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)
![[GALLERY]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2013/03/28/12278304/LNL-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)






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 blog post is closed for comments.
February 5, 2013 10:59 p.m.
February 5, 2013 10:38 p.m.
February 5, 2013 9:03 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:42 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:25 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:24 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:23 p.m.
You are incorrect, that wasn't insane, it was the correct and right thing to do. But of course the gop and McCrory don't have hte kahunas to actually do something that makes common sense and helps people. Good riddance to them, hopefully the gop will finally become obsolete.
February 5, 2013 8:20 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:11 p.m.
AFAIK, when you quit, you don't get UE even if it's for a sick child, and you shouldn't. It's not your employer's fault.
February 5, 2013 8:11 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:03 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:00 p.m.
February 5, 2013 8:00 p.m.
I applied for almost 1,000 jobs before I was hired as a temporary worker. And I was grateful to get that job. I've been a temp for almost a year now. It is hard to find a job when so many other people are looking at the same time and when your skill set is specialized. Employers want people who have done the exact type of work they are hiring for.
I wish people screaming "get a job" understood that we are trying
February 5, 2013 7:59 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:59 p.m.
Well, gee....It COULD be that the president-who-cannot-be-mentioned-by-name who was in office between 2000-2008 destroyed the economy, which just happened to crash and burn as he was leaving the White House, and MILLIONS of people lost their jobs in the worst economic disaster since THE Great Depression, and the new guy had to clean up the mess and prevent all those folks from starving while he was as busy as a one-legged man at a rear-kicking contest in attempting to reverse the damage left behind by the "W"orst President Ever even while half the country developed mass amnesia about the previous EIGHT YEARS.
SEE IT NOW? (get smarter)
February 5, 2013 7:59 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:58 p.m.
Before anyone wants to chalk my comments up to "some bleeding heart", I voted pretty much a straight republican ticket. I always have, save one or two democrat incumbents at the local level that I feel has been fair. I actually consider myself somewhere between moderate and extremely right wing on financial and criminal justice issues. I tend to swing a little left on social freedoms that don't affect taxpayers.
I'm far from the lazy liberal that you folks are trying to make us out to be. I also don't have a horse in this race as I am not on unemployment.
It really is terrible to see the republican party essentially committing political suicide. Once they lose the rational folks like me, they don't stand a chance of winning.
February 5, 2013 7:58 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:49 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:47 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:44 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:42 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:36 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:35 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:34 p.m.
Ah, the old "corporations do not pay taxes, they just pass them on to the consumer" argument. Well, by not paying any taxes, the taxpayers are subsidizing police, fire, emergency services, roads, courts, education systems that produce workers, a stable country that makes their investment secure and numerous other benefits. I don't see a problem with factoring in the costs of services they receive into the prices of products they sell. For one thing, I may not be buying what they make. Then, I'm subsidizing the services they receive and getting no benefit from it. And if you think that by cutting corporate taxes, corporations will cut prices, well, I've got a good line on a bridge for sale in New York.
February 5, 2013 7:33 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:33 p.m.
So be it. Guess they never really could afford that home huh. It's time a lot of things go sky high. The 'kick it down the road' mentality that Mr. O and his ilk seem to support is over.
We're not kicking anymore cans.
I wish people would stop with the guess you really couldn't afford that home line. If you buy a 150k home and lose your job down the line then maybe you can't afford your home anymore. It has nothing to do with what you could afford when you bought your home.I bought a custom home I could afford and 5 years later lost my job. Fortunately I had a high income and could afford to keep making my payments for 2 years in between my next opportunity. I'm sure alot of people can afford their homes as long as they don't get a big gap in unemployment.
February 5, 2013 7:30 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:29 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:29 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:26 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:26 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:26 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:25 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:20 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:16 p.m.
Hate to burst your bubble, but within months of Clinton signing NAFTA, GM opened a plant in Mexico - now they're going gangbusters in China and even wanted to import cars built in China for sale here in the US.
February 5, 2013 7:02 p.m.
February 5, 2013 7:00 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:59 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:56 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:54 p.m.
Thank you!
Last time I collected benefits, I had to show proof I was looking for work and when offered a job, I had to take it or risk losing my benefits. Also, I didn't collect anywhere near $500/wk, actually it was almost half that. After working over 20 years and paying my taxes like everyone else, I didn't feel a bit bad for collecting what I did.
February 5, 2013 6:51 p.m.
Leave = quit. You're not elig if you quit. What's to prevent a cohort from getting pregnant and then "having to quit to care for a sick child"? Is this legislature even working on the same bill?
February 5, 2013 6:49 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:49 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:43 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:43 p.m.
It worked great for me. And it's a lot better than the trickle up poverty we've seen over the last 4 years.
February 5, 2013 6:40 p.m.
So be it. Guess they never really could afford that home huh. It's time a lot of things go sky high. The 'kick it down the road' mentality that Mr. O and his ilk seem to support is over.
We're not kicking anymore cans.
February 5, 2013 6:35 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:30 p.m.
February 5, 2013 6:28 p.m.