Latest Headlines
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To Prison For Drug Possession, Evidence Tampering, Fleeing
- A Warming Trend To Begin Thanksgiving Week
- Central High Cheerleaders Perform At Halftime Of Alabama Game
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
- Hundreds Of Families Receive Thanksgiving Meal During Food Distribution
- Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
- Escambia County Corrections Welcomes 12 New Officer Trainees
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Food Distribution Held Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
- Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
House Committee Approves Cuts In Jobless Benefits
February 11, 2011
A business-friendly unemployment compensation measure similar to a proposal by Gov. Rick Scott was approved Thursday by a House committee, promising lower taxes on employers a shorter payout period, and new requirements for workers seeking job benefits.
The plan also makes it easier for employers to fire workers for actions that take place outside the workplace, an expansion that some lawmakers argued would give bosses too much discretion in the lives of workers after hours.
Following testimony from business groups and unemployed workers who traveled from Miami, the House Economic Development and Tourism Subcommittee voted 7 to 4 for a jobless benefits proposal expected to be fast tracked in both chambers.
Lawmakers are responding to demands by businesses that saw their unemployment tax rates jump in January in response to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Mirroring a proposal unveiled by Scott earlier in the week, the House plan reduces the duration of state benefits from 26 to 20 weeks while maintaining the current maximum payout of $275 a week.
“We all know in an economy like this how important unemployment compensation is,” said subcommittee chairman Rep. Doug Holder, R-Sarasota. “We know how our state is struggling and this (bill), quite frankly, represents the state’s position on maintaining and expanding a business-friendly environment.”
Critics, some of them currently out of work, said the bill focuses too heavily on trying to make it harder for workers to collect benefits and not the underlying causes of unemployment.
“We’re concerned that the tone (of debate) seems to blame unemployed workers for the high unemployment in this state,” said Karen Woodall, an advocate for the unemployed, who noted the state has lost 900,000 jobs over the past year. “We hope we can redirect the conversation.”
Like Scott’s proposal released earlier in the week, the House plan would tie the duration of future benefits to the state’s unemployment rate, in addition to shortening the overall length of time benefits would be paid.
The bill would ratchet down the length of time a worker could receive an unemployment check as the economy improved, reaching a maximum 12 weeks if unemployment hit 5 percent or less.
The House bill would also allow employers to fire workers for actions outside the workplace if such actions became a detriment to their duties on the job. Business representatives said the provision is needed to make it harder for workers to take advantage of the system.
“The goal is to make employment pay, not make unemployment pay,” said David Daniel, a lobbyist representing the Florida Association of Professional Employer Organizations, a group of employee leasing companies.
The state owes the federal government $2 billion after a prolonged recession exhausted the state trust fund set up to pay claims.
Earlier Thursday, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, said the issue remains in flux. The only given is that the Senate won’t raise taxes.
“This is what we’re going to go through for the next 90 days,” Haridopolos told reporters. “The governor has a plan. We’re still working on ours. We just don’t have a good enough plan for me to comment on.”
Comments
16 Responses to “House Committee Approves Cuts In Jobless Benefits”
No where did I state that “unions caused Steak and Ale” to fold. Their business model collapsed as the economy tanked.
If you want business statistics, go to the SBA (Small Business Administration) website, and go to the BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) website – BEA is more macro economics, while SBA focuses on Small Business. Or just read the WSJ & Financial Times.
As I said, Liberals always go for the cheap dig, and you assume that I’m embarrassed, another dig? One can’t help but think so.
Tut, tut. Mind your manners, young lady.
Liberals lie, and accuse others of things they themselves are most guilty of doing, and being. And the Illiterates follow.
Old Soldier…sorry,sport. I’m not a liberal, I just think it’s a good idea to define your sources when you make such broad statements. One of the issues we face in our political discourse in this country is we try to slap labels on anyone who questions “the truth” or anyone who disagrees with us. Capisce?
Maybe you could help me out by citing a more defined source than “the internet” to get information on how “the unions’ drove Steak and Ale out of business.
And my question was about your statement “And sadly, more are folding rather than moving – there’s a cost associated with that too.” I simply asked your source for that. I apologize if I embarrassed you.
So far as it goes, I gotta line up with David when he pointed out that you stated S&A had a faulty business model. True. I agree and you first said it. So there we are in agreement.There are a lot of other eateries that came along and are still around, though they had to put up with the same business climate as S&A.
REGARDING:
“their business model collapsed under the weight of cost(labor being chief in that), compliance costs, and mismanagement. Then the main business failed to inform their employees that they were in bankruptcy proceedings (not necessarily illegal, just shifty, breaks the social contract”
They had a faulty business model.
Labor cost money. It has ever since that pesky 13th amendment was enacted. (Actually, it cost before that but folks tended to not recognize the associated costs of slavery.) So if they could come up with a way to provide service without people, they could avoid that onerous cost. Rossum’s Universal Robots also had some unforseen costs and they don’t exist, so most businesses are going to have to continue to pay employees. One telling point, though, is that other businesses pay workers and still stay in business.
Compliance costs can include things like keeping rats out of the food, cleaning the toilets every now and then, avoiding things which will kill employees and customers. Again, others manage.
Mismanagement is left. Dilbert implies there is quite a bit of it out there and it is likely to bring down any business where it rules. One big problem lies in not attracting enough customers to make money. Maybe their main problem was that somebody else did a better job of getting customers.
David for Burger King
and Chin’s
and King’s
and Subway
and Food Giant
Look up the litigation regarding “Steak and Ale” and their parent company. It’s widely available on the web. Same for business failures – try SBA, and BEA (real eye-openers there).
In their case, their business model collapsed under the weight of cost(labor being chief in that), compliance costs, and mismanagement. Then the main business failed to inform their employees that they were in bankruptcy proceedings (not necessarily illegal, just shifty, breaks the social contract) though they were obligated to inform their lenders, and business associates. A young family member was a casualty in this. It was very sad and frustrating.
As for me (and your inference that I’m on the “dole” – liberals always go for the cheap dig don’t they?), I have small business holdings and live within my means. I am not beholden to a government hand-out and seriously doubt that I will ever draw money from the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, I’ve earned every dollar that I’ve ever spent, and have ensured that I will continue to do so as long as I live. Capisci?
Simple solution to grow business – reduce business costs (taxes/regulations) and businesses will start, and sometimes grow if they have a market.
Government stands in the way of much of our business success.
Don’t buy into the Liberal Lies.
Old Soldier…can you cite the sources that say more companies are folding than are leaving? As to what happened to Steak and Ale….what source can you cite that says the closed up because of unions and a government mandated minimum wage?
Not just “I believe” or I’m pretty sure. Actual sources that didn’t come from your next door neighbor or “a man at the hardware store, I can’t remember his name”?
Sounds like you may be on a government program?
One of the main reasons that American Business “exports jobs” is a simple one – the cost of doing business here is too high. Taxes, Litigation, Licensing Fees, Other Government Fees, OSHA, FDA, EPA, SBA, and any number of other State and Government Agencies piled on to that. Then you have the government mandated minimum wage, Social Security, Health-care cost, etc. Then factor in unionization which historically drives cost to manufacture up, and quality down (Think GM, American Motors, etc) and consumers that try to buy best quality at the lowest price point.
Then there’s unrestrained foreign competition (think China, Ins here)…an active undercutting of American Business at every level. Where’s those “green jobs”? Try looking where those green light bulbs are made, it’s on the package.
Want jobs to come back to America? Try reducing Corporate Taxes, and all the other associated costs of Government.
Business exist to make a profit.
If the profit will increase with a company remaining in the USA, then the business decision will be to STAY. If the costs are too high – they will either go, or fold. And sadly, more are folding rather than moving – there’s a cost associated with that too.Some are choosing just to close their doors and turn out their lights.
Whatever happened to “Steak and Ale”? One day they were open and running, and the next day, the employees arrived to locked doors and a note of apology from the local manager. Their last paychecks bounced.
Poly thinks we’ve been mis-understood. A business owner is SURELY NOT there to give out jobs.
The business owner will not have a business if NO ONE has any money to spend.
In any case if one uses capital letters it means they are shouting.
Shouting usually implies an in ability to make a salient point any other way, as does swearing.
So FYI I am all grown up, no you’re not my mother, (thank heaven) and I earned a four year scholarship and enrolled in college at the ripe age of 15. I currently havea good 40 years of employment history behind me. I might be wrong but all I see is the wealthy getting more and the people who are struggling becoming more disheartened everyday. America needs to change some things to save its self sending jobs overseas because the rich can make more money and cutting jobs to save money (so the rich can have more), providing welfare and other services to people who are not our citizens and handing out charity around the world would be good places to start, while we’re at it we could bring all our military home unless a country would like to PAY us for the service.
Charity starts at home.
LOL what I’d really like to know is what do THEY do with all that money?!?!?
And who are “THEY” anyways? Oh and
PS POUR MONEY INTO OUR SCHOOLS AND TEACHING SYSTEM
Our children are our future…….
Horrific
Business is started and run by supply and demand. There isn’t any demand for what one wants to sell if the PEOPLE don’t have any money! I have a job by the way although the supply and demand for my services is/are not consistent, and occassionally I must draw unemployment.. It doesn’t pay all the bills and if I didn’t set something aside for bad times I would surely falter financially. On the other hand , if you consider your employees as “some numbskull” instead of as part of the process for you to “sell your goods or services” then your theroy of how to run a business is crippled before you start. Furthermore unemployment benefits are only paid to those who have worked, it is the business owners responsibility to charge for his services appropriately to include the cost of paying into unemployment. Your employees are just like your tools, if you take good care of them they will work for you, if you don’t they won’t. Another thing to consider here is when you start a business you have an ethical responsibility to be a caretaker for ALL things concerned with your business and its surrounding community that you SERVE. ! ! !
Whats your tool box look like?
Good luck!
REGARDING:
“First off people don’t start businesses just so YOU have a job.
They start businesses because they don’t want to work for others”
Right on the first part, not quite right on the second part.
Many people have businesses in which they are the sole employee, so there is no question they are working for the client. The purpose of a business is to provide a certain service or product to others. Some provide many different services or products, but even then they tend to limit their offerings. They don’t just come to work and decide to do crop dusting today because they’re tired of making bobby pins from yesterday and will fish for salmon tomorrow. They tend to be more specialized.
Everybody works for somebody unless they’re spending what someone else gave them. Foundations can keep up children and grand children for a time but eventually the beneficiaries spend it all, get too numerous to benefit or die out, which is why the richest people in the country aren’t third generation richest people in the world. Even the foundations provide goods and services.
Anyhoo, businesses serve others. Steel mills meet the demands for steel for others. Orange growers meet the demand for oranges for others. House cleaners clean. Wal-Mart meets the demand for a central place to get all the things folks want. Truckers move goods from HERE to THERE. Even bosses and/or owners of Wal-Mart or the trucking companies, see to it that the needs are met by seeing to it the workers do the work.
Other than that minor point, I fully agree with your statement that they don’t exist simply to provide jobs to other people.
David considering
what would be a
proper social safety net
Poly
You are so wrong….. I don’t even know where to start.
First off people don’t start businesses just so YOU have a job.
They start businesses because they don’t want to work for others.
A good business goes by the law and hopes that if they have to
hire people they don’t get some numbskull that doesn’t really
want to work and thinks that the world including their boss owes
them a living.
JUST like WE don’t OWE a guy who won’t go out and get a job
ANYTHING. WE don’t want unemployment UPPED PERIOD!
GET A JOB, GET MORE EDUCATION …..GROW UP AND TAKE
CARE OF YOURSELF. I AM NOT YOUR MOMMA….DON’T COME
HOME TO ME.
IF THAT SOUNDS TOUGH…YOUR GOT THAT RIGHT…..GROWN UPS ARE
NOT BABIES ANYMORE.
I’m always surprised by many of the folks who comment on this forum and seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the issues involved. they just resort to the old knee jerk reactions and try to say something funny about serious issues.
As to the subject of unemployment, there are a lot of people out there who would love to find a job but cannot. If they can get a job the pay often is too little to make a living on. The gang who stands around and laughs at others misfortune should remember that they may be in the ranks of the unemployed one day. I worked for 30 years without a break until I lost my job.
I’m reminded of the poem attributed to Martin Niemoller, a German pastor, after WWII. He said:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Laugh it up, folks.
People would have jobs and work if businesses had the business to provide jobs. Maybe we should cut the businesses profit margin so they can keep the business and keep people employed. Maybe we should tax the business for lay offs! If people have money they spend it. If they spend money, businesses have business. Taking the money away from the people only makes it worse for the business. We should find ways to encourage the flow of money , not to stop it up so the rich just sit on what they have and things just get worse for the poor man. I say make umemployment more and encourage business to find other resolutions to this problem. Florida umemployment is not enough for anyone to live on anyway.
A person is given the option to draw their umemployment benefits from the state they worked in for that states rate or from the state they live in at that states rate and length of time. What happens is, if the man draws from Georgia , Georgia applies to Florida for the money owed to the man. Or the guy can just skip the middle man and apply straight to Florida.
People who think they should cut unemployment rates and duration should have to try to survive off of what they recommend, and see what its like!
Whats good for one is good for all…… or not huh?
Just had an individual move back to to Georgia after leaving my employment where he had previously lived. Went across the line into Florida and filed for benefits after setting up a new address. Reason being , he could get more money from Florida than Georgia. Goes to show you these people know how to use the system. Cut these benefits to a bare minium and lots of folks will go to work.
Get more agressive towards gaining employment?
LOL
Your right SW….WHAT WILL THE POOR PEOPLE DO NOW.
Oh my Oh my
Wow! They are really going to not pay people to not work? How novel!