House committee hears bill to disqualify jobless claimants who 'ghost' employers

LANSING — The House Committee on Economic Competitiveness on April 17 heard testimony on House Bill 4516, a proposal from Rep. Jason Wolford to amend the Michigan Employment Security Act to create a mechanism for employers to report applicants who “ghost” interviews or fail to show up for early days of work and to create a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits in such cases.

Supporters told the committee that Michigan’s UI system is 100% employer‑funded and that employers are frustrated because current enforcement tools do not let them report or prompt investigations into no‑shows. Representative Jason Wolford, the bill sponsor, said, “This is 100% employer funded system that should be focused on helping people get back to employment.” He told members the bill would make clear “that if a person ghost an employer, they will be disqualified from receiving UI benefits and allows the employer to report ghosting so that you and UIA can investigate the situation if necessary.”

Committee members heard organized testimony both for and against the bill. David Worthams, director of employment policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, told the panel employers have repeatedly reported scheduled interviews and job starts that applicants do not honor and urged the committee to close what he described as a reporting gap in the current system. Kelly Saunders of the Small Business Association of Michigan and Amanda Fisher of the National Federation of Independent Business also testified in favor, saying members lack a straightforward channel to notify the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) when job applicants or new hires do not show up.

Opponents warned the bill would impose new administrative burdens on an agency already struggling with timeliness and could impose overly punitive consequences on claimants. Alexa Tapia of the National Employment Law Project said the proposal would “cause a burden on the state agency and workers alike” and called it “overly punitive to workers.” Jacob Fahlman of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice said the measure would be “the harshest anti‑ghosting law in the country,” arguing other states limit disqualification to the week of a missed interview rather than applying broader retroactive disqualifications.

Key provisions discussed

- Employer reporting: The bill would direct UIA to modify MiWAM and its successor MyUI to allow employers to report missed interviews or missed days of work through a secure internet portal (testimony referenced a proposed section 32b for reporting). Supporters said the change would let UIA investigate apparent circumvention of work‑search rules.

- Rebuttable presumption: The proposal creates a rebuttable presumption that a claimant is ineligible for benefits if the individual either fails to show for a scheduled job interview or fails to show for work after obtaining a job. Supporters emphasized the presumption is rebuttable so claimants can present evidence of legitimate reasons (childcare, transportation) why they missed an interview or shift.

- Timing and thresholds: Sponsor testimony said an employer may notify the agency via a secure site; the bill ties a failure‑to‑appear disqualification to either (a) missing a scheduled interview or (b) failing to report to work for two consecutive days during the first 90 days of employment, with an expectation claimants have an opportunity to explain within that window.

Numbers and context presented to the committee

- UI fraud and fund history: Witnesses referenced large losses to the UI trust fund during the COVID period. Testimony cited the UI trust fund dropping from about $4–4.5 billion before the pandemic to under $797 million during the pandemic, and later restoration to roughly $3 billion (figures provided by industry witnesses). Some members cited UIA acknowledgements of billions in pandemic‑era fraud; witnesses discussed varying estimates when asked.

- Employer experience: The Small Business Association of Michigan task force reported ghosting as a leading concern; the association said roughly 35% of surveyed manufacturers reported having been ghosted (survey summary provided in testimony). NFIB and other business groups said Michigan currently has about 200,000 job openings and that many employers report difficulty filling roles.

- Claimant requirements: Committee members noted recent statutory changes: Representative Coffea and others reminded the panel that Public Act 238 (passed in the previous term) raised the claimant activity expectation from one work‑search activity per week to three activities per week; several questioners highlighted broadband, transportation, and childcare barriers that can prevent claimants from meeting work‑search obligations.

Points of disagreement

Supporters argued the bill fills an enforcement gap that currently prevents employers from flagging repeated no‑shows and alleged gaming of the system. Opponents argued the UIA already faces timeliness and staffing problems, that the proposal would add extensive fact‑finding responsibilities to the agency, and that the bill risks removing benefits from claimants who miss an interview for legitimate reasons.

Committee action and next steps

The committee received extensive testimony but did not take a recorded vote on House Bill 4516 during the hearing. Representatives and witnesses asked the sponsor and agency to refine implementation details — especially how employers would know an applicant is receiving UI benefits, how UIA would verify reports without misidentifying claimants, and how appeals would operate if claimants dispute employer reports. Several witnesses asked for further stakeholder discussion to resolve technical questions before committee action.

Ending note

Committee members thanked testifiers and read additional testimony and written positions into the record from business and labor organizations. No committee vote on the bill was recorded at the hearing; the committee adjourned after approving earlier minutes and excusing absent members by unanimous consent.