POLITICAL ROUNDUP: Lawmakers debate shortening unemployment from 26 weeks to 16

Jan. 13—Local lawmakers are responding to House Bill 1933, which reduces unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 16 weeks in Oklahoma.

It went into effect at the beginning of this year.

State Rep. Mark McBride, R-Moore, said that the bill indexes unemployment to the current average unemployment claims, and those who made claims before the new year will receive the full compensation for which they applied.

"If a person was entitled to a benefit prior to Jan. 1, 2023, then they would receive 26 times the weekly benefit amount, or 26 weeks," McBride said. "For unemployment claims made between Jan. 1, 2023, and Jan. 1, 2025, this bill cuts that benefit to 16 weeks, in keeping with our current rate of claims.

He said that after Jan. 1, 2025, it will allow between 16 and 20 weeks, depending on the state's average of filed unemployment claims.

McBride said that having the state pay for 26 weeks of unemployment is not fiscally sustainable.

"Offering 26 weeks of unemployment was helpful during the pandemic, but is untenable for the state and for most employers who pay into the system for the long term," said McBride.

State Rep. Jacob Rosencrants, D-Norman, said that when the bill went through Democrats argued against it because it falsely presumes that people don't work because they are on unemployment.

"Does that happen? Yes. Is it widespread? No," said Rosencrants.

He said that shortening the number of weeks somebody can be on unemployment could actually do more real harm than any perceived good.

"At the height of the pandemic, I remember just how desperate many of my constituents were, and how many didn't understand the unemployment system, which is where I stepped in," Rosencrants said. "I met many folks who wanted to get back to work as soon as possible, but some of the jobs weren't coming back. If there were fewer weeks of much-needed aid — aid paid into by themselves, by the way — some of these folks would've become unhoused."

McBride said he believes that 16 weeks gives people adequate time to gain employment, particularly as many employers are hiring.

He said those who can't find work in that time frame may have other challenges, such as health, which should be supported by other programs.

"If someone cannot be employed in this time — if they have a longer-term issue, for instance — it's quite possible they need a different solution than unemployment benefits, which were never intended to be a full-time replacement for earned wages and benefits."

He also said that Oklahoma isn't alone in shortening unemployment benefits, and that lowering the number of weeks of unemployment keeps up with employment trends.

"As we saw a lower number of claims through our Oklahoma Employment Security Commission post-pandemic, we determined the best way to strengthen our reserves was to lower the number of weeks of benefits on this graduated scale," McBride said.

Rosencrants said he blames false narratives for driving legislation, and said that unemployment does good for those who need it.

"This is not a well-thought out solution to workforce issues. HB 1933 is just another example of legitimizing a false narrative, which in this case, that the workforce issues are caused by too many folks on unemployment for too long," Rosencrants said.

McBride believes the money saved from issuing unemployment benefits past 16 weeks can stimulate the economy and will promote job growth, as well as higher salaries.

"While this obviously cuts the time of this benefit for Oklahomans seeking it, getting back to employment and full-time pay and benefits is better for the individual, for employers, for state taxpayers and for the state's overall economy," McBride said.