THE HILL
 

Dems push plan to subsidize lost hours

By Walter Alarkon - 11/16/09 06:00 AM ET

Senate Democrats crafting a job creation bill are considering a proposal to give money to workers who cut their hours in order to avoid layoffs.

A bill sponsored by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) would give unemployment compensation to employees who accept a reduced work schedule to allow their companies to avert layoffs or to hire more employees. Reed's proposal for work-sharing was mentioned during the Senate Democrats' lunch Tuesday, when Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) announced that an initiative focusing on jobs would soon be a priority, Reed's office said.

Democratic Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Paul Kirk (Mass.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.) have signed on as co-sponsors.

Reed's plan calls for up to $600 million for the program, which would last for up to two years. Rhode Island and 16 other states already have their own work share programs, which have saved more than 146,000 jobs this year so far, according to the Labor Department. Reed's bill would provide funding for existing work share programs and grants for states that have yet to start them. If all 50 states participated in work share programs, between 400,000 and 500,000 jobs a year could be saved, according to Reed's office.

“Work share programs provide businesses with the flexibility to reduce hours instead of cutting jobs,” Reed said in a statement. “This plan will help prevent layoffs, make businesses more productive, and save taxpayers money by keeping people on payrolls and off unemployment benefits."

A federal work-sharing program is one of several proposals likely to be considered by Democrats as part of a new jobs bill. Reid's announcement Tuesday that he is looking at ways to boost job creation came on the heels of the October jobs report, which showed the unemployment rate hitting double digits for the first time since 1983. President Barack Obama is making his own jobs push, announcing this week that he will convene a jobs summit next month.

The renewed focus on jobs reflects concern among Democrats about a jobless economic recovery. Though the U.S. economy began growing again in the third quarter, White House and independent economists expect the unemployment rate to remain above 10 percent into next year. The Obama administration's own projections expect the jobless rate to average more than 9 percent for 2010 and more than 8 percent for 2011.

Reid hasn't tipped his hand on what the coming legislation will include. Labor unions have called for more aid to states to help prevent cutbacks of public employees, loans for small businesses and more investment in infrastructure projects.

Republicans have attacked the Democratic approach to restarting the economy, noting that the centerpiece has been the $787 billion stimulus. Though independent economists said the stimulus has created about 1 million jobs, Republicans have used the persistent high unemployment rate and the record $1.4 trillion 2009 deficit to attack Democrats' economic policy.

Republicans will be eager to paint any new Democratic legislation as more spending.

"The best unemployment program is a job and Republicans believe it's time to start giving American businesses the opportunity to create more, but if Democrats continue to hinder economic growth with their reckless tax and spend approach, nobody's gonna be headed back to work anytime soon," the aide said.

But a federal work-share program is winning some support from nonpartisans.

Prominent economists pushing the work-share idea include Mark Zandi, an economic advisor to Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign who also advises Democrats.  Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, and Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist. Krugman touted the benefits in his column Friday, noting that German's work-share program has helped drive down its unemployment rate, which has gone from about 9 percent last year to less than 8 percent in October.

Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, said that increased small business loans and more work-share programs could be an economical way to create more jobs. Zandi told the Joint Economic Committee last month that expanding work share to all 50 states would cost less than $2 billion and would provide more "bang for the buck" than unemployment insurance extensions. Congress passed and Obama signed last week a extension of unemployment benefits that cost $2.4 billion.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/67841-senators-push-proposal-to-subsidize-lost-hours

Comments (24)

Can anyone say another attempt to change the standard 40 hour work week? And by the way, employers pay for unemployment each pay period through their payroll tax. How then will there be savings on the amount paid out for unemployment?BY Wiliam on 11/16/2009 at 07:22
"Republicans will be eager to paint any new Democratic legislation as more spending.""Paint"?BY LukeTheDrifter on 11/16/2009 at 07:42
Could it help reduce the number of foreclosures? People that haven't gotten a raise in years and just make it from month to month can not afford to lose a days pay every week. For that matter maybe not even one days pay. If their income goes down and it is a choice between eating and paying the mortgage. Ooops. Given some help for circumstances beyond their control could mean the difference between being able to continue to do what they have always done (pay their mortgage) and being removed from their homes. I say it beats sending the billions that we would have sent to Chicago for the Olympics and that we will probably be sending to Chicago anyway for housing the Gitmo prisoners. Leave the terrorists in Gitmo and help hard working Americans stay afloat.BY tiredofit on 11/16/2009 at 08:18
Give money to people who already have jobs…brillian t. But, hey, the country is already bankrupt and heading towards irreparable insolvency. Might as well accelerate the process.BY Ben Richards on 11/16/2009 at 08:22
A total disgrace! Let`s pay people not to work.Don`t worry about staggering deficits,a plunging dollar,a failed stimulus or a sane fiscal policy.I can`t wait until the next election…these politicians will pay a severe price.BY bjcass on 11/16/2009 at 08:40
The "gubmint" creates layoffs and unemployment. Then they decide to pay people for not working (OK - so they've been doing that for years). Pretty soon no one will be working and the government will be paying everyone. Wait - where will the money come from to begin with? Complete Dimwits!BY Sa Dog on 11/16/2009 at 08:49
Yeah sure. Take more of my money - that I earned (and by the way - no raises last year, and probably not this year either) and give unemployment checks to others. ARRRRRRRRGH!!!! STOP THE SPENDING!!!BY Darroby85 on 11/16/2009 at 10:13
This is a good argument for term limits…obviousl y these legislators have no idea how the real world works…they are too far away from the people…secluded in their ivory towers…sitting next to the money trees…drinking kool-aid!!!! Oh to be so lucky!!!! Total disconnect from where the money they are spending actually comes from…sounds like teenagers with Dad's credit cards doesn't it?BY Texas Mom on 11/16/2009 at 10:25
Or would this be a way to get more businesses under the Pay Czar? You took our 'subsidy' so that you would not have to lay off workers…so now let us look at your pay structure…oh…look at this …the PC (pay czar) thinks the owners and management of all of these companies need to be overseen and adjusted…this may be another foot in the door to 'take over' more private businesses. Can we all say it together - REDISTRIBUTION! BY Texas Mom on 11/16/2009 at 10:53
Insane… Totally crap weasel insane. But look again at the co-sponsors. Nuff said.BY Temujin on 11/16/2009 at 11:41

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.