Committee hears testimony on House Bill 3 21 to bolster Ohio unemployment fund

At a meeting of the Ohio House Public Insurance and Pensions Committee, witnesses representing labor, policy groups and construction interests testified on House Bill 3 21, a package of changes intended to strengthen Ohio's unemployment compensation (UC) trust fund.

Policy and labor witnesses told the committee the state's UC tax base and rate structure have left the system underfunded; construction-industry witnesses warned that some proposed fixes could unduly harm employers that rely on seasonal layoffs.

Bailey Sandin, working wages fellow at Policy Matters Ohio, told the committee that Ohio’s taxable wage base has been stuck at $9,000 for roughly 30 years and that the bill’s proposed rise to $9,500 is “way too low.” Sandin said, “The solution to Ohio's under financing of the system lies heavily in modernizing our tax system.” She also said Ohio’s eligibility rules are stringent: a worker must earn an average of about $338 per week across at least 20 weeks to qualify, and that “hundreds of thousands of Ohio workers will never be eligible for benefits if they are laid off.”

Construction-industry witnesses described the sector’s seasonal and weather-dependent work patterns and urged lawmakers to account for that when considering solvency measures. Chris Runyon, president of the Ohio Contractors Association, said unemployment benefits “are a bridge to keep the individual engaged in this career so that they can pay the bills until the next season begins.” Andrea Ashley, with the Associated General Contractors of Ohio, warned that changes that raise costs for in-state contractors could make them less competitive with firms across state borders and harm recruitment and retention.

Matt Smith, legislative director for the Ohio AFL-CIO, emphasized employers’ role in financing and urged against cutting benefit weeks. “There is simply no reason to cut weeks here,” Smith said, noting that Ohio workers receive benefits for an average 13.8 weeks per claim, below the national average of 15.3 weeks, and that only about 25.7% of claimants exhaust the full 26 weeks of benefits.

Witnesses and lawmakers discussed several specific data points cited in testimony: Sandin said the average annualized UC benefit in Ohio would amount to $25,428; that only about 21.1% of unemployed Ohioans receive benefits; and that roughly 44,000 employers last year did not provide the information needed to receive experience ratings and were charged penalty rates. Sandin and Smith both proposed modernizing the taxable wage base (citing a national average above $16,000) and indexing it to inflation. Sandin also criticized certain accounting choices, saying some federal ARPA funds were put into the mutualized account on a bookkeeping basis, and called out a calculation the witness described as perversely reducing tax rates when experience ratings increase.

On employee-side contributions, witnesses differed on design. Sandin and Smith said an employee contribution can be part of a balanced solvency package if contributors are made eligible for benefits and the broader shortcomings in employer taxation are fixed. Runyon and AGC witnesses said industry would accept additional employer contributions but cautioned about the impact on large contractors, where some proposals could amount to “half a million dollars or more in a single year” for large firms.

Committee members pressed witnesses on workforce and eligibility trade-offs. Representative Bridal and others noted that many low-wage or part‑time workers pay into the system but cannot qualify under current rules; Sandin and Smith urged eligibility reforms so contributing workers can access benefits. Lawmakers also questioned whether reducing the weeks of benefits would speed re‑employment; witnesses replied that most claimants return to work before exhausting benefits and that the 26‑week standard remains common among neighboring states.

No formal votes or committee actions were recorded during the hearing. Committee members and witnesses said stakeholder work on solvency scenarios is ongoing and more data and modeling from the Department of Job and Family Services will inform further debate.

The committee did not act on House Bill 3 21 at the hearing; members invited additional written comments and stakeholder follow-up and adjourned.