CONCURRING DISSENT BY MR. RIEVE IN SUPPORT OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO CONTINUATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ON A STATE BASIS I heartily agree with the four other Council members who believe in a national system of unemployment insurance. As our joint dissent explains, such a national system would make possible adequate benefits, would promote necessary mobility of labor during full employment or national defense emergencies, would meet the realities of our national economic organization, would overcome the present widespread differences in treatment of workers and of employers, and would make possible the development of a unified, comprehensive, adequate program of social insurance against the hazards of sickness, costs of medical care, old-age and survivorship, as well as unemployment. It is already more than clear that only a national system can achieve these results. The State-Federal set-up has shortcomings even greater than those described in the majority report. The four other members who support a national system seem to doubt that it can be obtained now. This doubt was valid during the life of the Eightieth Congress which appointed our Advisory Council, but the election has basically changed the situation. This is not the time for patchwork poultices that do not meet basic needs. Even if a national system is not voted by this Congress, the recommendations of the majority do not contain sufficiently far-going improvements in the present State-Federal system. Employees are being asked to share half the costs of unemployment insurance with no assured gain in return. No Federal benefit standards are established, although the recommendation on disqualifications would mean improvement. Extension of coverage is certainly desirable, though not to Federal employees on a State basis. Certain minor advances in administration are more than offset by the proposal that funds be given the States for administrative purposes over and above congressional appropriations, thus confusing budgetary problems and weakening the Federal agency in its efforts to improve State programs. It seems important to explain in more detail my opposition to this suggestion for administrative financing and the recommendation for an employee contribution. At present employers are paying an average tax of 1.5 percent on pay rolls. The majority proposes that this be cut in half and that employees should accept a tax burden of 0.75 percent of their wages to make up the difference. This contribution amounts to a wage cut averaging 1 cent an hour. I believe that the evidence is insufficient to bolster the majority's argument that the combined flat rate will assure improvements in benefits by putting a floor under experience rating and taxes and thus theoretically weakening employer opposition to improve benefits. The Council's own estimates show that the flat amount would not be enough for even meager increases in benefits in an important group of States, including Alabama, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island. This statement would be true even if unemployment does not rise above 5,000,000. If unemployment rises to 10,000,000, these States as well as others, such as California and Missouri, would exhaust all their reserves. These are the Council's own estimates based on what, to me, are too low benefit provisions. I have never accepted the idea that the unemployment-insurance contribution should be split equally between employers and employees. I certainly cannot agree to the idea that workers will show sufficient interest in unemployment insurance only if they pay for it. In New Jersey, in spite of the employee contribution for this program, the CIO State industrial union council has been unable to secure representation on the State advisory council and labor has lost representation on appeals boards. A national system would make it far easier for workers to understand unemployment compensation and would permit unions to acquaint their members with their rights and to participate more actively in the various administrative processes. When one system takes the place of 51 State and Territorial systems, the number of complexities, ambiguities, and uncertainties will be reduced by approximately 50 fifty-firsts; hence, it will for the first time be possible for any one person to understand unemployment insurance in the United States. As for administrative financing, State employment security agencies should have enough money to operate properly, just as Federal agencies should. Congress should appropriate sufficient funds for all important Government functions. I am now supporting additional Federal grants for unemployment insurance and the employment offices. But this Council would give millions of dollars back to State agencies to be used for the same purpose as the money voted by Congress. I agree with the Bureau of Employment Security in opposing this suggestion, which in the current fiscal year would have given Illinois 2.8 million dollars over and above its budgetary administrative grant, or an addition of 44 percent. Pennsylvania, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin would have received 36 to 42 percent in addition. These proportions would be increased if Congress should lower rather than increase its appropriations. Supporters of this type of financing have frankly indicated that one objective is to escape from Federal controls, whereas I believe that the Federal agency should have increasing power to promote proper performance. |