponement of consideration until
the matter has. been further investl-
gated"
Mr.. Sundlun said he was not con-
cerned over the plan to raise max
tnum benefit payments from SIS to
$40, but that members of his group
felt the present wording of the
definition of partial employment"
would prove very costly"
The merchants board, he said,
holds that an experience rating plan
should be put into effect now, on
the grounds that sufficient expert
ence has been obtained, especially
since so much more money is being
collected in taxes than is needed
for benefit claims.
Intensive restudy of the effect and
possible implications of the pending
draft, which has been rushed into
position awaiting a House vote,
was in progress by various groups,
public and private, of various shades
of opinion. Both friends" ard
foes" Of the bill declared some cor
rections were essential.
Despite the complicated situation
which developed in different schools
of thought, involving Government
officials, District and national buSi-
ness interests. some groups were
striving to find a common ground.
Last year a different bill was
offered, proposing a tax rate reduc-
ton here, on different basis, which
vas complicated with various ad-
ministrative matters opposed by
Federal officials. 1t failed of action.
Some opponents objected no pro-
vision was offered for increased un-
employment benefits.
New Bill Introduced.
This year the District Unemploy-
ment Compensation Board offered a
new bill, which was introduced in
Congress January 16 and on which
brief hearings we're held January
25. It was recalled that during the
past calendar year some 100000
in pay roll taxes was collected,
whereas benefit payments totaled
roughly but $1400,000.
Agents of the several national
business interests, actively working
on possible effects of the proposed
measure, have issued no statement.
They were said to be raising fears,
however, that the proposed new Dis
trict benefit scales would be far in
excess of those in vogue in the
States; that if the States later were
forced to fall into line with tue
"model" adopted by Congress, some
= State reserve might become ex-
hausted, forcing the United States
to take over" the system.
In some quarters emphasis is laid
on reports that the United States
now has a balance in the national
unemployment compensation fund