A Desperate Need for a Change of Attitude Toward Unemployment

On December 15, 2008, after a forty-four year management career, I experienced my first layoff. Granted I was an old guy, well into years when many my age would have been into retirement, nevertheless, I was dependant on that income and certainly was not prepared to retire.

I received unemployment benefits for the allowed ninety-nine weeks. I received the maximum weekly benefit, which was federal and state taxable. After taxes, it was not that much, but I also had been receiving Social Security benefits so the impact was not as great as it could have been. Often I have considered what unemployment would have been like when I was a younger man. With my wife, who does not work, and five children, we would not have financially survived for very long without income significantly greater than unemployment insurance.

Over the weeks, while collecting unemployment, I submitted my resume and applied for work over and over again to many prospective employers. I received some responses, but was never invited for an interview. Even though employers are not legally allowed to ask the age of job applicants, a resume that states forty-four years of experience certainly implies that I am not a spring chicken.

Impacted by job loss, the market collapse of 2008, and helping my children through some very tough financial times of their own, I ended up with less than $40,000 between my 401K and savings, and even that went quickly. Needless to say, Social Security, for a brief time my savings, and unemployment income were a big help in the transition from no work to retirement.

Compared to many who have virtually lost everything, not just their jobs and all savings but their homes and some who are now forced to live on the street, folks like me have been lucky; however, we are the exceptions, not the rule.

My experience has given me greater sensitivity and deeper perspective than perhaps I normally would have, especially when unemployment benefits are set to expire on January 4, 2012. I understand the anxieties of the unemployed whose benefits are set to expire: Will republicans, who view the unemployed as lazy and anybody other than the wealthy as worthless, have a change in heart? Will my benefit be reduced in dollars, the number of weeks be reduced or perhaps both? If Congress passes legislation, how long will I have to survive before receiving my next check?

House Republican James Lankford said that he often hears from employers who say they have jobs, but that unemployed workers say the pay being offered to them is pretty close to what they get from unemployment. He told GOP leaders that he would vote for extending unemployment benefits only if the program was reformed.

It's true that many jobs pay close to what one would receive from unemployment benefits. But why would anyone in their right mind give up $ 400 in benefits after taxes for a job that pays $15 an hour, $600 a week and take - home pay that might approximate the same amount.

In an election year, the issue is too sensitive for some sort of action not to be taken. So, to their consternation, House Republicans submitted a proposal that is bundled with a continuation of the payroll tax cut; provisions for the start of work on a controversial Keystone XL pipeline, to be built from Canada to Texas; reforms in the unemployment law and an extension for long-term jobless benefits, but reduces extended benefits from 99 to 59 weeks, 33 weeks beyond when most state benefits end. To remain eligible, the proposal also toughens search for work requirements; requires possessing high-school level skills or acquiring those skills through a GED program; requires participation in training programs; allows states to drug test applicants as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits; and also includes an amendment that would deny unemployment benefits to those who earn more than $1 million. The proposal also allows States flexibility to experiment with reforms.

The drug testing legislation was introduced by House Republican Jack Kingston who stated "I had an employer tell me of an overwhelming response for job openings, there was just one problem: Half the people who applied could not even pass a drug test."

Kingston's remark is representative of the Republican mindset, but there is "just one [real] problem": it was a false claim.

Of course, there are abuses. But the Republican Party is wrong to demonize the unemployed. Overwhelmingly the unemployed are not drugies nor are they lazy; they want to work because they need to work. They have families who depended on their income from work to survive, who now with only unemployment benefits that income has been cut in half; just try living on $300 to $400 dollars a week to provide healthcare insurance, put food on the table, and pay for shelter. I suppose there are situations where the unemployment check may appear superfluous to some people, such as in cases like mine, but that does not mean I did not deserve to receive benefits; it only means that the benefit did what it was designed to do; I am grateful for it. Unfortunately, that's not the case for most with young families who have lost their jobs and careers.

The only reform needed is that of attitude toward the unemployed.