HB 1932 -- EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

SPONSOR:  George

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Labor by a
vote of 9 to 6.

This bill makes several changes to the employment security laws.
In its main provisions, the bill:

(1)  Revises the calculation for the state taxable wage base for
year 2003 and thereafter;

(2)  Provides that "employer" includes Indian tribes for which
service in employment is performed and requires Indian tribe
employers to contribute to the Unemployment Compensation Trust
Fund;

(3)  Changes the maximum weekly benefit amount for year 2003 and
thereafter;

(4)  Revises the calculation of partial benefits claimed after
year 2002;

(5)  Changes the basis for determining industrial classification
divisions for purposes of calculating employer contributions for
unemployment insurance from the Standard Industrial
Classification manual to the industrial classification system
established by the federal government;

(6)  Recalculates the contribution rate of a successor employer
when there is a difference in rates between the predecessor and
successor employers; and

(7)  Revises the method for determining the annual contribution
rate adjustment.

The bill has an emergency clause.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Net Cost to General Revenue Fund of
$409,649 in FY 2003, $843,877 in FY 2004, and $869,193 in FY
2005.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the insolvency of the
Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund is imminent and immediate
action must be taken.  The state would be forced to borrow and
pay interest on money from the federal government.  The bill will
allow the fund to rise to the $900 million that is recommended by
the federal government and avoid the need to borrow in large
sums.

Testifying for the bill were Representative George; Division of
Employment Security (Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations); John Dial; George K. Baum and Company; and Missouri
AFL-CIO.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that they need to look
to management reforms; not enough people are being put back to
work; drug users and workers fired for misconduct are getting
benefits; benefit levels need to be addressed; and the bill puts
too much of a tax burden on employers.

Testifying against the bill was Representative Burton; Associated
Industries of Missouri; Missouri Chamber of Commerce; Associated
General Contractors of Missouri; and National Federation of
Independent Business.

Mark Pioli, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
Last Updated October 11, 2002 at 9:03 am