Evening star., 1940-02-15

have in no wise discredited the gen.
eral principle involved.
District business interests have
urged that the plan be adopted for
use here and that The provisions of
the present law be perfected. They
contend that even with the proposed
liberalization of the compensation
plan for both employees and en-
ployers here, as outlined in the Nc
Gehee bill, the District board still
would be collecting annually in pay
roll taxes an amount roughly twice
what would be the expected dis
bursements in jobless benefits.
Stated another way, the District
now has built up a surplus of more
than SIG, 900 900 in pay roll tax funds
and it is estimated this surplus will
amount to more than $40, 900 900 by
next January l. Last year, pay roll
taxes amounted to $6,763 3,l50.3l well
over four times the jobless benefit
costs, for the board paid out in
benefits only 81 ,436, 1893. If the pres
emily proposed liberalization plans be
approved, it is estimated, the District
will be collecting between $4,000, 900
and $4,000 600 per year more than
the estimated benefit disbursements,
enough of an annual margin, these
business interests declare, to war
rant at least some trial here of an
employer rating system.
Questions Raised.
AS the issue over experience rat
ing develops, a number of peril
nent questions are being asked:
1.-Should all employers, regard
less OF their records in maintain-
ing steady employment, pay the
same pay roll rate to the unem-
ployment insurance fund?
2.-1f so. would this mean that
the employer who succeeds in main
tanning stability in his employ
ment. thereby placing little drain
on the insurance fund. be required
to carry along the employer who
cannot, or does not, stabilize his
employment?
3.-If the rate of contribution
were the same, would there remain
any incentive to an employer to
seek to improve the stability of his
pay roll. since he still must pay the
same rate as the bad risk" en-
ployer?
4.-If differential rates were put
into force here, as they have been
in four States so far, would they
tend to put too great a burden on
the small employer. If 50, would
this tend to foster monopolies, as
some opponents of the rating sys-
tenn claim?
Might Build for Cut.
SIS the better solution the
adoption Of an equal rate for all,
including both good and bad unem-
ployment risks, and to continue to
build up surplus insurance funds,
against the day when perhaps some
fat rate might be ordered by Con-
gress? Is it true that such q sys-
tenn would encourage labor leaders
to call for progressive increases in
benefit payments, causing continual
postponement in any fiat rate tax
cut, as some persons fear?
6.-Is it true that an experience
rating system is "unworkable," as
is claimed by Director John A. Mar
shall of the D. U. C. Board, or too
difficult of administration, or too
costly to be worth the effort?
The pro and the con of the argyll
ment runs through long list OF
resolutions, pamphlets, statistical
studies, and even books.
Certain key officials and labor
leaders argue that experience rat
ing is unworkable or inequitable
particularly because there are busi-
nesses or trades which are especially
seasonal. One frequently named is
the building construction industry.
Some leaders insist the rating
system would prove extremely costly
to this field as opposed to others not
subject to the same seasonal prob
lens.
On the other hand, advocates OF
the plan insist that a rating system
should be weighted" to give con-
sideration to such unusual factors,
and insist that such problems pres
sent no reason to reject the principle.
One labor group argues that in
their efforts to get the most favor
able dlf1erential rates, under the ex-
perience rating system, employers
wish benefit payments to be as
small as possible and therefore are
devising schemes to bar workers
from benefits"
IN the nthar hand nne rArourtxad