Read on Twitter
SB 44 now starting which would enact a work share unemployment program. Sen. Boots has already said they committee won't vote on this bill, it's for informational purposes only.
Sen. Bassler: This would allow employers to reduce hours of employees without firing them. Workers could get partial unemployment benefits for hours lost, keep other hours at regular pay, and keep benefits. Would benefit workers, employers, and local economy.
Sen. Bassler: For employers, it saves them a lot of time and effort from having to rehire people they fired or finding new ppl because old employees found new jobs. Helps govt bc it keeps a skilled workforce and steady tax revenue stream.
Sen. Bassler: In the past the cost for starting this would be prohibitive, but CARES Act would offer a lot of money to start this program.
Supplies a list of orgs and businesses that support a work share unemployment program.
Supplies a list of orgs and businesses that support a work share unemployment program.
Sen. Boots: This is an underutilized program across the U.S. Why? I'm still trying to get my head around how this help this state and employers.
Sen. Tallian: This feels like "old home week" to me. I introduced this back in 2009 and it didn't go anywhere then bc it was new. But that's 10 years ago. I'm really disappointed we're not going to take a vote on this.
Sen. Tallian: It doesn't change the amount of payout from UI fund, you're right. But it "spreads out the pain" for people who might have to lose some work during a recession.
Sen. Walker: I see the benefits as an employer, does it affect my experience rating though? (Eg. the amount of tax one pays for UI fund is based on how many people you lay off.)
Sen. Perfect: I love it when I agree with Sen. Tallian. She was forward thinking then and she's forward thinking now. It would be neutral to the fund, but positive to the employers and workers.
Sen. Perfect: I don't like how gov programs are typically all or nothing, but this isn't. It's a win-win-win and this is the direction we need to go.
Sen. Boots: It'll cost $2.5 mil to create, $1 million each year to staff, and creates another gov program that we don't need. Still an enforcement issue for DWD to oversee this...it's not a slam dunk. Says other states adopted and then didn't implement or rescinded.
Sen. Boots: This to me is a big biz tool, but won't help small biz because it takes a lot of HR resources to implement. This also doesn't apply to seasonal or salary employees.
Sen. Kruse: I know of three big bizes that do this already without a government program.
Kevin Brinegar from @IndianaChamber :
1. Worksharing will drain the trust fund? The LSA says otherwise.
2. Workshare is not another social program.
3. Workshare will not increase fraudulent claims.
4. Start up costs / DWD costs? CARES Act has money for this now.
1. Worksharing will drain the trust fund? The LSA says otherwise.
2. Workshare is not another social program.
3. Workshare will not increase fraudulent claims.
4. Start up costs / DWD costs? CARES Act has money for this now.
Brinegar: We urge the committee to take a vote on this bill today.
Sen. Boots: I worry the CARES Act funding will run out before we get this thing up and running because it will take time.
Brinegar: Well DWD did lots of other stuff that didn't exist this past year very quickly.
Sen. Boots: Yeah and there was lots of fraud.
Brinegar: Well DWD did lots of other stuff that didn't exist this past year very quickly.
Sen. Boots: Yeah and there was lots of fraud.
Brinegar: Won't have fraud in this system bc DWD would have to get a list of employees from a company. Not the same deal as regular UI.
Danielle Tucker for @Cummins : We support this. Would help us keep our Hoosier workforce and get them increased job security. We use this program in lots of other states, it was crucial in 2020.
Tucker: Rolling layoffs cause more disruption than doing a workshare program, both for us and our employees.
Andrew Berger from @IMA1901 : I signed up as neutral, but noting that none of our members contacted us asking about this. Goal of UI should be to get people back to full employment, not helping biz cut hours. In states that do have workshare, 0.6% of employers use it.
Berger: We think priority now should be focusing on reducing fraud, not this. Indiana's current UI system is functioning and adapting to pandemic. I don't know all the stats of recovery but we have lowest unemployment rate in Midwest.
Sen. Boots: Didn't one of your members (auto manufacturing) come and support workshare before? ...I think the problem with the lack of workers is because we have too good of government programs.
Jessica Fraser from @INInstitute : Ppl told you this is good for employers, so here's how it works for employees. It gives them higher wages overall and helps them keep benefits. Under a workshare program, a sample worker making $440/week could make more than regular UI.
Fraser: Plus it keeps them connected to workforce. We urge you to adopt a workshare program.
Sen. Boots: Could getting unemployed spur people who "need to make a change in their life" to get retrained?
Fraser: I think training and worksharing don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Fraser: I think training and worksharing don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Tim Brown with @IndyChamber and lots of other regional chambers: Collectively we represent thousands of biz and we were on frontlines of closures, layoffs, etc. during the pandemic. We want this bill.
Brown: There was a study that showed this program would help manufacturing the most actually. We want this to be a tool or option to assist the business community in a tough time.
Sen. Boots: I'll go back to the 0.6% figure that IMA stated. Is that a good program if so few people are using it? Or is it too cumbersome?
Brown: It's an option/tool. We have people asking why we don't have this option. Not right for everyone, but advantageous for some.
Brown: It's an option/tool. We have people asking why we don't have this option. Not right for everyone, but advantageous for some.
Sen. Perfect to Boots: On the last bill I just spoke out against a govt program, but this is just a modification of an existing program.
Sen. Boots: I think it's a new program.
Sen. Perfect: I'm not seeing that. Seems like a continuation of existing work.
Sen. Boots: I think it's a new program.
Sen. Perfect: I'm not seeing that. Seems like a continuation of existing work.
Sen. Tallian to Boots: You say only .6% of workers use it but over the pandemic huge amount lost jobs. "So six tenths of a really big number is still a lot of people." Maybe it would take a while to get up and running but there will be a recession and now there's $ available.
Josh Richardson of DWD: The description thus far have been right. You're trading larger reduction for another type of reduction of workforce. It's fair to have a difference of opinion about creating a new program VS expanding existing program.
Richardson: Costs would be staffing, technology, administration, etc. We'd like to try to automate this as much as possible, but primarily staffing costs.
Richardson: Two factors to consider with experience rating: Costs should work out to be same in a simple example. If person was laid off charges would stop when they're re-employed. In work share, charges would hit each week as well.
Sen. Boots: Would this save the UI fund money? Would it help us grow the fund?
Richardson: Hard to say. It may break even, depends on specific instances.
Richardson: Hard to say. It may break even, depends on specific instances.
Sen. Perfect: One of my concerns is that current UI program is all or nothing. Do you know why that is?
Richardson: There is partial unemployment. Somewhat limited, but it's not totally all or nothing.
Richardson: There is partial unemployment. Somewhat limited, but it's not totally all or nothing.
Sen. Perfect: Are you better off under the current plan if you're working / trying to work / or just getting benefits? People do figure out what's in their best interest and if you get benefit for working or not, people will not work rather than try.
Richardson: I want to make clear on CARES Act implementation numbers thrown around: Indiana could get $2 million but 2/3 has to go towards marketing, etc. and 1/3 to implementation. Also $400 mil put to trust fund (by Holcomb) can't be used for implementation.
Sen. Rogers: I support the legislation but I understand Boots concerns about cost. The UI system seems outdated to me. I think there's a lot of updates that need to be done. It could be time to make some of these changes.
Richardson: To be clear, Indiana actually has one of the more advanced UI systems in the country. Employers can use @UI_SIDES software to get us info, they don't have to fax info like you mentioned.
No vote on the bill and committee ends.
