The Best Fix for High Unemployment? Prevent Companies From Laying Off Workers

An innovative program tries to prevent joblessness by temporarily paying a portion of workers’ salaries at struggling companies.

Out-of-work Americans help one another scan job listings at a career center.
National Journal
Clare Foran
Add to Briefcase
Clare Foran
Jan. 9, 2014, 5 a.m.

This is the first in a weeklong series to ex­am­ine dif­fer­ent pro­grams around the coun­try that at­tempt to tackle the un­em­ploy­ment crisis and keep Amer­ic­ans con­nec­ted to the work­force.

In 2009, the head of the Quin­lan Com­pan­ies had a hard de­cision to make. The re­ces­sion had taken its toll on the Rhode Is­land-based re­cords-man­age­ment firm. Cus­tom­ers were can­celing con­tracts. Rev­en­ue was down. It looked like there would have to be lay­offs. Then, CEO Mike Cooley heard about “work share,” a pro­gram run by the state that offered a solu­tion.

“We cut back hours, and the state paid work­ers a per­cent­age of their lost wages. In the end, we didn’t have to lay off any em­ploy­ees. It helped us get back on our feet,” Cooley says.

Rhode Is­land’s work-share pro­gram has been op­er­at­ing since 1992. It’s de­signed to help busi­ness own­ers avoid lay­offs when times get tough and state of­fi­cials say it’s saved more than 15,000 jobs since the start of the re­ces­sion.

“Work share be­ne­fits both sides,” says Wayne Vro­man, a seni­or fel­low at the Urb­an In­sti­tute, a non­par­tis­an Wash­ing­ton think tank fo­cused on eco­nom­ic and so­cial policy re­search. “Em­ploy­ers get to re­tain skilled work­ers and at the same time work­ers aren’t get­ting laid off.”

Work share re­quires busi­ness own­ers to scale back hours for full-time em­ploy­ees by 10 to 50 per­cent. Em­ploy­ees can then earn un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits for the time they aren’t on the clock. This helps off­set lost wages, but work­ers can still ex­pect to feel the fin­an­cial pinch. (The com­bin­a­tion of reg­u­lar pay for hours worked and un­em­ploy­ment doled out for docked time adds up to roughly 91 per­cent of what an em­ploy­ee would nor­mally make.) Busi­nesses can par­ti­cip­ate in the pro­gram for up to three con­sec­ut­ive years. The only ex­cep­tion is sea­son­al busi­ness mod­els, which are not eli­gible.

Gary Me­lillo, an em­ploy­ee at Taco Inc., a man­u­fac­turer of heat­ing, vent­il­a­tion, and air-con­di­tion­ing sys­tems based in Cran­ston, R.I., was re­lieved when he found out his com­pany was go­ing to par­ti­cip­ate in work share.

“All I could think was, ‘Thank God we’re not go­ing to lose our jobs.’ I knew what the al­tern­at­ive would have been,” Me­lillo says. “You’re tak­ing a hit be­cause you don’t get the full pay that you would have been get­ting, but lay­offs would have been much worse.”

Rhode Is­land isn’t the only state with work share. Twenty-sev­en states and the Dis­trict of Columbia cur­rently run short-term com­pens­a­tion pro­grams, in­clud­ing Cali­for­nia, Col­or­ado, Flor­ida, Mary­land, New York, Ore­gon, Pennsylvania, and Wis­con­sin.

But the pro­gram has been uniquely suc­cess­ful in Rhode Is­land. The state has the highest rate of em­ploy­er par­ti­cip­a­tion re­l­at­ive to the size of its labor force. Just last year, 171 busi­ness own­ers en­rolled in the pro­gram, with an av­er­age length of par­ti­cip­a­tion of roughly 19 weeks.

Part of the reas­on the pro­gram has taken off is be­cause state of­fi­cials have pushed to ex­pand it to coun­ter­act dam­age done by the re­ces­sion. Un­em­ploy­ment rates in the Ocean State are per­sist­ently high­er than the na­tion­al av­er­age, com­ing in at 9.2 per­cent in Oc­to­ber while the na­tion­al rate re­gistered at 7.3 per­cent.

“The re­ces­sion star­ted earli­er here than it did in the rest of the coun­try and we were hit much harder than many places in the U.S.,” says Charles Fog­ar­ty, dir­ect­or of the state’s De­part­ment of Labor and Train­ing. Work share, Fog­ar­ty says, has been one of the few bright spots in the eco­nomy.

“In the four years pri­or to 2011, Rhode Is­land lost 40,000 jobs. If we hadn’t had work share in place, we would have lost an­oth­er 15,000. That would have been ab­so­lutely dev­ast­at­ing,” Fog­ar­ty says.

The pro­gram has its pit­falls, however, and it won’t solve every un­em­ploy­ment prob­lem. Some eco­nom­ists warn that work share could ar­ti­fi­cially prop up fail­ing com­pan­ies. Busi­ness own­ers could also try to game the sys­tem by un­duly be­ne­fit­ing from the pro­gram. State of­fi­cials say they mon­it­or par­ti­cipants closely to pre­vent this from hap­pen­ing.

Then there’s the ques­tion of cost. In 2012, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment passed le­gis­la­tion aimed at bol­ster­ing work share pro­grams across the U.S. The biggest in­cent­ive offered up was fed­er­al re­im­burse­ment for the draw­down in state un­em­ploy­ment trust funds. Rhode Is­land qual­i­fied for 100 per­cent re­im­burse­ment un­der the law. But fed­er­al fund­ing won’t last forever. It’s set to sun­set in 2015 and aus­ter­ity meas­ures have already star­ted to chip away at na­tion­al as­sist­ance for the pro­gram.

Des­pite these chal­lenges, pro­gram ad­min­is­trat­ors say work share con­tin­ues to play a crit­ic­al role in buoy­ing the state’s eco­nomy. “We’re do­ing bet­ter and re­cov­ery is un­der way, but we’ve lagged be­hind the rest of the na­tion quite a bit,” says Laura Hart, the former com­mu­nic­a­tions ad­min­is­trat­or for the state De­part­ment of Labor and Train­ing. “That’s why work share is so im­port­ant right now. It provides job se­cur­ity in what’s still something of an un­cer­tain time.”

What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
2 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
2 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login