Evening star., 1950-04-07
Tumon Message Asking Expansion of Unemployment Insurance

MS Message As
have been satisfactorily covered for
years under the Federal old-age
and survivors insurance system
and II States have already extend
ed their unemployment compensa-
tion systems to cover them, without
, encountering any serious admin
istrative difficulties. Many other
States are waiting for the Federal
Government to act, and have pro-
visions in their laws which would
cover these employees automa tically
when the coverage of the Federal
Act is extended. No reason exists
for discriminating longer in the
Federal law against such workers.
Coverage should also be extended
to Federal Government civilian en-
ployes. Although the Federal Gov
ernment took the leadership in
establishing system of unemploy-
ment insurance for workers in pri-
vate industry, it has not assumed
the same obligation toward it's own
employees. Yet the rate at which
Federal workers-especially manual
workers-are separated from their
jobs is approximately as high as in
private industry. Federal workers
should no longer be denied the pro-
lection of unemployment insurance.
/ I also propose extensions of cov-
erage to about 100000 persons who
are employed on commission basis,
and about 100000 workers in oc-
equations of an industrial nature
connected with agriculture, all of
whom are excluded at present.
Moreover, the Federal unemploy-
ment insurance legislation should
be extended to Puerto Rico, subject
to its acceptance by the Territorial
Legislature.
Minimum Levels for Benefits,
Second, I recommend the estab-
lishment Of nationwide minimum
levels for amounts and duration of
unemployment benefits, in order to
correct the second major deficiency
in the present unemployment in
surance systematic inadequacy Of
benefits.
At present, while the Federal law
includes a number of standards
which the States are required to
meet, it does not establish minimum
levels for benefit amounts or dura-
ton. Maximum weekly benefits In
the various States now range from
Sis to $27 for single persons; bene-
fits are somewhat larger for persons
with dependents in the II States
providing dependents allowances.
With these maximum levels, average
weekly benefits for the Nation, as
whole, were just over $40 in 1949.
The variations among States Gre
ate serious inequities. They mean
that workers who lose their Jobs in
identical circumstances are treated
very differently because of the acci-
dent OF geographical location. They
mean that businessmen in some
States suffer a greater loss in mar
kets when unemployment occurs
eAAtii Wv IllOSC Ill OGllCI oGdU6S.
Furthermore, while the States
generally have increased benefits in
recent years, so that the situation
is not nearly so bad is in the case
of old-age and survivors benefits,
IN most States the increases in
benefits have Jagged considerably
behind increases in wages and costs
of living. Thus, unemployment
benefits today replace a smaller
proportion of workers regular
wages than was the case when the
system was started.
For these reasons. I believe that
Nationwide minimums should be
established by law which will assure
adequate benefits in all States. The
standards proposed are these: Bene-
| fits for single persons should ap-
proximate so per cent of normal
earnings, up to a maximum of at
least $50 week. Additional allow
ances should be granted for indi-
viduals with dependents. The pro-
portion of previous earnings re-
placed would vary with the number
OF dependents, up to a maximum of
20 per cent of wages, or s42, which,
ever is lower, for an individual with
three or more dependents.
Would Reduce Inequities.
These standards are not high.
If they had been in effect, the Ma
tlonal average weekly benefits in
1949 would have been just over $24.
But this would be substantial
improvement in an income level
which, at best. is intended to pro-
vide only for subsistence expenses.
Furthermore, uniform standards
would reduce present inequities in
benefit levels among different States.
Some variation in benefit amounts
would and should remain, rejecting
the differences in wage levels and
costs of living in different parts of
the country.
At present, the maximum dura-
ton of benefits varies among the
States from II to 26 weeks. Like
the variation in size of benefits,
this in inequitable, and in many
States simply represents a lag in
reaching what was considered from
the beginning to be a desirable
standard, but which was originally
set low because of actuarial un-
certainties. With this wide range,
the average duration of benfits in
l949 was less than 13 weeks. Be-
cause of the short duration of bene-
fits, nearly million workers ex-
lausted their rights to benefits be-
fore finding another job.
Benefits should be available for
at least 26 weeks in a year to all
workers who are out of work that
long. Experience in the States
which have increased the duration
of benefits is that while average
duration does not rise very much,
because most workers find a new
job before using up benefits, the
number who use up their benefits
entirely is markedly decreased. It
is estimated that, under my pro-
posal, the number of workers who
exhausted their benefits in 1949
would have been only half as large
as it was.
The combined effect of my recon-
frx@~ u