| |
Hinkle and Holmquist vote
against dismantling landmark 2003 unemployment insurance agreement
Reps.
Bill Hinkle, R-Cle Elum, and Janéa Holmquist, R-Moses Lake,
voted today against dismantling ground-breaking unemployment insurance
system reforms that have helped large and small businesses in
Washington. The reforms, which only took effect in January 2005, were a
major part of the package adopted to convince Boeing to build its 7E7 in
Washington.
“It took businesses and labor more than a decade to develop the
agreement the Legislature supported in 2003,” Hinkle said. “Before then,
Washington’s unemployment insurance costs were more than triple the
national average. That put Washington at a significant competitive
disadvantage. This bill sends a message to businesses eyeing Washington:
This state is not true to its word, and the Legislature was merely
paying lip service to creating a competitive business climate.”
Hinkle also noted that the bill would ultimately threaten the UI
system’s solvency.
“This bill would send the cost of the UI system soaring,” Hinkle said.
“Within two years, the system will be in debt to the point where we
probably won’t be able to save it. What will we do then? Raise rates
through the roof or severely cut benefits? Not offer unemployment
insurance at all? This bill sets the state and all Washington employers
up for failure.”
Prior to the changes enacted in 2003, the average annual UI tax per
employee in Washington was $695. The national average was $228. The
changes enacted in 2003 lowered costs (from 300 percent of national
average to about 200 percent) and more fairly distributed weekly
benefits to all employees regardless of the industry in which they work
and regardless of the particular quarters in which they work. House Bill
2255 would raise costs again and take the state back to a time when
year-round workers pay higher rates to subsidize seasonal workers who
use unemployment insurance benefits to supplement their income.
"This bill creates winners and losers. For people who work year-round,
they will get less compared to someone who only works six months a
year," noted Holmquist.
"My friend Molly is a retail clerk who works year-round and makes $6,000
a quarter, or $24,000 a year. My friend Jarred is a seasonal
agricultural worker who works two quarters a year and also brings in
about $24,000 a year. Under current law, if they were to apply for
unemployment insurance, they would both get $240 weekly. That’s fair,"
said Holmquist. "However, under this proposed bill, Jarred would get
$462 a week and Molly would receive $232 a week, even though they both
have the same average incomes. That’s not fair.
"This bill would increase costs to agricultural businesses by up to 300
percent. Farmers are already facing a drought year and struggling to
make ends meet, and now to be impacted by this legislation is just
unconscionable," added Holmquist. "And while it will cost more, it also
slashes weekly benefits across the board by 4 percent. So you pay more
and get less – not a good idea."
House Bill 2255 now moves to the Senate for consideration.
# # #
For more information, contact:
John Handy, Assistant
Communications Director - (360) 786-5758
|
|