The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1955-09-09

respect to the amount and duration
of benefits. The President recon-
mended that the states liberalize the
benefit amounts so as to provide
workers with benefits equal at least
to 500 of their regular weekly earn
ings, as was originally contemplated.
He also recommended that the states
provide uniform duration of bene-
fits of a minimum of &c weeks for
all eligible workers. As to this time,
not single state has amended its
Unemployment Insurance Laws to
provide standards equal to the mini
NUNS recommended by the President.
LAW NOW A PUNITIVE
MEASURE IN OREGON
Another point of employers at
tack on the Unemployment Insurance
Laws is the disqualification provi-
sions. These are provisions included
! in all State Unemployment Insurance
Laws whereby workers who voluntar-
lily leave their jobs without good
cause, who are discharged for mis-
conduct, or who refuse to accept suit
poned for period equivalent to the
amount of time it would normally
take them to find a new job. In Ore
gon, employers were successful in
amending the disqualification pro-
visions so as to convert the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law into a punt
tive measure. This was done by al
CT l,o 81
ponement and in addition requiring
the forfeiture of benefit rights to in
dividuals who are adjudged by the
state agency to have been discharged
for misconduct or to have refused
to accept suitable work. Forfeiture
of benefit rights means reduction of
the amount of protection a worker
would have been laid off by some
other employer at a future date be-
cause of lack of work.
The full import of these drastic
forfeiture provisions can be appreci-
ated only when one learns that the
Oregon agency does not have any
standards for determining what are
prevailing wages or what is suitable
much left to the whim and fancy of
the various deputies and referees of
the agency. The failure to maintain
adequate standards with respect to
prevailing wages means that workers
in Oregon may be subjected to the |
loss of their benefit rights unless they |
accept substandard jobs at less than
the wages they previously received, |
when so directed by the agency, and |
Section 9, Oregon Law.
tSection 9, An individual who
% Has been discharged for mis-
conduct connected with his |
work, or
(2) Has left work voluntarily |
without good cause, OR
(3) Has failed without good cause,
either to apply for available
suitable work when so di- /
rected by the employment of
flee Or the commission, or to
accept suitable work when of
fered to him, or to return to
his customary self-employ-
ment, of any, when so directed
by the commission, shall, when
so found by the commission,
suffer disqualification and
forfeiture of benefits as pro-
vided in Section 10 of this
Act"
Also, contained within the Law are
qualifying provision which will dis
qualify seasonal workers engaged on
farms, fisheries, and even ship re-
pair, etc.
Moreover, the Commission which
S responsible for administering the
Oregon Unemployment Insurance
Law is headed by man whose back
ground and experience was that of
,eing representative of the Oregon
Manufacturers Association.
One of the major reasons the I'm
Insurance system in the /,
United States has deteriorated since
is inception has been an organiza- t
ion of heads of State Agencies and i
like the one in Oregon, (