Representative Peterson told the Public Insurance and Pensions Committee that House Bill 321 aims to extend the solvency of Ohio’s Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund by raising the taxable wage base and creating a new employee participation charge that would apply only when workers are employed by negatively rated employers.

“Unemployment compensation has to be gotten right because we do not want a system that overcharges employers…we also need to provide the assistance that individuals who work in the state lose their jobs and are unemployed through no fault of their own,” Representative Peterson said in sponsor testimony.

The bill’s two principal elements, as described to the committee, are: restoring the taxable wage base to $9,500 (it reverted from $9,500 back to $9,000 after a brief earlier increase) and creating an employer contribution fund that collects 0.14% of an employee’s wages when that employee works for a negative-rated employer. Testimony presented a modeling chart saying the taxable wage-base change would raise roughly $23,800,000 annually and the targeted employee contribution would raise about $25,200,000 annually.

Business witnesses and building-trades representatives debated additional options to secure long-term solvency. Kevin Schimpf, testifying for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, urged aligning employer taxes more closely with experience ratings, said 13 of Ohio’s 40 rate brackets are negatively rated and suggested further employer-side increases and benefit reforms. “We believe this approach is suitable since it places more of the burden to finance the system on those who utilize it the most,” Schimpf said.

Matt Salazzi of ACT Ohio (building trades) said the construction industry depends on the existing 26-week benefit period and cautioned that cutting weeks would harm seasonal workers and apprentices. Salazzi told the committee that apprenticeships and safety training require substantial private investment by contractors and that construction workers often exhaust benefits only at lower rates than in many other states. He characterized the solvency problem as fundamentally about revenue and urged balanced solutions that do not “disproportionately hurt” workers when downturns occur.

Witnesses and legislators discussed additional reform choices offered in modeling runs: higher employer contributions targeted at negative-rated employers, reductions in the number of benefit weeks (proposals modeled at 20 weeks), and indexing the taxable wage base to inflation. Business witnesses said a combination of employer-side increases and benefit-week reductions could yield larger, longer-lasting solvency gains; one business model presented to the committee estimated reforms producing roughly $220,000,000 in additional annual revenue paired with about $180,000,000 in reduced benefit payouts and projected solvency through at least 2036.

Committee members asked for comparative data about other states (most states keep a 26-week standard and fund solvency often relies on higher wage bases or higher taxes), how an employee charge would be collected, and how seasonal industries would be affected. Representatives asked whether automatic indexing of the wage base was appropriate; business witnesses warned that automatic escalators can produce large, hard-to-control cost increases, while labor witnesses warned that cuts to weeks would be painful in a sharp downturn.

No formal votes were taken. Committee leaders said they expect more testimony in coming hearings, including additional data from the Department of Job and Family Services and further stakeholder proposals.