Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
November 13, 1959
Toledo Union Journal
Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio
What is this article about?
Editorial condemns Ohio Chamber of Commerce and OMA for planning legal challenge to retroactive unemployment benefit increases under new Ohio law effective Oct. 15, citing specific authorization in the law and past Scrooge-like behavior. (187 characters)
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
True To Form!
FOLLOWING their usual practice of opposing benefits for workers, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and Ohio Manufacturers Association (OMA) have let it be known they may take action against a section of the new unemployment compensation law.
The new law, which went into effect Oct. 15, increases the basic weekly maximum from $33 to $42 and hikes the dependency allowances from the old $3 a week for each of two children to $5 a week for a dependent spouse or the first dependent child, and $3 a week for two other dependents.
If the Ohio Chamber and OMA do go to court they will attempt to block payments of the higher benefits to people who were already receiving benefits when the new law went into effect. They will not raise any question about higher compensation for workers who are laid off after the effective date of the new law, Oct. 16.
Why are the Chamber and OMA thinking about such an action? Is it because they believe the worker who was laid off before Oct. 16 doesn't need the additional compensation? Or is it because they want to save their members a few more dollars?
Anyone who has watched the Scrooge-like activities of the two groups over the years, knows the answer.
We believe the Chamber and OMA are whistling past the courthouse and that their threatened court action does not raise a serious legal threat.
The two groups base their possible action on a 1950 ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court that held the Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Unemployment Compensation could not award higher benefits to workers already drawing compensation when a 1949 law boosting benefits went into effect.
It should be noted, however, that at that time the Legislature failed to specifically authorize the Administrator to recompute benefits for workers already idle.
The new law contains that specific authorization!
The Chamber and OMA are not only wrong legally, they are wrong morally!
(See story, "Courts May Decide," Page 1)
FOLLOWING their usual practice of opposing benefits for workers, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and Ohio Manufacturers Association (OMA) have let it be known they may take action against a section of the new unemployment compensation law.
The new law, which went into effect Oct. 15, increases the basic weekly maximum from $33 to $42 and hikes the dependency allowances from the old $3 a week for each of two children to $5 a week for a dependent spouse or the first dependent child, and $3 a week for two other dependents.
If the Ohio Chamber and OMA do go to court they will attempt to block payments of the higher benefits to people who were already receiving benefits when the new law went into effect. They will not raise any question about higher compensation for workers who are laid off after the effective date of the new law, Oct. 16.
Why are the Chamber and OMA thinking about such an action? Is it because they believe the worker who was laid off before Oct. 16 doesn't need the additional compensation? Or is it because they want to save their members a few more dollars?
Anyone who has watched the Scrooge-like activities of the two groups over the years, knows the answer.
We believe the Chamber and OMA are whistling past the courthouse and that their threatened court action does not raise a serious legal threat.
The two groups base their possible action on a 1950 ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court that held the Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Unemployment Compensation could not award higher benefits to workers already drawing compensation when a 1949 law boosting benefits went into effect.
It should be noted, however, that at that time the Legislature failed to specifically authorize the Administrator to recompute benefits for workers already idle.
The new law contains that specific authorization!
The Chamber and OMA are not only wrong legally, they are wrong morally!
(See story, "Courts May Decide," Page 1)
What sub-type of article is it?
Labor
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
Unemployment Compensation
Labor Benefits
Ohio Chamber
Oma
Court Challenge
Worker Compensation
What entities or persons were involved?
Ohio Chamber Of Commerce
Ohio Manufacturers Association (Oma)
Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio Bureau Of Unemployment Compensation
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Opposition To Increased Unemployment Benefits By Business Groups
Stance / Tone
Critical Of Ohio Chamber And Oma, Supportive Of New Law
Key Figures
Ohio Chamber Of Commerce
Ohio Manufacturers Association (Oma)
Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio Bureau Of Unemployment Compensation
Key Arguments
Business Groups Threaten Court Action Against Retroactive Higher Unemployment Benefits
New Law Increases Weekly Maximum From $33 To $42 And Adjusts Dependency Allowances
1950 Supreme Court Ruling Limited Retroactive Benefits Due To Lack Of Authorization
Current Law Specifically Authorizes Recomputation Of Benefits For Existing Recipients
Action Is Legally Unfounded And Morally Wrong