Log in to WRAL.com with one click using your favorite social network:
OR
Log in using your WRAL.com account:



Wrong email/password combination.

Forgot password?

Register with WRAL.com using your favorite social network:
OR
Register for a WRAL.com account using our web form.

1:13 p.m. • 5-24-13

Weather Forecast for Raleigh

  • Today: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 72° F
  • Sat: Clear.
    • Hi: 72° F
  • Sun: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 75° F

Other Locations

> 7 Day Forecast

Doppler Image
@NCCapitol
Jobless generic, unemployment line
print friendly

Efforts to change unemployment overhaul fail in House

Published: 2013-02-04 15:21:00
Updated: 2013-02-05 05:16:18

House Democrats came up short Monday night in several efforts to soften legislation that would slash jobless benefits as part of an overhaul of the state unemployment system.

The House voted 78-41 to give tentative approval to House Bill 4. A final vote is expected Tuesday before it moves to the Senate.

The bill cuts the maximum weekly unemployment benefit from $535 to $350 and replaces 26 weeks of state-paid benefits with a sliding cap of 12 to 20 weeks, based on the health of North Carolina's economy. It also slightly raises unemployment insurance taxes on employers.

Analysts said the changes, which would take effect July 1, would help the state repay $2.5 billion to the federal government three years faster than leaving the system unchanged. North Carolina borrowed the money to pay jobless benefits during the recession when state taxes paid by employers couldn't keep up with demand for benefits.

Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, called the bill unbalanced, saying workers would lose $2.7 billion in benefits over the next four years while employers would pay only $24 million in extra unemployment taxes.

"Workers are taking a major hit," Luebke said, calling the benefit cuts "indefensible."

Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, said that comparison fails to note that the federal unemployment taxes continue to rise on North Carolina employers until the debt is paid off.

"If you want to create more unemployed in the future, just try not addressing this problem some more," Blust said, calling the bill "the best solution out of a bunch of bad solutions."

The Republican majority was able to defeat amendments by Luebke that would retain a 26-week cap on benefits, by Rep. Paul Tine, D-Dare, that would raise slightly more in taxes to set the maximum weekly benefit at $425, by Rep. Kelly Alexander, D-Mecklenburg, and Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake, to revise the formulas for determining benefits and by Rep. Duane Hall, D-Wake, to restore benefit levels once the federal debt is repaid.

Bill sponsor Rep. Julia Howard rebuffed each attempt to change the bill, saying that the issue comes down to allowing employers to use their money to create jobs or having them pay taxes with it.

"If you who campaigned on creating jobs in the state of North Carolina, this is the No. 1 bill that you're going to have this year," said Howard, R-Davie.

"To say this is a jobs bill when all it does is cut unemployment benefits is a bit disingenuous," said Rep. Joe Sam Queen, D-Haywood.

Rep. Winkie Wilkins, D-Person, asked to delay the changes to the system until January so that people who have been out of work for months wouldn't lose their federal unemployment benefits.

A bill Congress passed on New Year's Day to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff" extends the federal benefits through the end of 2013, but changing the state unemployment program voids that provision of the federal law.

Luebke noted that the state stands to lose more than $600 million by ending the benefits early to an estimated 80,000 families, adding that most of that money would go directly back into the local economy.

Blust said people still have five months to find jobs before those benefits end, and Rep. Robert Brawley, R-Iredell, said it's time "to stop worrying about the downside of everything."

Although Wilkins' proposal generated the most debate of the night, it failed like all of the others the Democrats offered.

Earlier Monday, worker advocates and members of the Legislative Black Caucus railed against the proposal, saying it would devastate families dealing with job loss and would end up costing the state money.

"People on unemployment are not lazy," said Beth Messersmith, campaign director of North Carolina MomsRising. "(They include) parents trying to care for kids who need those benefits."

A majority of North Carolina's unemployed are out of work longer than 26 weeks, so cutting the length of state benefits to 20 weeks doesn't make sense, Messersmith said.

Doug Dickerson, state director for AARP, said older workers take 13 months on average to find a job after being laid off. He called for lawmakers to make more "reasoned decisions" instead of taking "draconian steps" too hastily.

The Legislative Black Caucus also criticized the quick movement of the bill, saying the changes under consideration need more debate.

"Let’s slow this train down. It’s moving too fast," said Rep. Garland Pierce, D-Scotland. "The consequences because of this legislation are going to be dire, especially in our communities where people are already having a hard time with no jobs."

Noting the loss of federal jobless benefits, Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg, said, "It’s a travesty that we’re cutting this lifeline so drastically at a time when we’re just beginning to recover."

Fourth District Congressman David Price even weighed in on the debate, sending a letter to the General Assembly asking them to delay the bill so that federal benefits could continue through the end of the year.

"Now is not the time to abandon tens of thousands of North Carolinians who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and who stand to benefit from federal policy if their state government does not stand in the way," Price said in the letter. "Nor can our state, with an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent, afford to remove the projected $650 million in economic activity that would result from these benefits this year."

Read More Posts from this Blog

347 Comments


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.


page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
<prev    next>
sort order: oldest first | newest first

So their thought is to continue giving them free money week after week (on my tax dollar) so they can go out and spend it on whatever they want and still not look for a job? Is that what I'm getting from this disgraceful mess??

amen, werewolfwoman...........you and I think on the same page. It's a disgrace the laziness of people and the entitlement mentality of our government. It's a way to keep people dependent on them and "if we give them something, they'll keep voting for us and keep us in office." What a racket.

I hope they do back down the entitlement to $350.00 or there abouts. Nitwit Perdue borrowed and borrowed to keep these people on unemployment. Get off your duff and get SOME kind of job. There is SOMETHING out there you can do. It's easier to stay on unemployment and sit on your behind than to go work at a job that is less than humbling.....I had to do it for two years or more and I didn't bleed the system of unemployment. I am thankful that somebody is trying to put a stop to this parasitic lifestyle that we have come to love and adore so much!

"I thought employers paid for unemployment through payroll taxes, in effect forward-funding unemployment. Don't the feds chip in with funding as well?" - Hippy_mom

As an employer you must pay SUTA (state) and FUTA (federal) unemplymnet "tax". Once state benefits are exhausted, the Feds will pick-up some additional weeks if certain state unemployment rate guidelines are met.

That said, the extension by the feds to 99 weeks (at one time), was outside this program. It was part of the "stimulus", and was funded from the general fund. Basically it was borrowed...

No free phones.

"Only a discount on service. That has nothing to do with Obama. That isn't paid for with income tax either." --Junkmail5

It may be a state program, but I know that in NY, if you apply for Food Stamps, and meet certain qualifications, you receive a free cell phone with 250 free minutes per month, for as long as you meet the requirements.

This was within the past year. I had an elderly aunt (82 YO) who applied, and was given the phone. She recently stopped getting the food stamps, and had to turn in the phone.

Again, this might be NY state only, or it could be federal, but it was TOTALLY free.

"fourautumn: what do you call the phones that are given free to each member of a household on welfare?"

I call them imaginary, because the government does no such thing.

What they do do is offer a discount.

On service only.

To ONE household member.

And it's not "because you're on welfare" each state has different requirements.

And they don't give you a free phone.

And it's paid for by a tax on telecomm providers.

How are we not clear on this point yet?

"the government doesn't give people free cell phones, "

Sure they do, if you are already on certain programs for federal handouts, this one is available too, here's the application:

http://www.assurancewireless.com/Images/PDFFiles/CustomerInfo/English/AW_NC_CUSTOMER_CERTIFICATION_ENGLISH.pdf

"smcallah: Actually you can stick it to the system. Ex quit job, hired at new place, was on his 3rd write up for bad behavior, quit, got new job, got dui, lost new job, got hired at security company got fire, COLLECTED 500 a week?"

Actually, that's because he's frauding the system and his last employer didn't fight the fact that he applied for unemployment and received it. That is counted AGAINST the employer, and they must make up for those payments out of their UI account. It's part their fault and part his fault.

"fourautumn: what do you call the phones that are given free to each member of a household on welfare?"

A program that was started under Reagan after the break up of AT&T that was extended to include cell phones under George W. Bush.

What's it have to do with Obama?

If the majority of people on unemployment in this state have been out of work for more than 26 weeks, then they are either being extremely choosy about what sort of job they will take, or they aren't looking. It will be interesting to see how many of those currently unemployed with the Cadillac version of unemployment benefits stay that way when some parameters are put in place. If a person knows when you start getting unemployment that it is only going to last for 6 months, and it is only so many dollars per week, I think they will look a lot harder and be willing to take something a little less than their "ideal job".

I didn't say it was "deplorable", I said it was sad. And I don't pay $50 for my phone, I pay half that, not that it's really anyone's business, and I do not collect any benefits. Who can just sit and wait by a land line phone and wait for a call? If not for my cell phone, I would have missed a call for an interview I have tomorrow that I received yesterday as I was working away from my home where my land line would be. And no, I don't have cable either.

And no nonsense about "needing" a cell phone if you're job hunting. That's an excuse to take free stuff. And no nonsense about "needing" a cell phone if you're job hunting. That's an excuse to take free stuff. A landline works just fine. Sit and wait for the call. Morrigan

Uh... first, again, the government doesn't give people free cell phones, no matter what Rush Limbaugh told you.

For another- if you are OUT applying for and interviewing for jobs, you can't just "sit and wait" for the previous people you interviewed with to call you. Having a cell phone in that case is a HUGE advantage.

The antique land line you can get rid of if you want to save $, the cell is vastly more useful for job hunting.

No argument about cable tv being a luxury though :)

kornfan, apart from the UE question, why is it deplorable that cell phones and cable are considered luxuries? THEY ARE! They're not a necessity and they're quite expensive. Just think if consumers had been saving instead: $50 x 12 = $600. IDK what cable costs, I've never had it. But the cell phone alone would have been a mortgage payment.

And no nonsense about "needing" a cell phone if you're job hunting. That's an excuse to take free stuff. A landline works just fine. Sit and wait for the call.

"Also, if I were a hiring manager I WOULD NOT HIRE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN SITTING ON THEIR HANDS FOR 3 MONTHS!!"

You mean like cooking meals for the elderly couple who worked all their lives and now one has cancer? Like mowing the yard of the people who had to abandon the house when the last worker finally lost her job, but we don't want it to look like a wasteland? Like providing free child care for the neighbor who feels lucky to be laying brick for $7/hr under the table? And putting on a cheerful face for all? Like reporting the marauders who come and park at the end of the road and clearly don't belong anywhere around here? Like teaching oneself new skills, just not at public expense?

Like applying daily for multiple jobs with hiring managers like YOU?

"uh huh dats right....you are wrong..agin.. you can't pay rent with food stamps, you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps, you can't make a car payment with food stamps

I was in line at the grocery not long ago. I watched as a man pulled out a roll of bills, not ones and fives, but twenties, fifties, and higher, and paid for his 12 pack of beer. Then, his actual food he paid for in food stamps."

Perhaps what he was pulling out was his bank account. Some folks don't put their money in a Bank, they carry it with them or hide it at home in little mason jars in the back yard.

It's sad that as advanced as we are as a society, that our economy has become so bad that cell phones and cable tv are considered luxury items for the middle class and that people that have been laid off from good paying jobs are expected to take a low paying job because that's just what you are expected to do.

This is purely a political ploy. At the same time, I know people who collected unemployment and "miraculously" found a job right before the benefits ran out. Also, in some jobs, collecting unemployment is an accepted way of life --work when the weather is good, collect when it isn't. Nothing new.

Collecting

"For the first time as an adult, I am out of work, have been for the past 2 months. Im a single female, college graduate, home owner and mother of a college student. The reason Im out of work? I was contracting for a major corp, the position went permanent but b/c a perm employee was getting laid off, she was give my slot, even though she HAS none of the qualifications necessary. The ppl who say "there are jobs out there, but they are jobs no one wants"..thats a crock. Since 2008 when my 18 year career at IBM ended due to downsizing, I've been working jobs no one else wants so i can pay my mortgage, and now, even this B/S jobs are not available. These ppl who think there are jobs needs a reality check and I want them to pay a mortgage and car payment (on a used car) plus everyday expenses on $311/wk. I have sent @50 resumes and have had 2 return calls. Everyday I am on career websites ad apply for almost anything. Unemployment isnt a joy ride, maybe those saying it is should try"

I fe

Okay, here are some facts, like them or not:

You only collect unemployment if you are dismissed for a reason other than negligence. While you are collecting unemployment you have to report in once a week, among the questions you are asked are the following: Did you do any work last week? Were you offered any work last week?

Answering any of those questions with a lie is a crime.

Companies like those in Pharma are continually cutting jobs because they can, they know the employees they have left can be squeezed even harder.

NC cut taxes on corporations to encourage them to hire folks. How do those corporations respond? Oh boy, now we can cut more without paying for it.

I'm neither conservative nor liberal, I have issues with both sides, I do have to say that the conservatives excel at clouding most issues by spewing pure hate while liberals take the bait. But then I'm typing here so maybe I'm guilty of taking the bait too...

The republicans have played you like fiddles. Once they slash UE bennies the unemployed will qualify for and go on foodstamps faster, medicaid faster, housing and utility assistance faster, Reaganphones too, and you will be paying way more as taxpayers than you were for UI. Suckers! Only you'll ALL pay, not just the responsible erstwhile job creators. Employers across NC should thank NC taxpayers for lifting a potential burden from them, freeing them to lay off workers at a low cost and pass the taxes onto you! What good little handmaidens of the "business community" our GA is.

Okay folks, maybe Obama did not start the free phone, but he sure is supporting it during his terms in office, hence, obama phone term.- heavenly

No, he's not supporting it either.

THERE IS NO FREE GOVERNMENT PHONE.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

The _cell phone_ companies are giving away free phones. Not the government.

the only thing the government gives is a $9.25 a month discount on phone SERVICE.

And no, Obama doesn't have the power to "stop" even that.

You might wanna read the US Constitution sometime to understand why.

It's expensive to give money away!

"Just remember: All those UNEMPLOYED republican voters voted to put in a republican controlled congress."

Because some of us think of what's good for the country FIRST, then think what benefits us personally. That's the difference between Reps and Dems.-morrigan

Your last two sentences are correct except for the word "because". Now, which is which?

"Actually that is a fact, the Obama phone. Phones are given out to those on the system for foodstamps and welfare checks that meet certain requirements (which I will not go into as you can pull up the local Social Services website and see for yourself) so FourAutumn, you need to do your research before you jump into the deep part of the water. And yes, I know this for a fact because I know people who actually have the phones. No hearsay, no blog talk, fact"

I think you just drowned in the shallow water.

The "obama phone" is something that has been around since W. It is not paid for by taxpayers, but by telecommunications company.

Try to understand things before you look sillier.

So does anyone know if trickle down economics started working yet? Are those incentives for "job creators" finally kicking in (instead of them pocketing the extra money)? Is corporate welfare working? It must be if they decided to cut unemployment benefits, either that or the NC GOP has a plan to reduce unemployment in that state. Oh wait...

Okay folks, maybe Obama did not start the free phone, but he sure is supporting it during his terms in office, hence, obama phone term. Since Regan is dead and no longer a factor, can you let him rest please. And the last time I checked, Bush is no longer the president so since Obama has the power within his administration to stop this insanity, he gets the current prize of blame for keeping it going. Is that better for all you folks that want to argue about those FREE phones?

"And btw Junkmail, your handle is so very appropriate to your posts." - Heavenly

"...where you steal from your employer all day. How sad." - Morrigan

If you folks have some new and thought-provoking ideas...or (gasp!) relevant facts to share about this news article, please do share them. Otherwise...

"But you of course have a job and feel that defrauding your employer is much better than being unemployed and on the internet." Unbroken, to pelosi

IKR? Work and jobs are noble, until they sit down at their employers' desks, then they're just as "entitled" as the moochers they revile. Hey pelosi, tell me where you work and I'll apply for your job...including a link to this board!

junkmail, you are not always the authority on everything like you try to convince this blog. I know for a FACT the phone is paid for in full by the government- Heavenly

Except, it's not.

30 seconds on google would've told you how wrong you were.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

No free phones.

Only a discount on service.

That has nothing to do with Obama.

That isn't paid for with income tax either.

Literally every single thing you have said is factually wrong.

I would ask you this arfamr- Why should unemployed workers be forced to make up more of the difference? goldenosprey February 5, 2013 11:18 a.m. Report abuse

Not anymore. The reason UE is bein cut is because democrats borrowed $2B from the Feds to pay for it. Who paid that $2B? You have no clue what you're talking about.-amfamr1007

We know who FAILED to pay for it. The employers who dropped their rolls. Does that clue you in or where the $ should have come from?

"Are you really puting on your Walmart application that you have a masters degree and 15 years experience in your field? Lol @ you. That's pretty silly if you ask me"

Are you really lying on your job applications? That's pretty immoral if you ask me. And if you get fired for having done that, you DON'T get unemployment.

"I keep reading these comments about employers not hiring because you are 'over qualified".. well why not write your resume to reflect what the employer is looking for instead of giving him your entire skills set to eliminate that problem? I have been writing resumes for years and can tell you, this works if you know how to speak only to the skills needed for the job and don't toot your horn about all those things they are not looking for. :)"

Lying on a job application will get you fired or worse.

If I have to fill out an application for working at Harris Teeter because I'm afraid of mooching off of everyone while I'm out of work, Harris Teeter probably isn't going to hire me if I have to write IBM or some other tech company on my application. Since they'd assume I'm still looking for another job in my career field and not looking to stay at a grocery store.

Heavenly, I've heard that advice too about falsifying resumes.

In the first place, it's not always possible. How does an ex-IT pro lie and say she was a secretary? Because contrary to the myths here, not everyone thinks they're too good to take a 75% step down in pay.

In the second place, let's say you hand in your printed lie. But then you have to fill out the application truthfully and attest to same with your signature. Employers, bosses, dates, DUTIES and SALARY will be required information.

Remember, you WILL be found out; it's not like 20 yrs ago when you could fudge and not get caught because there was no Internet to speak of.

You never hear from them again or you're fired for cause (lying on application), leaving you worse off than before because now you've been fired (forget about another job for a looooong time) and you can't collect UE.

"Bill sponsor Rep. Julia Howard rebuffed each attempt to change the bill, saying that the issue comes down to allowing employers to use their money to create jobs or having them pay taxes with it."

I'm confused (and I'm not being sarcastic, I really have a question): I thought employers paid for unemployment through payroll taxes, in effect forward-funding unemployment. Don't the feds chip in with funding as well?

"Ignorance is" - lessismore

And btw Junkmail, your handle is so very appropriate to your posts.

junkmail, you are not always the authority on everything like you try to convince this blog. I know for a FACT the phone is paid for in full by the government. Like I said, I personally know people who have them so try again!

smcallah: Actually you can stick it to the system. Ex quit job, hired at new place, was on his 3rd write up for bad behavior, quit, got new job, got dui, lost new job, got hired at security company got fire, COLLECTED 500 a week?

I lived it, so that is utter bs. And if they don't get U/E they are directed to go for the disability benefits. It's a system that is enabling the takers, and we are running out of givers.

"Make up what difference? They are getting a check for not working. You really should get a grip on reality"

No they are getting check because they have unemployment insurance as part of their former job. Can I come burn your house down and then complain when you get a check to rebuild?????

and a check that is not far off minimum wage is going to encourage many not to get a job if they could? Talk about needing a grip on reality!

Grand Union: hey troll. U/E is a TEMPORARY situation, I'd say 2+ years is plenty of time. North Dakota is booming. Sometimes you have to make drastic changes and quit expecting the everyone to carry your load.

"The truth is, there are plenty of jobs out there...but they are jobs that people don't want to do.

Also, if I were a hiring manager I WOULD NOT HIRE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN SITTING ON THEIR HANDS FOR 3 MONTHS!!"

I think we have found part of the problem. What a poor attitude to have towards someone lookign for work.

And you can safely say who is and isn't "sitting on their hands for 3 months"? I can only hope that someone with your kind of attitude is NEVER put in charge of hiring ANYBODY. I wouldn't even want you buying paperclips with that chip on your shoulder.

Time for reasonable people to pay the bills left over from democrats who failed the people of this state.

harmstrong4 Your Medicare increase does not pay for anything but for you and others to be able to have Medicare. If the GOP had their way, you wouldn't even have that or social security.

Typical of this site. We owe uncle $2.5B and responsible people are trying to fix the mess- gmschfc

The "mess" and that 2.5B is because the tax on employers wasn't high enough, so there wasn't enough in the UE fund to cover everyone when the economy tanked.

It seems like the fairest solution would be to get the employers to cover the shortfall since they were underpaying for years.

Instead, the employer "cost" went up by... $21... a year.

And benefits to future laid off workers are being cut by almost $200... a week.

Somehow that's fair?

What is this drivel about a 'balanced approach'? Just because we cut x doesn't mean we need to add x. We are so far out of wack that we need to cut x+n and add x. That is intended to get us balanced again. Any politician that condones a 'balanced approach' has no creditability, including the current white house occupant.

pedsrndad UE benefits have always had a limit on the amount of time benefits can be received. I think the issue is with the scarcity of jobs, uncertainty, slow but steady recovery- this does not seem the right time for this drastic cut in benefits. The Republican NC Legislature really does not care and I think that is evident in the way they have handled this. If only some compromise could have been made. To drop the maximum amount that much and to cut the length of time benefits can be receive is a little much. It shows that this Legislature is full of themselves. They ran promising to create jobs but instead they are causing more devastation. When are they (meaning this NC Legislature) going to focus on creating jobs so that people on UE will have some opportunities. More devastation during a time of economic crisis only creates more crime, frustation, and distress among the citizens. But of course all the NC House cares about is their rich friends and themselves.

"Just remember: All those UNEMPLOYED republican voters voted to put in a republican controlled congress."

Because some of us think of what's good for the country FIRST, then think what benefits us personally. That's the difference between Reps and Dems.

I predict this will come back to bite the GOP bigtime. They should have taken a little more time and put a graduated system into place which would reduce a persons benefits over the period of weeks for which they filed for unemployment. Legislative pandering as usual.

Heavenly: Actually that is a fact, the Obama phone. Phones are given out to those on the system for foodstamps and welfare checks that meet certain requirements (which I will not go into as you can pull up the local Social Services website and see for yourself) so FourAutumn, you need to do your research before you jump into the deep part of the water. And yes, I know this for a fact because I know people who actually have the phones. No hearsay, no blog talk, fact.

Me: This program has been around since Reagan and extended to mobile phones under Bush.

The only reason it's called the "Obama phone" is because of one ignorant person on youtube calling it such.

The myth that he started the program is just that; a myth.

How about we cut your soc sec and medicare by 1/3? And as you apparently don't know, Obama takes much less vacation than did W.

Grand Union

That's a line of you know what. He took WORKING vacations at his ranch. Not jetting off to Hawaii on the taxpayers dollars. Flying a separate jet for his dog and Bo.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
<prev    next>
sort order: oldest first | newest first

Political Video Picks

 
  • Both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, but House Republicans do not agree with all of the proposals put forward by…

  • President Barack Obama addresses the United States drone program and Guantanamo Bay prison in a national security speech from the…

  • President Barack Obama on Thursday defended America's controversial drone attacks as legal, effective and a necessary linchpin in an…

  • The N.C. Senate holds its final vote on its $20.6 billion state budget proposal for 2013-14.

  • Gov. Pat McCrory and Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane on Thursday asked the General Assembly to give the city and state about 10 months…

  • Gov. Pat McCrory and Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane discuss the efforts of the North Carolina General Assembly to rewrite legislation…