Florida Legislature, loyal soldiers to big donors, marches on with anti-worker bills | Opinion

It’s no secret that businesses are struggling to hire workers. Rather than seeing that situation as a result of a strong economy and low unemployment rates, the Florida Legislature is using it as an excuse to dismantle protections for workers.

That’s ironic given that Florida is not necessarily a state with a big social safety net to begin with.

The Florida House passed a bill earlier this month that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work long hours during school days. House Bill 49 removes protections that prevent those minors from working more than eight hours when they have classes the next day and more than 30 hours a week when school is in session.

Supporters say they want government to get out of the way of teenagers helping their families, but the legislation raises the question of whether Republican lawmakers are trying to use teens to replace cheap migrant workers who left the state after the Legislature cracked down on undocumented workers.

And there’s the issue of what happens when workers lose their jobs. Florida’s unemployment insurance benefits are already among the most meager and hardest to obtain in the country. Apparently, that’s not enough for some lawmakers supporting legislation aimed at making benefits harder to keep.

Only 12% of Florida’s out-of-work people receive unemployment benefits, and only six other states have lower acceptance rates, according to research by the Century Foundation. Florida pays the lowest average weekly benefits at $236, and for the shortest amount of time, 12 weeks, Forbes reported last year.

Abuse happens in any government program, but Florida is hardly a haven for people who want to escape hard work and live on a couple hundred dollars a week. Yet that assumption seems to be the premise of legislation supported by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, which represents big companies like Publix and others. The child labor law, by the way, is supported by the Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, which lobbies for the tourism and service industry.

Those same business already pay the nation’s lowest tax rate to support Florida’s unemployment benefits. You can’t exactly argue that these taxes make the Sunshine State unfriendly to businesses, but the end goal seems to be to lower those costs even more by nearly dismantling the insurance that workers can rely if they’re laid off during another economic crisis such as the Great Recession or the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sponsor Rep. Shane Abbott, a North Florida Republican, told a House committee last week he’s struggled to hire workers at his businesses because they’d rather remain on unemployment. He didn’t have data, however, to show how much of a systemic problem that is for the state.

After a series of amendments, Abbott’s bill, HB 1289, is actually less egregious than its Senate version, which adds the unrealistic requirement that out-of-work people apply in person for at least one job every week to continue receiving their unemployment insurance checks. Online applications wouldn’t be allowed even though that’s how most recruiting happens today. That proposal is either out of touch or purposely punitive.

The House bill would kick people off benefits if they fail to contact at least five prospective employers per week, don’t accept “suitable work” within two business days or don’t show up for at least three scheduled job interviews. These may seem like reasonable requirements until you realize Florida already curbed access to benefits with reforms approved in 2011 under then-Gov. Rick Scott.

Why are more reforms even needed?

And there is the concern raised by Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, during the House hearing, when she said that more requirements could overwhelm a state system that struggles to handle current unemployment claims.

“If you’ve never tried to apply for unemployment in Florida, or if you never helped someone try to apply, you actually might think this bill is a good idea,” Eskamani said.

These bills might be a good idea — the question is for whom.

Click here to send the letter.