Laid-off workers could have unemployment benefits cut off sooner under proposed SC bill

South Carolina workers who lose a job through no fault of their own could see their unemployment benefits reduced under a bill moving through the State House.

Under H. 4710, jobless benefits would only last for 12 weeks when the unemployment rate is under 5.5%. As the unemployment rate increases, the amount of benefits someone may receive also increases up to a maximum of 20 weeks when the unemployment rate is above 9%.

The House Ways and Means Committee this week, in an 18-4 vote, sent the bill to the full House.

Currently people can collect up to 20 weeks jobless benefits after being laid off. The average weekly benefit is $236, the maximum being $326, according to the Department of Employment Workforce.

In 2022-23 the state paid out $135.6 million in unemployment benefits out of the state’s unemployment insurance trust fund. If the 12-week cap was in place, the state would have saved $34.6 million, according to estimates by Revenue and Fiscal Affairs office.

South Carolina’s unemployment rate was 3% in December, according to DEW.

DEW also said 74,284 jobs were listed on the state’s SC Works Online System as of Tuesday.

“When there are jobs as available as they are in the state of South Carolina to provide for unemployment benefits of 20 weeks does incentivize people to not get those jobs,” said state Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington.

Indexing unemployment benefits to the unemployment rate has been enacted in states such as Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma.

Lowering the amount of benefits is expected to lower unemployment insurance rates businesses pay, said Ben Homeyer, the South Carolina state director of the National Federation of Independent Business.

“(It) frees up potential cash for businesses, which they can then use elsewhere, hiring more employees (or) using for further inventory, things of that nature. It just gives the business more flexibility than they currently would have,” Homeyer said.

South Carolina is growing and the job announcements have flooded airwaves in recent years, such as the expected growth in the electric vehicle industry in the state.

“There are a lot of jobs that are out there,” Homeyer said.

State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, is against the move calling it a “cookie-cutter” approach that doesn’t take into account conditions in individual counties. It also does not address nuances and any barriers to holding a job, such as access to transportation in rural areas.

“It’s not true that jobs are available in all communities,” Cobb-Hunter said. “This notion that we’ve got jobs and people just want to draw unemployment checks rather than work is a notion that I don’t subscribe to. I’m concerned about the effect this is going to have on workers, especially low-wage workers, who are receiving benefits, and what this does is say ‘okay, we’re gonna give you x number of weeks, and you’re out.’”

The South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center also questioned the wisdom of this legislation.

“Just because it’s good times doesn’t mean that there are jobs available,” said Sue Berkowitz, the director of Policy and special counsel for the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center. “We have very, very low unemployment, which means there aren’t a lot of jobs available. So that means for somebody who is unemployed, they would be penalized. It’s not because they’re not working, they’re not trying. It may mean that there’s just not a job available with their own job skills.”

Berkowitz said the focus should be on making sure people can earn a living wage, have stable affordable housing and have affordable child care would help make sure people can keep a job.

“This is not going to solve the problems of what causes people not to be able to maintain employment,” Berkowitz said. “If somebody is unhoused, then an employer may be unwilling to take them on because they’re not sure of their stability. If somebody has children and can only work certain hours, or someone is suffering from an illness, or has mental health illness but not enough for them to be declared disabled, but makes them a spotty employee, this is not going to suddenly change all of that.”