►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
C
You,
mr
chairman
and
committee,
this
was
brought
to
me
by
the
president
of
my
local
chamber
of
commerce
in
olive
hill
kentucky
and
we
are
the
home
of
tom
t
hall
who's
now
deceased
he's
an
one
of
our
favorite
native
sons,
a
lot
of
the
activities
through
the
year
of
tourism
activities,
mainstream
activities
are
are
around
his
name,
and
so
he
donated
a
large
part
of
memorabilia
prior
to
his
death
and
contrary
to
senator
wilson's
request.
I
won't
be
singing
today.
C
A
D
Cast
my
vote
and
explain.
Mr
chairman,
I
cast
an
eye
vote
and
senator
webb
my
my
favorite
favorite
memories
in
my
whole
life,
my
dad
and
I
used
to
ride
job
sites
on
saturday
mornings
and
listen
to
tom
t
hall
and
chew.
Wrigley's
spearmint
gum.
So
I
mean
you
know
it,
I'm
so
happy
to
get
to
vote.
You.
A
C
A
Congratulations
center.
I
think
I
saw
senator
meredith
you
want
to
come
to
the
table.
We
have
center
resolution
130.
E
Well,
certainly,
will
first
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
allowing
me
to
present
this
morning,
but
I'm
steve
meredith
state
center
from
the
fifth
district,
and
I
have
been
joining
me
this
morning,
michael
alvey,
who
this
resolution
was
developed
for
calls
for
confirming
the
reappointment
of
mr
albee
is
a
member
of
the
workers,
compensation
board
in
department
of
workers
comp
and
a
little
bit
of
full
disclosure
here
mike,
and
I
have
been
friends
for
over
50
years
and
he's
from
my
home
county
in
grayson
county
and
before
he
became
involved
with
workers
comp.
E
He
was
our
hospital
attorney
and
also
city
attorney.
I
will
be
for
litchfield
in
city,
countyville
and
mike's,
also
retired,
from
our
army.
National
guard,
so
he's
had
a
long
sense
of
record
of
serving
the
public
and
he
was
first
appointed
to
the
commission
in
2009
and
he's
become
a
national
expert
on
this
field
and
he
was
past
president
of
the
national
association
workers
comp
compensation
judiciary,
so
he
certainly
is
intimately
qualified
to
be
in
this
position.
E
F
I'm
a
co-sponsor
on
chairman
alvey's
reappointment
resolution.
I
can't
really
say
much
more
than
what
senator
meredith
said
other
than
as
a
practitioner
who
has
been
in
front
of
the
board
many
times
and
read
mr
alvi's
decisions.
I
can
attest
that
he
is
a
very
knowledgeable
person
on
the
subject,
as
well
as
a
very
fair-minded
and
even-handed
jurist,
which
is,
I
think,
what
you
want
in
in
the
position
as
chairman
of
the
workers
compensation
board.
A
A
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
senator
nemes
from
bullitt
county
and
I
have
with
me.
E
Welcome
well,
mr
chairman,
I
was
going
to
read
it
word
for
word
line
by
line,
but
since
you
you
don't
want
me
to
I'll
I'll
give
a
brief
summary.
This
is
a
red
tape
reduction.
All
it
is
is
moving
the
education
and
workforce
cabinet
to
the
in
labor
cabinet
and
merging
them
together.
E
G
I
I
thank
senator
nemes
for
his
sponsorship.
He
has
worked
cabinets
previously.
I
believe
he
has
a
good
understanding
and
thank
him
for
his
advocacy.
It's
simply
consolidating
two
cabinets
who
already
have
parallel
missions
and
making
sure
that
we
can
sort
of
comprehensively
serve
the
workforce
in
kentucky
both
the
employer
and
the
employee.
A
D
Please
do
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
wanted
to
say
publicly
to
ms
eves.
You
know
you're,
probably
the
most
prompt
person
in
the
entire
administration
when
it
comes
to
communicating
communicating
accurately-
and
I
know
a
lot
of
us-
both
sides
of
the
aisle
sincerely
appreciate
it.
So
just
want
to
say
thanks.
Thank
you.
Just
divert.
H
Explain
mother,
please
do
explain
my
vote
messes
I
was
senator
mcdaniel
stole
my
thunder,
thank
you
for
returning
emails
and
the
communication
that
you
have
with
my
office.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
I
vote
I
as
well
it
passes.
I
will
entertain
a
consent
motion
at
this
time.
We
have
center
mills,
we
have
a
second.
I
think
it
was
center
storm
all
those
in
favor
of
putting
this
on
the
consent
calendar.
Please
sign
them
by
saying
aye
any
opposed
hearing,
none,
it
will
be
on
consent.
Congratulations
thank
you
for
being
here.
Thank.
A
F
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
I
have
the
honor
today
to
to
sit
here
with
someone
who
I
have
known
for
many
years,
a
constituent
of
mine
out
of
pike
county
that
I've
known
most
of
my
life
he's
been
a
friend
of
my
father's
and
as
well
as
a
practitioner
in
the
workers
compensation
community
throughout
my
career.
F
I
think
it
would
be
really
not
an
overstatement
to
say
that
judge
case
has
as
much
knowledge
of
the
workers
compensation
system
as
as
anyone
in
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky
having
practiced.
I
believe,
since
what
1972
1970
so
in
many
ways
he's
the
dean
of
our
workers,
compensation
bar
and
has
really
been
a
fabulous
judge
over
his
last
period
of
time
as
a
as
a
prior
to
administrations.
F
I
think
that
if
you
asked
any
pr
professional
or
practitioner
of
workers
compensation
throughout
the
commonwealth,
regarding
you
know,
one
of
their
favorite
judges
to
deal
with
either
defendant
or
plaintiff,
then
judge
case
would
always
come
out
towards
the
top.
So
I
would
heartily
encourage
each
member
of
this
committee
to
vote
for
his
reappointment
as
an
administrative
law
judge,
as
has
been
done
twice
before,.
B
A
A
F
Oh,
you
may
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
again
I
had
the
privilege
of
having
another
wonderful
administrative
law
judge
sitting
next
to
me,
a
former
constituent.
Unfortunately,
she's
left
us
in
the
mountains
for
the
bright
lights
and
big
city
of
senator
yates's
district.
But
that
being
said
at
heart,
she's
a
mountain
girl
but
stephanie
kinney
has
been
an
administrative
law
judge
with
the
department
of
workers
claims
for
about
the
past
eight
years.
F
I've
practiced
numerous
cases
in
front
of
her,
and
many
of
the
comments
that
I
made
about
judge
case
would
also
apply
to
judge
kenny
she's
practiced
on
both
the
plaintiff
and
the
defense
side
of
the
bar
before
becoming
an
administrative
law
judge.
She
has
also
brought
a
balanced
perspective
to
her
position,
which
I
think
is
important
in
the
sense
that
she
is
aware
that
not
only
is
the
system
about
people,
but
that
we
have
to
have
fair
resolutions
to
these
claims.
F
You
know
she
she's
handled
many
cases,
both
as
a
practitioner
as
a
judge.
I
know
a
couple
of
them
that
are
published
supreme
court
cases
that
she
has
handled,
and
I
think
she
has
both
the
knowledge,
the
temperament
and
the
ability
to
continue
to
serve
in
this
vital
capacity
for
our
injured
workers
of
kentucky.
And
I
would
heartily
recommend
her
reappointment
as
an
administrative
law
judge.
A
A
A
Thank
you
senator
wheeler.
Next
up
we
are
going
to
hear
house
bill
4..
This
is
representative
weber's
bill.
This
is
going
well
so
far.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
had
plenty
of
time
for
this
bill
representative.
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
give
you
15
minutes.
We
have
three
people
that
have
signed
up
to
speak
in
opposition.
I
want
to
give
them
15
minutes
combined
and
then
members
then
will
open
it
up
for
questions
after
both
presentations.
I
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
sub
just
for
reference
changes
the
effective
date
of
house
bill
4
to
january
1st
2023
that
was
designed
to
give
the
cabinet
and
those
involved
time
to
begin
laying
the
groundwork
for
the
implementation
of
the
bill.
I
It
also
changed
the
we
have
the
work
search
requirement
portion
of
this
bill
and
I
heard
from
those
that
are
seasonal
employees
that
have
a
return
date
or
a
prospective
return
date,
and
there
was
there
was
no
need
for
them
to
engage
in
that
work
search
requirement,
since
they
would
be
returning
to
work
members
of
this
committee.
I
have
been
working
on
the
unemployment
issue
for
several
years
now.
I
It's
not
an
issue
that
I
sought,
but
it's
an
issue
that
came
to
me
as
as
a
policy
maker
in
the
commonwealth
and
looking
at
the
direction
that
we
were
headed
in
with
our
unemployment
and
that
system.
So
we
have
before
us
today
house
bill
4.
house
bill
4
is
a
re-employment
bill.
That
is
how
I've
approached
this.
It's
designed
to
help
individuals
gain
re-employment
in
the
commonwealth.
I
We've
all
heard
about
house
bill
4.,
it's
been
widely
discussed,
as
I've
talked
with
members
of
this
committee
in
the
senate.
It's
it's
been
a
widely
discussed
and
talked
about
issue.
So
I'll
just
highlight
some
of
the
key
components
of
the
bill.
It
ties
the
maximum
number
of
weeks
to
the
economic
conditions
using
the
unemployment
rate.
This
is
a
policy
that's
implemented
in
nine
states.
I
It
has
helped
to
sustain
and
solidify
the
unemployment
trust
fund
in
those
states
when
the
economy
is
good
and
unemployment
is
low,
the
number
of
weeks
are
lower
when
the
economy
is
in
a
in
a
more
precarious
situation.
The
number
of
weeks
increase
when
the
unemployment
rate
is
low.
We
see
that
there's
a
greater
number
of
jobs
available.
That's
a
correlation
that
we
see.
I
The
second
key
component
to
this
bill
is
that
it
encourages
laid
off
workers
to
pursue
educational
programs
by
providing
five
additional
weeks
of
unemployment
benefits,
while
pursuing
qualified
training
programs.
We
want
to
upscale
and
retrain
workers
that
may
not
have
available
opportunities
to
them
in
the
area
they've
worked
in,
but
this
allows
them
to
go
through
that
educational
process.
I
Upskill
get
the
certifications
and
the
qualifications
that
they
need
to
pursue
other
career
opportunities,
and
we
heard
in
in
the
discussion
in
the
house
committee
we
heard
from
the
president
of
kctc
that
organization
has
certifications
and
job
training
that
would
fall
within
this
five-week
program
to
help
kentuckians.
I
The
third
key
component
and
this
this
recommendation
came
to
me
as
a
result
of
the
cabinet's
testimony
when
I
reached
out
for
them
for
suggestions
to
the
bill,
and
we've
included
that
in
here
and
that's
the
work
share
program
and
a
number
of
folks
have
been
very
excited
about
this.
I
I
was
not
familiar
with
it
at
first,
but
after
the
presentation
that
the
cabinet
made
I
investigated
it
looked
into.
It
did
some
research
on
it
and
found
it
to
be
a
worthwhile
program
that
I
think
needed
to
be
included
in
this
bill.
I
I
I
I
will
will
tell
the
members
of
this
committee
this
this
bill
is
not
a
silver
bullet.
This
does
not
solve
our
problems
related
to
unemployment
insurance,
but
this
is
a
good
first
start.
This
is
a
good
piece
of
public
policy
that
can
move
us
in
the
right
direction.
We
all
want
our
trust,
fund
unemployment,
trust
fund
to
be
solvent
and
solid
for
those
of
you
on
this
committee
that
that
are
like
myself
and
and
may
have
a
few
years
on
you.
The
last
time
the
unemployment
trust
fund
was
solvent
in
this
state
was
1974..
I
J
J
We
continue
to
be
hopeful
for
a
sustained
recovery.
New
job
announcements
are
exciting
and
we
celebrate
the
expansions
of
new
companies,
those
that
want
to
come
to
kentucky
and
those
that
want
to
expand
in
kentucky,
but
we
cannot
only
focus
on
job
creation.
We
must
ensure
that
we
have
the
workers
to
fill
those
jobs
as
well.
J
A
robust
economy
is
not
sustainable
when
nearly
half
of
the
working
age
population
is
not
working.
Our
economic
future
is
not
uncertain,
because
businesses
don't
want
to
locate
or
expand
here.
Our
geographical
location,
low,
cost
of
doing
business,
affordable,
reliable
energy
are
all
reasons
to
do
business
in
kentucky,
but
we
cannot
become
known
as
a
state
that
is
short
on
workers.
J
There
isn't
one
specific
bill
or
one
specific
program
that
can
overcome
our
workforce
shortage,
but
house
bill
4
specifically
tackles
a
few
of
our
challenges.
Kentucky
had
the
longest
average
duration
spent
on
unemployment
between
2009
and
2019
in
the
nation,
too
long
a
duration,
19
weeks
on
average
when
jobs
are
available
and
the
economy
is
growing.
J
This
harms
employment
in
kentucky,
hurts
small
businesses
and
employers
and
negatively
affects
our
unemployment,
insurance
trust
fund,
leaving
us
poorly
prepared
for
the
next
economic
downturn.
The
skills
gap
between
workers
and
available
jobs
is
another
major
challenge
that
we
face
in
kentucky.
Our
report
pointed
out
that
kentucky
trails,
the
nation
when
it
comes
to
post-secondary
attainment,
while
we
know
an
increasing
number
of
jobs,
are
requiring
some
training
beyond
a
high
school
degree.
J
This
trend
is
expected
to
accelerate
in
the
coming
years,
as
chairman
weber
described.
This
bill
ties
the
maximum
number
of
weeks
to
the
situation
with
the
economy
and
the
unemployment
rate.
We
know
that
people
tend
to
look
for
work
more
intensely
when
their
benefits
are
going
to
run
out.
Reducing
the
weeks
when
there
are
more
jobs
are
available
means
getting
people
back
to
work
more
quickly,
which
is
a
good
thing
for
workers
and
a
good
thing
for
the
economy
house.
J
Bill
4,
updates
the
work
search
requirement
by
expanding
the
definition,
definition
of
work,
search
to
better
match
modern
day,
work,
search
efforts
and
increase
the
number
of
work
search
activities
from
one
a
week
to
five
a
week.
This
encourages
a
more
aggressive
search
for
work
and
finding
that
next
employment
opportunity
house
bill
4
encourages
laid
off
workers
to
pursue
education
and
training
by
providing
an
additional
five
weeks
of
unemployment
benefits,
while
pursuing
qualified
training
programs.
J
This
could
create
powerful
opportunities
for
workers
to
seek
out
programs
that
will
increase
their
employability
and
earning
potential
in
the
long
run.
Finally,
house
bill
4
provides
new
flexibility
for
employers
that
face
a
downturn
downturn
by
authorizing
a
work
share
program.
This
is
offered
in
27
other
states
work
share.
Programs
can
help
maintain
the
employer,
employee
relationship
during
difficult
economic
times
and,
as
chairman
weber
pointed
out,
it
allows
the
employee
to
retain
their
health
care
and
retirement
benefits,
which
I
think
is
important.
J
We
know
this
bill
will
not
solve
all
of
our
workforce
shortage
problem
in
kentucky.
Additional
work
must
be
done
to
tackle
challenges
such
as
lack
of
child
care,
the
need
for
more
education
and
training,
post
high
school
transportation,
health
problems,
but
the
chamber
has
long
championed
policies
and
programs
related
to
these
barriers
and
will
work
on
legislation
this
session
related
to
these
barriers
as
well.
We
urge
you
to
take
bold
steps
this
session
in
addressing
our
workforce
shortage
and
respectfully
request
passage
of
house
bill
4..
Thank
you.
A
Okay
at
this
time,
I
think
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
we
do
have
some
questions,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
hear
the
opposition
as
well
and
then
we'll
take
turns
with
the
questions
and
I'll
talk.
Make
sure
everyone
has
time.
So
would
ask
you
to
step
aside
or
take
some
seats,
and
we
have
three
different
people
that
sign
up.
If
you
could
start
coming
to
the
table,
bill
lundgren,
dale,
raynes
and
dustin
pugel.
K
Good
morning,
mr
chairperson
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
My
name
is
dale
raynes,
I'm
president
of
the
kentucky
council
of
churches,
which
is
made
up
of
11
different
christian
denominations
in
16
regional
bodies
across
the
state
comprised
of
over
1100
congregations
and
800
000
kentuckians.
K
We
are
one
of
the
broadest
oldest
and
most
active
councils
in
the
country
having
provided
unified,
theological
reflection
from
churches,
both
rural
and
urban,
black
and
white,
rich
and
poor
for
more
than
seven
decades.
Now
we
have
grave
concerns
about
this
bill
and,
as
a
reminder,
the
kcc
speaks
only
when
we
can
do
so
in
unanimity.
K
K
K
On
average,
over
the
last
decade,
31
kentucky
counties
had
an
unemployment
rate
that
was
at
least
30
percent
higher
than
the
states
and
hp4
will
ruthlessly
shorten
benefits
for
people
in
these
communities.
Despite
the
long
haul
they
face
in
finding
new
jobs,
slashing
unemployment
insurance
disproportionately
harms
black
kentuckians,
who
face
higher
rates
and
longer
duration
of
unemployment.
K
K
K
L
Morning,
mr
chairman
bill
landrigan
kentucky
state
afl-cio
good
morning,
members
of
the
committee.
You
know,
we've
heard
the
proponents
provide
their
rationale
for
this
bill
and
it
encompasses
increasing
the
workforce,
participation
rate
and
filling
this
140
000
so-called
unfilled
jobs
now
laid
off
workers
collecting
unemployment
insurance
benefits
are
currently
considered
in
the
labor
force,
as
they
are
required
to
look
for
a
job
while
receiving
benefits
and
by
definition,
these
workers
collecting
unemployment
insurance
benefits
were
working
in
in
order
to
qualify
for
these
unemployment
benefits.
L
Pushing
people
off
unemployment
benefits
has
no
effect
on
the
labor
force,
participation
rate,
kentucky's,
labor
force
participation.
Numbers
are
primarily
reflected
of
older
workers,
baby
boomers
retiring
in
large
numbers
decreasing
the
number
of
weeks
unemployment
insurance
benefits
are
available
has
not
boosted
the
labor
force
participation
in
other
states.
L
L
L
Yet,
as
of
december
2021,
the
latest
of
data
available
there
were
only
12
982
workers
receiving
unemployment
insurance
benefits,
which
is
less
than
one
percent
of
the
workforce.
Additionally,
only
one
in
five
kentuckians
who
are
out
of
work
and
looking
for
a
job
even
receive
unemployment
benefits
decreasing
the
number
of
weeks.
L
L
The
ui
trust
fund
through
the
arpa
fiscal
recovery
fund,
monies
will
have
at
least
586
million
dollars
in
the
balance
after
that,
money
is
received
and
kentucky
does
not
owe
any
money
back
to
the
federal
government
for
unemployment
insurance
benefits
at
the
time,
hb4
would
lower
what
employers
contribute
to
the
ui
trust
fund.
Even
though
kentucky
employers
are
paying
less
as
a
share
of
total
wages
on
contributions
to
the
ui
trust
fund.
L
On
average
over
the
past
last
decade,
31
of
our
counties
had
unemployment
rates
at
least
30
percent
higher
than
the
state
average
and
hb4
will
unnecessarily
shorten
benefits
for
workers
in
economically
distressed
communities.
Despite
the
long
haul
they
face
in
finding
new
jobs,
which
are
concentrated
in
other
parts
of
the
state,
we
know
where
the
jobs
are
they're,
not
in
mcgoffin
lawrence
clay
or
martin
counties
or
eastern
kentucky
counties
are
like
senator
wheeler
under
house
bill.
4,
the
number
of
weeks
of
ui
benefits
a
worker
could
get
cut
by
up
to
54.
L
The
average
weekly
ui
benefit
is
currently
371
dollars
and
44
cents.
If
an
unemployed
worker
collects
the
average
average
weekly
benefit
for
the
current
maximum
26
weeks,
they
are
eligible
for
a
total
of
nine
thousand
six
hundred
and
fifty
seven
dollars
in
benefits
if
the
number
of
weeks
were
cut
to
twelve
as
proposed
in
hb4
and
would
prevail
under
our
current
unemployment
rate
of
3.9
percent,
the
average
ui
recipient
would
now
only
be
eligible
for
4
457
dollars
in
total
benefits.
L
Hb4
stringent
requirements
for
when
ui
recipients
must
accept
the
job
after
six
weeks
and
lose
benefits
will
push
kentuckians
into
paying
positions
outside
their
field
of
experience
and
training.
The
suitable
work
wage
standard
is
just
20
percent
more
than
the
current
ui
benefit
54
on
average
of
what
a
jobless
worker's
previous
job
paid.
L
So
a
manufacturing
worker
earning
25
an
hour
would
need
to
take
the
first
job
offered
to
them
after
six
weeks
of
ui
benefits
that
paid
as
little
as
thirteen
dollars
and
fifty
cents
an
hour,
forcing
workers
to
take
low,
paying
jobs,
derails
their
careers
and
reduces
lifetime
earnings
and
spending
and
makes
it
harder
for
employees
to
match.
With
someone
who
has
the
skills
they
need.
L
Hb4's
fiscal
impact
has
been
estimated
by
the
kentucky
labor
cabinet
to
be
13
million
dollars,
including
additional
staffing
costs
of
6
million
dollars
annually,
which
would
have
to
come
from
general
funds
and
is
unlikely.
Dol
will
consider
such
costs
reimbursable
and
an
estimated
seven
million
dollars
to
conform,
the
current
ui
computer
system
and
delays
and
changes
to
the
rfp
for
the
desperately
needed
new
ui
computer
system.
L
L
Cutting
unemployment,
insurance
benefit
solves
none
of
the
labor
force,
participation
issues
and,
without
a
doubt,
will
put
more
pressure
on
those
who
have
been
laid
off
through
no
fault
of
their
own
and
make
it
harder
to
pay
bills
and
provide
for
their
families
in
closing
hb4
is
unnecessary,
unfunded
and
unfair.
Thank
you.
M
My
name
is
dustin
pugl,
I'm
with
the
kentucky
center
for
economic
policy,
and
I
have
three
minutes
so
I'll
try
and
go
quickly.
Mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
giving
me
a
moment
to
speak
on
this
critical
issue.
All
of
us
in
this
room
received
call
after
call
from
laid
off
kentuckians
trying
to
get
their
unemployment
benefits
in
2020
and
2021.
M
You
all
spoke
with
workers
in
your
districts,
on
the
phone
and
in
person
about
how
badly
needed
those
funds
were
workers
that
you
care
about
your
family,
friends
and
neighbors,
and
the
lesson
learned
was
that
unemployment
insurance
was
and
is
a
critical
tool
during
downturns
and
an
individual
crises,
and
when
it's
unavailable,
it's
catastrophic
for
workers
and
their
families
house
bill
4
does
nothing
to
address
those
problems
and
instead
moves
in
the
opposite
direction.
We've
said
a
lot
about
how
this
cuts
off
the
number
of
weeks.
M
It
actually
cuts
it
down
to
six
weeks.
This
standard
turns
the
screws
on
kentuckians
looking
for
work
by
requiring
them
to
take
the
first
position
offered
to
them,
no
matter
whether
it's
in
their
career
field
or
not
so
long
as
it
pays
about
half
of
what
their
last
job
paid.
So
in
practice,
that
section
actually
sets
the
maximum
duration
of
benefits
at
six
weeks,
regardless
on
about.
What's
on
paper,
that's
half
of
what
even
the
stingiest
states
in
the
country
offer.
This
is
not
a
recipe
for
a
strong
economy.
M
It's
a
recipe
for
low
wages
and
increased
hardship
and
make
no
mistake.
Policies
like
these
have
increased
hardship
and
have
failed
to
improve
the
workforce.
Participation
in
other
states
that
have
tried
cutting
the
weeks
of
unemployment
benefits,
for
example,
of
the
10
states
that
provided
less
than
26
weeks
of
unemployment
benefits.
Seven
are
in
the
bottom,
half
of
all
states
for
labor
force,
participation
and
five
are
among
the
worst
ten.
A
second
measure
of
this
policy's
failure
is
its
lack
of
a
reduction
of
the
rate
of
unfilled
jobs.
A
M
Thank
you
at
or
above
kentucky,
kentucky's
or
the
rest
of
the
nations,
and
yet
a
third
indicator
of
the
policy's
failure
is
the
absence
of
an
employment
change
after
the
cut
in
the
weeks
was
implemented.
When
you
compare
the
24
months
of
job
growth
before
and
after
a
cut
in
the
10
states
that
have
experimented
with
fewer
weeks
against
job
growth
in
states
offering
the
full
26
weeks
during
the
same
time
frame,
there
was
no
discernible
difference.
M
These
facts
speak
for
themselves,
but
we
don't
have
to
look
further
than
our
own
state
to
understand
that
this
doesn't
work.
When
half
of
the
states
cut
off
pandemic
jobless
benefits
last
year,
those
states
did
not
see
more
hiring
than
states
like
kentucky
who
let
them
continue
and
when
our
benefits
did
eventually
expire.
M
Last
september,
we
didn't
see
an
uptick
in
hiring
either
again
and
again
and
again,
we
have
examples
about
how
cutting
off
jobless
benefits
hurts
workers
but
does
not
will
not
improve
our
labor
market
and
those
worst
are
those
in
eastern
kentucky,
black
workers,
workers
re-entering
the
workforce
after
incarceration
and
those
who
have
been
laid
off
from
closed
minds
and
factories.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
members
at
this
time.
If
we
have
questions
directed
at
this
panel,
I
would
entertain
questions
for
this
panel.
Okay,
seeing
none!
Thank
you
all!
Oh
you
do
have
one
senator
yates.
N
First
of
all,
thank
you.
I
was
doing
my
best
to
scribble
down
notes.
I
got
like
three
pages
in
front
of
me,
but
one
thing
I
like
to
do
is
is:
whenever
we
put
forth
a
theory
before
kentucky
tests
it
on
ourselves,
we
look
at
best
practices
whether
people
have
done.
I
got
my
little
girl
grace
today.
We
were
working
on
that
too.
She'd
have
to
come
up
with
a
theory
and
then
I
guess
a
lot
of
nti.
They
can't
do
themselves,
so
we
do
research
to
find
out.
N
What's
already
been
proven,
you
went
through
some
numbers
really
fast
right
now.
Everybody,
I
think
on
this
committee
in
the
senate,
wants
to
make
sure
that
we
increase
the
workforce
participation.
Absolutely
the
theory
before
us
is
saying
by
cutting
off
the
unemployment
benefits
earlier.
That
will
do
that.
You
hit
me
with
some
numbers.
N
M
Yes,
there
are
10
other
states
that
have
less
than
the
national
standard
of
26
weeks
and
in
those
states
we
looked
at
three
different
measures
of
employment,
health.
We
looked
at
the
workforce,
participation
rate
or
the
labor
force
participation
rate.
We
looked
at
the
rate
of
unfilled
jobs.
So
how
successful
are
these
states
at
filling
the
open
positions
that
they
have
and
we
looked
at
how
their
employment
growth
changed
before
and
after
they
implemented
this
change
compared
to
states
that
didn't,
and
none
of
those
three
circumstances
was
their
success.
M
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
this
kind
of
goes
to
one
of
the
statements
made
by
the
proponents
panel
that
the
the
unemployment
trust
fund
needs
to
be.
In
balance,
I
mean,
is
the
unemployment
trust
fund.
In
balance,
I
mean
because
I
know
we
we've
just
voted
on
this
committee,
not
several
weeks
ago,
to
provide
a
huge
influx
of
money
into
the
unemployment
trust
fund
to
bail
out
employers,
and
you
know-
and
I
even
voted
for
the
bill,
because
I
you
know,
I
think
we
there
was
some
discussion.
F
We
didn't
want
this
to
be
a
recurrent
theme,
but
that
you
know
this
might
be
a
time
where
some
help
and
the
general
assembly
stepped
up
and
did
that.
So
in
what
way
are
the
employers
disadvantaged
under
the
current
system,
as
far
as
the
unemployment
trust
fund
and
what
are
their
contributions
now
in
reference
to
what
they've
paid
in
the
past.
M
That's
a
great
question
so
to
answer
your
first
question:
there's
a
little
over
300
million
dollars
in
our
unemployment
insurance
trust
fund
right
now
they
mentioned
something
called
the
solvency
ratio,
which
is
admittedly
low
in
kentucky,
and
it
has
been
for
quite
some
time.
My
take
is
that
that's
a
product
of
the
way
that
we
tax
unemployment.
We
raise
the
unemployment
tax
when
the
solvency
gets
low
and
we
lower
it
when
it
gets
high.
M
M
Well,
we're
moving
in
the
right
direction,
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
large
deposit
that
was
made
last
year
and
paying
back
the
loan,
as
well
as
just
strong
corporate
health
right
now
and
paying
into
it.
The
other
thing
to
consider,
though,
is
that
the
tax
rate,
as
a
percent
of
payroll
for
employers
right
now,
is
the
lowest
it
has
been
in
the
83
history
of
the
program.
A
O
A
O
My
questions
are
for
representative
weber
represent
whatever
my.
My
first
question
is
this
reading
the
bill
this
bill
has
a
six
month
index
period.
In
other
words,
you,
if
you,
if
you're
going
to
receive
unemployment
from
january
1st
of
june
30th,
it
goes
back
to
the
third
quarter
the
previous
year,
if
you're
going
to
receive
unemployment
benefits
from
july
1
to
december
31st,
you
go
back
to
the
first
quarter
of
of
that
year.
My
am
I
reading
your
bill
correctly.
O
Well,
representative,
weber,
isn't
that
harsh
on
unemployment
recipients,
because
if
the
the
the
rate
in
the
preceding
third
quarter
was
was
very
low
and
yet
now
they're
they're
in
a
in
a
period
where
there's
a
high
unemployment,
you
know,
aren't
they
aren't
they
being
punished
by
having
their
weekly
benefits
reduced
as
low
as
as
indicated
here,
12
weeks
or
maybe
even
six
weeks?
Isn't
that
index
standard
index
standard,
harsh.
I
So
senator
unemployment
rates,
if
you
look
at
across
the
spectrum,
are
pretty
consistent.
They'll
have
a
consistent
level.
Just
just
bear
with
me:
they'll
have
a
pretty
consistent
level
so,
based
on
that,
yes,
we
could
get
a
a
a
a
pretty
good
assessment
of
what
that
would
be
in
the
event
that
we
had
an
economic
downturn
and
we
had
the
unemployment
skyrocket.
I
If
times
are
bad,
so
there's
going
to
be
an
adjustment.
There
are
mechanisms
in
this
bill
that
will
allow
for
kentuckians
to
receive
a
higher
unemployment
benefit.
If
we
see
the
higher
unemployment
rate
kick
in
much
like
we
saw
during
covet
in
the
early
early
days
of
covid,
so
there
are
mechanisms
here
center.
P
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
want
to
say
at
the
outset
the
job
searching
stuff
has
needed
to
be
changed
for
a
long
time.
So
I
appreciate
the
efforts
I
had
a
an
employer.
Ask
me:
can
you
please
do
something,
because
I've
got
a
guy.
He
interviews
he's
supposed
to
show
up
his
first
day
of
work.
P
He
qualifies
as
being
on
the
payroll
because
they'd
already
put
all
his
stuff
in
and
then
he
doesn't
even
show
up,
but
for
some
reason
under
the
unemployment
situation
it
qualifies
as
he
had
a
job.
So
now
he
can
start
over
whatever,
and
it's
now
it's
on
this
guy
who's
never
even
had
him
a
day
in
his
life.
Well,
I
need
to
look
at
that,
and
I
don't
know
this
bill
covers
all
of
that,
but
it
it
touches
in
some
of
that.
But
the
big
thing
that
I
see
is
elephant
in
the
room.
P
P
But
then
you
have
the
artificial
issues
that
we've
been
having
the
last
two
years
and
I
don't
think
we're
in
a
steady
position
right
now.
You
know
the
advice
is
if
you're
in
bitcoin
get
out
of
it
as
no
later
than
yesterday.
P
Our
market
is
not
in
a
situation
that
we
could
say
anything
secure,
and
we
need
to
think
about
that.
Do
we
want
our
people
to
get
used
to
not
having
a
safety
net
for
insurance,
but
if
their
employers
are
paying
in
this
insurance
they're
under
the
impression
they're
going
to
be
covered,
it's
kind
of
like
an
employer
saying
well,
actually
we
want
to
pay
less
on
your
health
insurance
if
there's
a
lot
of
heart
attacks,
so
you
really
can't
go
see
justinial
doctor.
P
P
P
P
Q
First
I'll
introduce
myself
very
quickly,
charles
all
senior
policy
analyst
with
the
kentucky
chamber
of
commerce.
I
think
the
best
way
I
can
seek
to
answer
that
is
by
emphasizing
that
the
economic
metric
that
we
use
in
this
bill
to
index
unemployment
is
a
very
common
and
frequently
used
measure
of
economic,
health
and
job
availability
within
the
context
of
the
economy,
which
is
the
unemployment
rate,
the
unemployment
rate
tends
to
correspond
to
high
levels
of
job
vacancies.
Q
A
4.5
unemployment
rate
is
a
very
low
unemployment
rate,
which
would
indicate
widespread
job
availability
under
low
unemployment
situations,
so
we
use
4.5
percent
to
trigger
a
maximum
of
12
weeks.
Our
argument
would
be
that
that
is
conducive
to
a
healthy
economy
where
jobs
are
available.
A
Right,
I
will
second
that
motion
we
pretty
much
are
running
to
the
end
of
the
clock
here.
I
know
some
members
have
an
explanation
of
votes
expectation.
So
this
time,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
A
D
I
appreciate
a
lot
of
the
comments
from
the
opponents
of
the
bills
bill,
but
also
when
I
hear
about
burden
in
the
time
that
representative
weber
was
offering
his
initial
comments,
I
jumped
online
filled
out
an
application
at
our
work
and
received
a
text
from
my
hr
manager.
Telling
me
I
was
not
qualified,
but
employers
right
now
are
looking
desperately
to
bring
people
on
and
not
just
in
low-wage
positions
by
any
stretch
of
the
imagination.
D
If
you're
in
northern
kentucky
right
now-
and
you
know,
you
literally
drive
down
the
interstate
with
billboards
draped
down
the
sign
for
entry-level
positions-
no
experience
necessary
eighteen
dollars
an
hour.
I
know
plenty
of
us
that
are
hiring
no
experience
necessary
at
twenty
dollars
an
hour
with
full
benefits
right
now
and
can't
fill
positions.
D
D
When
it
comes
to
felony
entries,
I
can
tell
you
that
some
of
the
employers
who
are
the
most
desperate
and
willing
to
pay
those
kinds
of
wages
or
folks
who
have
the
positions
available,
that
felons
can
fill
and
take
it
from
somebody
who
spends
his
mornings
when
we're
not
here
meeting
with
a
group
of
guys.
D
That
includes
those
very
folks
we're
out
there
and
we're
willing
and
we're
wanting
to
fill
those
positions
as
best
as
we
can,
and
while
unemployment
insurance
is
a
critical
safety
net
and
it
needs
to
be
there
and
it
is
a
good
thing
for
workers,
there's
a
dignity
and
there's
a
pride
that
comes
in
being
at
work
and
doing
a
good
job.
As
I'm
sure
our
piledriver
friends
will
tell
us
bill.
D
You
know
there
is
good,
solid,
honest
days,
work
honestly,
pay
feeling
in
our
society,
and
so
I
do
get
some
concerns
on
the
restrictions.
But
to
the
same
end,
we
also
have
an
obligation
to
get
folks
and
give
them
the
opportunities
which
this
bill
largely
does
to
find
gainful
employment.
And,
mr
chairman,
I
thank
you
for
your
indulgence.
H
Explain
my
vote.
Please
do
explain
my
I
vote,
I'm
looking
at
this
as
a
state
competitive
issue.
This
was
an
issue
before
the
pandemic.
It's
an
issue.
Now,
we've
we've
got
to
encourage
more
work
participation.
H
H
I
believe
that's
something
we
need
to
do
this
bill
does
that.
I
think
this
bill
is
thoughtful.
It's
been
looked
through.
I
know
that
it's
not
100
popular,
but
I
think
sometimes
you
have
to
have
some
tough
love,
and
I
think
this
is
what
this
is
to
get
kentucky
to
the
next
level
as
a
competitive
economic
driver
in
in
our
area.
Thank
you.
B
P
I'm
voting
no,
this
bill
kind
of
splits
right
down
the
middle
half
of
it
is
great
because
we
need
to
get
something
moving
on
this,
but
there's
a
number
of
things.
I
don't
see
here
in
thinking
of
how
we
do
this.
I
think
the
most
important
question
is:
how
long
should
someone
have
to
work
at
a
certain
place
before
they're
eligible
for
that
person
have
paid
their
benefits?
P
You
know
if
we
want
to
extend
that
time
frame
out
where
only
the
long-term
workers,
the
ones
and
the
bounce
around
every
few
months,
maybe
don't
get
the
benefits,
but
this
isn't
addressing
those
issues.
It's
not
addressing
a
lot
of
issues,
but
it
is
doing
things
that
I
think,
don't
necessarily
move
us
forward
and
potentially
move
us
backwards.
So
that's
why
I
vote
no.
D
E
D
E
E
O
We've
just
come
out
of
a
two-year
pandemic,
in
which
we
saw
what
what
the
ravages
of
of
lack
of
employment
did
to
our
country
in
terms
of
domestic
violence
in
terms
of
mental
health,
in
terms
of
effects
on
children,
their
education,
okay
and
effects
of
taking
thousands
and
thousands
of
kentuckians
millions
of
people
out
of
this
country
out
of
work,
and
so
our
answer
today
from
house
bill
4,
is
that
now
we
want
to
cut
those
unemployment
benefits,
I
mean
I
have
to
agree
with
the
pastor
that
spoke,
that
that's
immoral,
that
that's
just
plain
right,
immoral,.
O
We
are
going
to
adopt
a
system
that
says
that
we're
going
to
index
employment
to
what
the
rate
was
when
it
was
good,
thereby
reducing
benefits.
Then,
when
people
need
unemployment,
the
most
that
rate's
going
to
fluctuate
very
high
and
that's
going
to
reduce
benefits
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
to
make
any
kind
of
sense
because
employment
rates
fluctuate.
We
all
know
that.
O
In
addition,
we
have
testimonies
been
unrefuted
here,
that
those
states
that
have
a
26
week
rate
have
the
highest
unemployment
rates,
the
workforce
participation
rates.
I
want
to
say
that
that
the
when
we,
when
you
increase,
benefits
and
make
them
a
longer
period
of
time,
you
have
more
people
in
the
workforce.
Conversely,
again
unrefuted
testimony
that
when
you
reduce
the
rates
to
under
26
those
with
the
10
lowest
rates,
you
have
seven
of
those
have
the
highest
workforce
non-participation
rates.
We
know
that
for
a
fact.
A
F
Frankly,
I
agree
with
about
everything
that
the
senator
senator
from
fayette
13
said.
I
think
this
is
a
very
cruel
bill.
I
think
it
hurts
areas
in
kentucky
that
have
already
been
suffering
and
it
it
addresses
a
problem
that
is
really
not
a
workforce
force
participation
problem.
These
are
people
that
have
actually
worked
in
the
economy
that
are
entitled
to
these
benefits.
F
I
mean
I
am
very
disappointed
in
the
fact
that
you
know
I
I
just
I've,
seen
my
own
region
absolutely
decimated
via
population
and
downturn
in
its
industries,
and
yet
I
failed
to
see
this
chamber
ever
step
up
for
eastern
kentucky
and
rural
areas
to
encourage
development
there.
I
see
a
lot
of
political
correctness
coming
out
of
the
chamber,
but
I
never
see
an
office
of
rural
development
or
any
type
of
efforts
to
promote
job
growth.
N
I
vote
no,
let
me
explain
my
vote
proceed.
I'll
quickly
forget
when
I
first
came
in
had
sworn
into
the
senate.
That's
all
I
heard
about
how
much
we
care
about
our
constituents,
how
our
working
men
and
women
need
help,
how
they're
broken,
how
they're
losing
things,
how
they're
falling
into
poverty?
Remember
the
yells
of
the
governor.
What
not!
N
Well,
I
hope,
they're
still
paying
attention.
I
hope,
because
that's
every
one
of
our
district's
constituents-
these
are
the
working
men
and
women.
This
isn't
a
bill
that
we
can
walk.
The
line
with
this
is
taking
the
screws
to
our
working
people.
The
people
who
work
day
in
day
out
for
no
fault
of
their
own
have
been
laid
off,
and
then
we
talk
about
six
weeks.
N
My
wife
has
a
master's
degree.
We
got
our
pmp,
you
know
how
long
it
took
to
go
through
humana
to
go
through
to
get
hiring
bonus
months,
brown,
foreman
months,
so
yeah
we
might
be
able
to
pick
up
the
phone
and
you
can
get
a
job
where
she
can
flip
burgers.
But
when
you're
talking
about
families
that
have
a
budget,
they
have
a
mortgage,
they
have
house
payment,
they
have
children.
How
are
they
going
to
go
and
supplement
that
income?
This
is
short-sighted
and
let
alone
the
theory
encourage
more
workforce
participation.