Share:
House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda
House of Representatives
Session of 2013 - 2014
Regular Session
MEMORANDUM
| Posted: | January 29, 2014 04:03 PM |
|---|---|
| From: | Representative Ron Miller |
| To: | All House members |
| Subject: | Amend the Unemployment Compensation Law regarding seasonal construction worker eligibility benefits |
| Please find attached a copy of legislation I plan to introduce in the near future to amend our Unemployment Compensation Law to allow seasonal construction workers another means of proving their eligibility for benefits if they are initially denied benefits due to the “49.5%” rule instituted by Act 60 of 2012. As you may recall, one of the changes made to the law by Act 60 increased the amount of wages that must be earned outside a claimant’s “highest quarter” during their base year. Under previous law, a claimant had to demonstrate that they earned at least 37% of their base year wages outside their highest quarter. Act 60 increased this requirement to 49.5% of base year wages having to be earned outside the high quarter. The reasoning behind the 49.5% highest-quarter-rule change was that, like many other states, a claimant should have to demonstrate a true attachment to the workforce by showing more consistent year-round employment. As a result of Act 60, some seasonal construction industry workers have found that the new change negatively affected their eligibility for benefits. For example, I have heard from workers in the asphalt-laying business who claim that they tend to work large amounts of overtime during the busy summer months, thus greatly inflating the wage amount in their highest quarter (and making it harder to meet the 49.5% rule). The rationale for the 49.5% rule at the time of passage of Act 60 was to require claimants to show more “attachment to the workforce”. The concept I am proposing in this bill is to allow a claimant to appeal an initial determination that the wages they earned do not meet the “49.5%” test; the claimant would have the right to demonstrate that, in fact, they do meet the “49.5%” rule 49.5% of the actual hours they worked occurred outside highest quarter. Again, this concept would take into account inflated wages due to excessive overtime work during high operation periods. My bill puts the burden on the claimant to show that they meet the “49.5” rule through hours worked when they appeal, thus, in my opinion, this legislation would not put undue administrative burden on the Department of Labor & Industry to enforce. It is my understanding that many of you have been hearing the same complaints about Act 60. My proposal has already been shared with various construction industry interests, and thus far I have received positive input on the idea. At minimum, this bill would help many construction workers qualify that are on the edge of eligibility. I will continue to work with all interest groups on getting a bill passed that has consensus. Also, let me emphasize that this legislation is an initial proposal on the “hours worked” concept and any bill that I advocate for will eventually have to be revenue neutral. |
||
| View Attachment | ||
Introduced as HB2087