Current News |
Jobless Angry at
Possibility of No Benefits
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: February 26, 2009
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/27govs.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=+Engineering++administration&st=nyt
As governors in nine states, mostly in
the South, consider rejecting millions
of dollars in federal stimulus money for
increased unemployment insurance, there
is growing anger among the ranks of the
jobless in those states that they could
be left out of a significant government
benefit.
The stimulus bill recently passed by
Congress includes incentives to states
to expand benefits to many more jobless
people, including part-time workers and
those who have cycled in and out of the
work force, who are not covered in many
states.
The Republican governors of Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina and Texas, along with Alaska
and Idaho, have raised protests, saying
that expansion could eventually require
them to raise taxes.
On Wednesday, Gov. Phil Bredesen of
Tennessee became the first Democratic
governor to express reservations on the
issue.
For people like Henry Kight, 59, of
Austin, Tex., the possibility that the
money might be turned down is a deeply
personal issue.
Mr. Kight, who worked for more than
three decades as an engineering
technician, discovered in September that
because of complex state rules, he was
not eligible for unemployment insurance
after losing a job at a major
electronics manufacturer he had landed
at the beginning of the year.
Unable to draw jobless benefits, he and
his wife have taken on thousands of
dollars in credit-card debt to help make
ends meet.
It is precisely these kind of
regulations, involving such matters as
the length of a person’s work history or
reason for leaving a job, that the
federal government is trying to get the
states to change. Such a move could
extend benefits to an estimated
half-million more people, according to
the National Employment Law Project, a
liberal group in New York that supports
the changes.
Mr. Kight and other unemployed workers
said they were incensed to learn they
were living in one of a handful of
states — many of them among the poorest
in the nation — that might not provide
the expanded benefits.
“It just seems unreasonable,” Mr. Kight
said, “that when people probably need
the help the most, that because of
partisan activity, or partisan feelings,
against the current new administration,
that Perry is willing to sacrifice the
lives of so many Texans that have been
out of work in the last year.”
He was referring to Gov. Rick Perry of
Texas, who has said he may decline the
extra money rather than change state
policy.
“I remain opposed to using these funds
to expand existing government programs,
burdening the state with ongoing
expenditures long after the funding has
dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote in a letter
to Mr. Obama last week.
The governors contend that once the
federal money ran out, they would have
to continue providing the new benefits,
which they say would force them to raise
taxes on businesses. The federal money
will end in two or three years in some
states, or much later in others,
depending on the size of the state
allocation.
Proponents say that nothing would
prevent states from changing the laws
back at that time.
The anger at the governors’ positions
goes beyond just the unemployed workers
who could directly benefit from the
changes. Because eligibility rules for
unemployment insurance are complicated
and vary by state, many unemployed
people do not even know whether they
would be affected.
There is also confusion over what parts
of the stimulus money are in danger. The
governors have mostly said they do not
object to the stimulus bill’s $25 per
week increase in unemployment benefits,
or a new federal extension of benefits.
As a result, many laid-off workers
across the South have been fretting over
precisely what they might lose out on,
even as they express astonishment that
they might not receive the help that
jobless people in other states will get.
“I don’t understand the whole thing,”
said Kelley Joyce, 43, of Myrtle Beach,
S.C., about indications from Gov. Mark
Sanford that he may reject some of the
stimulus financing in that state.
“Apparently because he has money and he
doesn’t have to worry about everybody
else who doesn’t have money.”
South Carolina, which has the nation’s
third-highest unemployment rate at 9.5
percent, ruled Ms. Joyce was ineligible
for benefits for the same reason as Mr.
Kight after she lost her job as a
marketing assistant in November.
The first third of the $7 billion
available to states to expand
unemployment benefits is contingent on
the states’ changing eligibility rules
in such a way that Mr. Kight and Ms.
Joyce would receive benefits. It
requires states to consider an
“alternative base period” when
determining someone’s eligibility.
Currently, when considering a person’s
work history, most states do not include
his wages in the current or preceding
quarter. Instead, they look to see what
the person earned in the four quarters
before that, which can often hurt
low-wage workers, women and others just
entering or returning to the work force.
In Mr. Kight’s case, he was unemployed
for the second half of 2007, after
losing an earlier job he had at a
different electronics manufacturer in a
downsizing. As a result, when he applied
for unemployment benefits, he did not
have enough immediate work history to
qualify.
“I have worked for so many years, a
total of probably 30 years, contributing
to the support system that helps people
when they get in a tough spot like I’m
in,” Mr. Kight said. “I haven’t needed
it too much in the past, but I sure
could use it right now.”
About 40 percent of applicants who are
now disqualified from receiving benefits
because they do not earn enough would
qualify if states offered an alternative
base period, according to the National
Employment Law Project.
To be eligible for the other two-thirds
of the money set aside for unemployment
benefits, states would have to provide
benefits to at least two of these four
groups of unemployed people: those only
available to work part-time; workers who
left their jobs for a compelling family
reason, like a spouse moving to take
another job, to take care of a sick
child, or in cases of domestic violence;
workers with dependent children seeking
additional benefits; and workers who
need additional benefits to last them
through re-training.
On Tuesday, Erica Greer, 32, and her
mother, Candace Foss, 59, who lost her
job as a data management specialist at
Home Depot in late January, went to the
State Capitol in downtown Atlanta from
Kennesaw, Ga., a suburb where they live,
to deliver a message to Gov. Sonny
Perdue not to reject any of the stimulus
money.
Mr. Perdue has said he fears the
long-term consequences of accepting the
money.
Ms. Foss got a severance package from
Home Depot, so she has not yet applied
for unemployment benefits. It appears
she would be eligible for benefits, but
she and her daughter said they wanted to
stand up for unemployed Georgians and
fight for their benefits. They wound up
speaking to an aide to the governor for
about 10 minutes and submitted a letter
to Mr. Perdue.
“I don’t think he truly understands the
plight of his citizens,” Ms. Foss said.
“He’s surrounded by people with good
jobs, who make good salaries. He’s not
surrounded by people like me.”
|
|
|
|