ADVERTISEMENT

Unemployment benefits reduced under new law signed by Gov. Reynolds

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,550
59,066
113
Unemployed workers in Iowa will be eligible to receive state unemployment benefits for 10 fewer weeks under legislation signed into law Thursday by Gov. Kim Reynolds.


The new law reduces the length of state unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 16. Iowa becomes just the fourth state with 16 weeks or fewer of state unemployment benefits.


It was one of three workforce-related bills that Reynolds signed into law Thursday. Reynolds in a news release said the new laws “modernize” Iowa’s unemployment system and will attract new workers to Iowa businesses.


Advertisement

“It’s no secret that Iowa, like the rest of the country, is facing a critical workforce shortage. But we cannot stand idle and allow employable Iowans to sit on the sidelines and we must implement practical and efficient changes that cut through bureaucratic red tape and assist employers with filling their critical vacancies,” Reynolds said in the news release. “I’m confident these changes will encourage more Iowans to join the workforce and find a rewarding career while contributing to our economy.”


The new law also changes the requirements for taking a job that pays less than the unemployed Iowan’s previous job.


Previously, a person receiving unemployment benefits had six weeks before having to accept a lower-paying job. The new law shortens that time frame. After one week, a person on unemployment will have to accept a job offering 90 percent of that person’s previous wages. That threshold would drop to 80 percent after three weeks, 75 percent after five weeks, and 60 percent after eight weeks.


The legislation, House File 2355, passed the Iowa Legislature with only Republican support.


The progressive advocacy group Progress Iowa issued a statement Thursday critical of the reduction in unemployment benefits, saying it will hurt laid-off workers, suppress wages and make Iowa an unwelcoming state.


“As Iowans, we value hard work and know good paying jobs help Iowa grow. But now, Iowa Republicans are doing all they can to force workers to take jobs that don’t pay enough,” Progress Iowa executive director Matt Sinovic said in a news release. “We know that taking away our hard-earned benefits won’t solve the Reynolds workforce crisis. We need our lawmakers to invest in working families and make corporations pay what they owe.”


Child care workers​


On Iowa Politics​


Newsletter Signup
checkmark-yellow.png
Legislative & Politics News Delivered to your inbox each weekday







Reynolds on Thursday also signed into law legislation that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to work unsupervised at child care centers.


The new law also allows child care centers to operate with one worker for every seven 2-year-olds and one worker for every 10 3-year-olds.


Supporters of the new law have said it will help with shortages of staffing and available slots at child care centers.


Critics have said it does not go far enough to properly address those issues, and note that it does not contain any provision that would help address child care workers’ low wages or funding designed to entice the creation of more child care centers.


House File 2198 passed the Iowa Legislature largely along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing.

 
This is very bad for the state. Good luck keeping valuable employees and taxpayers like me local if I don’t have security.

Your girlfriend is on low income housing, sounds like you had a bunch of student loans forgiven, don't think you are paying taxes homie.
 
Your girlfriend is on low income housing, sounds like you had a bunch of student loans forgiven, don't think you are paying taxes homie.
What are you talking about? Income and sales taxes are a burden. Gf has major clinical depression and can’t work, I’m just helping her out and saving money. Don’t get personal.
 
The pool of unemployed Iowans can't cover our worker shortage. Like it or not we have to import workers. But now we are suddenly a less desirable place to recruit outside workers. I get the strategy, but it comes across as not understanding the actual problem.

Workers don't base new job decisions on state unemployment benefit rules...
 
The pool of unemployed Iowans can't cover our worker shortage. Like it or not we have to import workers. But now we are suddenly a less desirable place to recruit outside workers. I get the strategy, but it comes across as not understanding the actual problem.
What “problem?” Paying people not to work when there are plenty of jobs to be had?

Sorry....folks need to get back to work instead of sponging off the government. If that means temporarily earning a lower income….so be it. They can still look for something better.

I sincerely doubt the length of unemployment benefits is a hindrance to hiring outside workers. If how much money they would receive on the dole is important to them, we probably don’t want them here.
 
Maybe, maybe not. This probably won't help, though. Importing workers is the new game. You have to outcompete other states. So what is Kim doing to bring in these outside workers?

To be honest,.. that's not government's job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 83Hawk
To make the state a desirable place to live? Why not?

Iowa is struggling to keep people here. So you have to ask what Iowa has to offer to draw talent from other states, or at the very least, retain talent here?
You couldn’t pay me 7 figures to work at a McDonalds in Iowa at this point.
 
To make the state a desirable place to live? Why not?

Iowa is struggling to keep people here. So you have to ask what Iowa has to offer to draw talent from other states, or at the very least, retain talent here?
Talent that takes 6 months off on the people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
Background checks are taking over a month to verify criminal records if you've lived in certain counties.

This essentially lowers the unemployed's leverage and suppresses wages. Nice work, Iowa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Grizzly
The 60% requirement has me puzzled. If workers are expected to take a 40% pay cut, then why would they stay here?
Nobody is "expected" to take a paycut of any kind, or "stay here". You're responsible for taking care of yourself if you're mentally and physically able.

This isn't difficult, and not every job is the dirty "Corporation". You're expected to get off your ass and contribute, and if you can't replicate your salary with the skills you have in that area, you move (been there, done that).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 83Hawk
Nobody is "expected" to take a paycut of any kind, or "stay here". You're responsible for taking care of yourself if you're mentally and physically able.

This isn't difficult, and not every job is the dirty "Corporation". You're expected to get off your ass and contribute, and if you can't replicate your salary with the skills you have in that area, you move (been there, done that).
I get that, but in reality, if you lose your $50k job in Iowa and are expected to take a $30k job, why would you stay here? Plenty of states with much more favorable conditions for workers also need workers. Why wouldn't you move there?

Our education is falling, we have no parks, few tourist sites, no pro sports, crap water, and a crumby climate. At some point we have to have something to offer people to keep living here beyond QC pizza.
 
I get that, but in reality, if you lose your $50k job in Iowa and are expected to take a $30k job, why would you stay here? Plenty of states with much more favorable conditions for workers also need workers. Why wouldn't you move there?

Our education is falling, we have no parks, few tourist sites, no pro sports, crap water, and a crumby climate. At some point we have to have something to offer people to keep living here beyond QC pizza.
Cheap housing. VERY cheap housing. One of the few states left where owning a home is incredibly easy to accomplish.
 
Sorry....folks need to get back to work instead of sponging off the government. If that means temporarily earning a lower income….so be it. They can still look for something better.
Not trying to pick on you but is there any actual data or evidence that shows that reducing the number of weeks on unemployment will make significant improvements?
 
Cheap housing. VERY cheap housing. One of the few states left where owning a home is incredibly easy to accomplish.

Where's this cheap housing? Do these locations with cheap housing have ample jobs that pay more than 10 bucks an hour? Do those jobs offer benefits? Are there actually houses for sale (that are actually affordable/livable)?

I checked my hometown's listings (SW Iowa). There are 16 houses for sale. 8 of those have 1,250 square feet or more (9 have 1,000 sqft or more). One of those 9 houses is under $100,000, is 122 years old, and looks to need quite a bit of work on the outside and at least some on the inside (it looks to be livable, but definitely needs work). The next cheapest house that is 1,000sqft or bigger is $142,500. The ethanol plant is offering $23/hr. The new math teacher might make as much as $38,000/yr. Most jobs seem to be maybe $12-15/hr, if that.
 
Where's this cheap housing? Do these locations with cheap housing have ample jobs that pay more than 10 bucks an hour? Do those jobs offer benefits? Are there actually houses for sale (that are actually affordable/livable)?

I checked my hometown's listings (SW Iowa). There are 16 houses for sale. 8 of those have 1,250 square feet or more (9 have 1,000 sqft or more). One of those 9 houses is under $100,000, is 122 years old, and looks to need quite a bit of work on the outside and at least some on the inside (it looks to be livable, but definitely needs work). The next cheapest house that is 1,000sqft or bigger is $142,500. The ethanol plant is offering $23/hr. The new math teacher might make as much as $38,000/yr. Most jobs seem to be maybe $12-15/hr, if that.
This.

Areas that have cheap housing have it for a reason. It's cheap because there is little demand. There is little demand because there are few good economic opportunities available AND it is likely there is not much to do in those towns either. Not that they are bad towns but just not much there.
 
To be honest,.. that's not government's job.
Why do you think governments do offer huge tax incentives to potential new companies looking to relocate to their states?

There is competition between states.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT