Wake County, N.C. — The state House on Tuesday passed a sweeping rewrite of North Carolina's unemployment insurance law, voting 77-42 to cut the value and duration of weekly benefits.
As with an earlier debate on the bill Monday, Republican sponsors of the legislation turned back Democratic amendments to make the bill more generous toward unemployed workers in some circumstances. The measure now goes to the state Senate.
Rep. Jean Farmer-Butterfield, D-Wilson, said she mistakenly voted yes on the bill on Monday night.
"Now I want to tell you why, why it is important that I vote 'no' today," Farmer-Butterfield said. "This is not a balanced approach....People affected by this bill are unemployed through no fault of their own."
Farmer-Butterfield and her fellow Democrats said the bill asked unemployed workers to give up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of benefits while asking only $20-plus million in concessions from businesses, who pay state unemployment taxes. Businesses argue they are being hit hard by federal unemployment taxes as well.
"It isn't that out of balance," said Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, arguing the worker-versus-business assertion was a false dichotomy. It was the businesses, he said, that paid for the benefits the workers were using.
Blust and other Republicans said the state can no longer afford benefits as generous as the $535 per week currently offered. The new maximum benefit would be $350 per week under the bill.
"The benefits we currently pay with the situation we have are not sustainable," said Rep. William Brawley, R-Mecklenburg.
North Carolina owes the federal government more than $2.5 billion that was borrowed to pay state-funded unemployment claims. The bill reduces the maximum weekly benefits and raises state unemployment insurance taxes in order to repay that debt more quickly.
Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, offered an amendment to allow more workers to claim unemployment. The current bill cuts down on the "good cause" reasons that justify claiming unemployment. Glazier's amendment would have added back family hardships as a good cause.
For example, Glazier said, workers who had to leave their jobs to care for a sick child or other family member would be eligible for benefits. Under the current bill, those who have to leave a job because they cannot work a particular shift due to a sick family member would not be eligible.
Glazier argued that his amendment would have little financial impact because only one-tenth-of-one-percent of those who file for unemployment use such family hardship reasons.
But Republicans said the bill was carefully crafted during the fall and winter and should not be changed.
"I reluctantly stand again to ask you to vote no on this amendment because we need to keep this bill in tact and let it go into effect and then surely we can go back and look at all the consequences," said Rep. Julia Howard, R-Davie, the bill's primary sponsor.
Both the Glazier amendment and another that would have raised the duration of benefits for workers who lost work as part of a mass plant closing failed along largely party-line votes.
Republicans argued that the bill would free businesses from paying taxes to repay the federal debt more quickly. That, in turn, would spark job creation.
"When do you expect to see the jobs from this bill materialize?" Rep. Yvonne Holley, D-Wake, asked Brawley.
The Mecklenburg Republican replied, "I can't trace you the specific jobs but I can tell you that the macroeconomics scales well...I do know that businesses that are losing money lay people off."
The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing on a companion unemployment bill for Wednesday.
Gov. Pat McCrory backs the legislation, saying it would put North Carolina on par with neighboring states and help people find jobs.
"We've been implementing the current system for a long time, and North Carolina remains the fifth-highest unemployment rate in the country," McCrory said. "So, I'm not going to continue to implement strategies that don't work. We're going to try new strategies to get people to work. That's our goal."




![[READ STORY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/national_world/national/2013/05/14/12445890/12446751-1368816960-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2013/05/13/12441232/hahn-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/traffic/2009/07/23/5645694/beltline-100x75.jpg)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/04/12182235/12182236-1362457268-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/weather/2010/08/30/8212390/8362364-1286459151-100x75.jpg)
![[VIEW PAGE]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/weather/2007/07/30/1649447/1649447-1209833775-100x75.jpg)







WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Unemployment is something you earn by working, its not welfare or charity. and the only reason there was any debt was that companies did not pay what they needed to before and after the recession.
This is just a money grab by big business with the added bonus that it makes employees easier to exploit.
Still lets hope lots of those laid off off over the next few years voted GOP.....they will reap what they sowed.
February 6, 2013 11:50 a.m.
=================================================
Charity or entitlements? What does churches and charity of unemployment have in common? Why all of a sudden is the left mixing religion and politics? And we need to see this type of financial management in more areas of the government. Hard decisions aren't easy OR popular sometimes. Which explains why the Libs didn't do it.
February 6, 2013 11:38 a.m.
February 6, 2013 11:02 a.m.
Thanks, Bohica2, for your attempts to educate people! About 1 in 20 posters actually know what they're talking about.
February 6, 2013 10:58 a.m.
=====================================================
Well, he's not concerned about anymore re elections, is he? Hmmmmm, could be a great reason. We knew that would happen. I'm now waiting for the pact with Putin and Russia that he was caught gaffing on a hot mic back in the fall. He said just let me get through this election and we can deal. Same as current hot issues. It will become a top issue in about 2 1/2 years when presidential candidates are being talked about. Ole BO will fire up the empty promise machine again and lay the path for Hillary. They're already best buds................Joe has to be steaming at this point!!!!
February 6, 2013 10:57 a.m.
==============================================
On the short time I received benefits, I was told no, I didn't have to accept a job that paid a lot less that what I was receiving at the time. I asked what was a lot, and was told it was judged on an individual bases. Former income, current benefit was taken into account to determine. Sounded sketchy to me, but ended up netting less with a job I took than if I would have stayed on UE. I was happy to take it, and 2 1/2 years later, I'm ahead of where I was in my career and income than when I got laid off in 2008. It wasn't fun, but we got through it. I did have a wife that was working which helped, but 2 kids in high school, a mortgage, credit cards, and 2 car payments made it tough.
February 6, 2013 10:52 a.m.
========================================
While I agree with that totally, I read the statement as there was no line item deduction on an individual paycheck for UE benefits. AND your statement about an employer should be able to offer healthcare OR the equivalent of the money he would pay for it back to you is spot on.
February 6, 2013 10:45 a.m.
February 6, 2013 10:45 a.m.
February 6, 2013 10:22 a.m.
Life-goes-on. February 6, 2013 9:27 a.m. _______________________ Ah, if it was just that simple. What this law does, it stop citizens of NC from getting some of the Federal money that is paid out by NC businesses. It pays back money owed, quicker, which is good, but it fails to support those who lose their jobs, rewards businesses and fails to ensure that the UE funds are solvent for the future.
February 6, 2013 9:56 a.m.
February 6, 2013 9:55 a.m.
February 6, 2013 9:53 a.m.
February 6, 2013 9:47 a.m.
Yes, you can.
Which is why it works _exactly_
Every dollar your employer spends on something related to the worker, that isn't salary, COULD be salary if they didn't get that other benefit.
that's the entire point.
Some employers offer a choice even. You can have healthcare, or you can have the dollars he would otherwise has spent on healthcare (nice to take this if you get healthcare via your spouses job for example).
If they didn't have to pay $X a month for unemployment insurance they could be putting that X dollars in your check. Therefore it's coming out of your check indirectly.
Same is true for all benefits employer funded.
February 6, 2013 9:39 a.m.
February 6, 2013 9:27 a.m.
I'm just curious as to how much of that money lined the pockets of our politicians?
February 6, 2013 9:20 a.m.
there's a pretty good argument that since the employer has to pay X dollars in unemployment insurance for a given employee, that is X dollars _less_ he is offering in salary for that employee.
This doesn't work at all. You can make the same argument about how much sick leave, vacation, health insurance, 401k matches, and pretty much ANY work benefit offered by an employer.
February 6, 2013 9:15 a.m.
Uh... what?
First, there's only about 4.4 million total people on welfare.
For another, they're not "for life"
there's a maximum of 5 years of benefits, lifetime.
And you're required by law to have obtained a job within 24 months of going on those benefits.
February 6, 2013 9:06 a.m.
that's a matter of some debate.
there's a pretty good argument that since the employer has to pay X dollars in unemployment insurance for a given employee, that is X dollars _less_ he is offering in salary for that employee.
In which case the employee is really the one paying it, albeit indirectly.
"The problem is way too many people abused the system. Changes had to be made. Don't blame the lawmakers, blame the deadbeats out there." andyx3x
if that were true (and you offer no evidence it is) then the CORRECT fix would be reform that prevents or detects such abuse.
Not an across the board 33% cut in max benefits and a cut in length of them. That hurts -everybody- and doesn't actually address the claimed abuse at all.
February 6, 2013 9:02 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:57 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:56 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:49 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:48 a.m.
================================================
@happymom - My same story, family and all. Hopefully the system worked for you and kept you out of foreclosure and a brighter future in store. A testament to the way we should be and not feeling the entitlement of someone else taking care of us. My journey took 2 1/2 years to get back on track, hopefully yours won't take that long.
February 6, 2013 8:42 a.m.
Scroll down to the lower part of the page and just understand you're reading real comments from real people in NC looking to get benefits ....
http://unemploymenthandbook.com/state-unemployment-directory/north-carolina-unemployment
February 6, 2013 8:41 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:35 a.m.
maggiesp7
i think i get what yoiu are trying to say here. sorry to preak your heart but that is simply not true.
I have worked for 2 different companies over the past 2 years and both have struggled to get and retain employees. the last company i was with had a 75% rejection rate due to drug use! 75%!about 50% where I am now.
Got friends all over the state with similar stories, plenty of jobs open just no one to take them. or better yet, someone will take the job work a few weeks then quit showing up.
right back on unemployment.
people need to get it in gear. i know too many people who have found good work in a very short amount of time by just getting up and doing something, not sitting at home on their backside waitin for the check.
February 6, 2013 8:31 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:31 a.m.
I know a person who drew unemployment for years with all the extensions. Then when the benefits finally ran out, he got a job within a week. He only got a job when he absolutely had to.
You have to give many people an incentive to go get a job. If they are making close to what they would get working just on unemployment, what do you expect?
And people aren't going to take one of the many part time jobs that are offered out there. Why? Because the money they make there is deducted from their unemployment check each week. Why do that when you can just sit at home and earn the same money?
The system was broke and had to be fixed. It's just that simple.
February 6, 2013 8:30 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:29 a.m.
=========================================
If you are an employer you pay but as an individual you don't pay a cent for UE insurance or benefits. And what happened to the money? It was borrowed from the Fed to pay benefits to the unemployed, now the state is repaying. Just because you didn't collect any, doesn't mean they are holding your share for the future. More than likely, someone abusing the benefits got yours. Happy now?
February 6, 2013 8:29 a.m.
this is a good move on behalf of the state and the people that take pride in the state and themselves. Yes, I know some will still feel it is unfair and some will struggle, but it is necessary to heal the wounds of 'reckless spending' by the state for so many previous years.
February 6, 2013 8:28 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:27 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:24 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:24 a.m.
How is it common sense if we cant afford it? You are seriously telling me that people need 90+ weeks of unemployment? Thats insane. If you cant find a job in 60 weeks you have a problem. Im not saying its ideal but you can find a job. Our ancestors that lived through the great depression would be shaking their heads at the weakness and whininess that many Americans display today. Roll up your sleeves, quit making excuses, and make the hard decisions and dso what has to be done. No one guaranteed a great quality of life for everyone. You get life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness not the guarantee of it
February 6, 2013 8:19 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:18 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:15 a.m.
McCrory's cabinet costs less than Bev Perdue's since there are 2 perople on it making 1 dollar a year. Perdue put us in this mess by borrowing 2+ billion from Obama and extending UE to 90+ weeks. 90+ weeks is ridiculous and because of that terrible decision by a loving liberal now UE has to be overhauled to find a way to pay that money back.
February 6, 2013 8:12 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:10 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:09 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:06 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:05 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:04 a.m.
February 6, 2013 8:01 a.m.
February 6, 2013 7:59 a.m.
February 6, 2013 7:50 a.m.
February 6, 2013 7:41 a.m.
February 6, 2013 7:29 a.m.
February 6, 2013 1:47 a.m.