Bill would let Michigan employers report job 'ghosting' and trigger rebuttable disqualification from UI benefits, sponsors say

At a hearing of the House Committee on Economic Competitiveness, Representative Jason Wolford introduced House Bill 4516, saying the measure would amend the Michigan Employment Security Act to disqualify claimants who "ghost" employers — fail to appear for scheduled job interviews or fail to show for work after accepting a job — and to create a way for employers to report such incidents to the Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA).

"Our unemployment insurance system is, not supported by state general funds. This is 100% employer funded system that should be focused on helping people get back to employment," Representative Jason Wolford said. "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."

Supporters from business groups told the committee the change would close an enforcement gap. David Worthams, director of employment policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said employers lack a reliable channel to notify UIA when applicants or newly hired workers do not show up after accepting work. "There is no way to communicate a potential scam to UIA today, and that is what the bill attempts to do," Worthams said.

Kelly Saunders, vice president of policy and engagement at the Small Business Association of Michigan, said members have repeatedly reported no-shows and that a 2023 SBAM task force recommended the UIA create a mechanism to share no-show and offer-refusal data. "The number 1 recommendation back in 2023 and still to this day is that the UIA create the ability to share when applicants no show or refuse offers to ensure accountability related to work search and work availability requirements," Saunders said.

Sponsor and supporters described key features in the bill: employers would be able to notify UIA through a secure MiWAM/MyUI portal; a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility would arise if a claimant fails to appear for a scheduled interview or, after obtaining a job, fails to report to work for two consecutive days during the first 90 days of employment; and claimants would retain the ability to contest or rebut the presumption if they can show a legitimate reason (for example, childcare or transportation breakdown).

Representative Wolford told the committee employers had described workers asking to be paid "under the table" because they were receiving benefits, and he and supporters cited large fraud figures during the COVID period. "We have billions of UI trust fund dollars that were scammed out of the system during COVID," Wolford said, urging colleagues to support measures that he said would protect the employer-funded trust fund.

Opponents warned the bill would impose new verification workloads on UIA and risk wrongful denials. Alexa Tapia of the National Employment Law Project argued the agency already struggles to process claims on time and that adding fact-finding could delay payments and further discourage eligible people from applying. "Sometimes life happens. Child care falls through, you get sick, your car breaks down," Tapia said. "Being unable to notify a prospective employer in time should not mean losing your UI benefits."

Jacob Fahlman of the Sugar Law Center described the proposal as unusually punitive compared with other states and said it would create retroactive, broad disqualification rather than a limited penalty for a missed interview week. "This bill would be the harshest anti ghosting law in the country," Fahlman said, adding that many aspects of ‘ghosting’ reflect broader labor-market dynamics and employer practices.

Committee members asked questions about verification, cybersecurity and existing reporting options. Witnesses and members noted that Public Act 238 (adopted in the prior session) raised claimant work-search reporting to three activities per week, and they discussed gaps between the employer who interviews candidates and the employer who is ultimately charged for a claimant’s benefits.

No committee vote was taken on House Bill 4516 during the hearing. The committee read in supporting and opposing organizations, excused absent members by unanimous consent, and adjourned. Further action, including possible amendments or a future vote, was not recorded at the hearing.