Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unemployment Insurance Penalty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would eliminate '8‑times' penalty for disqualified unemployment claimants while keeping requalification rule
Summary
At a Jan. 27 hearing the Oregon Employment Department and legal-aid advocates supported House Bill 3024, which would remove an eight-times reduction penalty that reduces a claimant’s maximum benefit after disqualification; the bill would retain the requirement that claimants requalify by earning four times their weekly benefit amount.
House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards members heard testimony Jan. 27 on House Bill 3024, which would remove the statutory penalty that reduces a requalified claimant's maximum unemployment benefit by eight times the weekly benefit amount.
"House Bill 3024 would eliminate the penalty while leaving in place the requirement to requalify," Lindsey Lakey, division director for Unemployment Insurance at the Oregon Employment Department, told the committee. Lakey described current practice: when a claimant is disqualified for cause (for example, quitting without good cause or being fired for misconduct), the claimant must requalify by earning four times their weekly benefit amount in subsequent employment. Under current law, once they requalify they face an "8 times" penalty that reduces their total available weeks of benefits; Lakey said the bill would remove that penalty but keep the requalification requirement.
Lindsey Lakey explained the penalty's practical effect: "Typically, this means that instead of 26 weeks of benefits to use in a 52 week period, the worker will only have 18 weeks... We refer to this as the 8 times penalty." She and other witnesses said the percentage of claimants who requalify and then claim benefits is relatively small and the department does not expect the change to meaningfully affect the unemployment trust fund or tax schedule forecasts. Lakey also said removing the penalty should speed adjudication and allow staff to devote time to other program work.
Committee members asked about program enforcement and work‑search audits. Lakey described that claimants must report weekly work‑search activity and that the department conducts audits and responds to tips and employer reports; she said random work‑search audits have been of limited value historically and that targeted tips or employer-provided lists are more productive.
Advocates from the Oregon Law Center supported the bill. "When people lose their jobs... it's usually because something is not going well," Bridget Budbell of the Oregon Law Center told the committee, arguing the penalty reduces an important safety net while offering little deterrent value.
A committee question prompted Lakey to state a funding fact: "Employees do not pay into unemployment insurance. It's completely funded by employer taxes." Chair Graber closed the hearing without a committee vote; a work session will be scheduled later in the session.
