Unemployment benefits; eligibility criteria. (SB239)

Introduced By

Sen. John Watkins (R-Midlothian)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Unemployment benefits; eligibility criteria and impact of legislation. Provides that certain individuals who have exhausted eligibility for unemployment benefits and who are enrolled in approved training programs are eligible for up to 26 weeks of additional benefits. The measure also provides that an individual who voluntarily separates from employment is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits if the separation is for a compelling family reason, which is defined as domestic violence, the illness or disability of a member of the individual's immediate family; or the need for the individual to accompany such individual's spouse to a place from which it is impractical for such individual to commute and due to a change in location of the spouse's employment. A provision allowing individuals to receive unemployment benefits if they voluntarily leave employment to follow a military spouse assigned to a new duty station, which provision will become effective only if the federal government appropriates adequate funds specifically for the purpose of paying benefits to such individuals, is repealed. The measure also requires that bills enhancing unemployment compensation benefits payable to a claimant contain a statement reflecting the projected impact on the solvency level of the unemployment trust fund and the average increase in state unemployment tax liability of employers. Currently, such bills are required to contain an estimate of potential revenue losses of state tax revenues. Amends § 30-19.03:1.2, § 60.2-528, § 60.2-618, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/12/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10100370D
01/12/2010Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
02/01/2010Impact statement from DPB (SB239)
02/01/2010Reported from Commerce and Labor with substitute (13-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/01/2010Committee substitute printed 10104905D-S1
02/03/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2010Read second time
02/04/2010Reading of substitute waived
02/04/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10104905D-S1
02/04/2010Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB239S1
02/08/2010Read third time and passed Senate (31-Y 9-N) (see vote tally)
02/09/2010Impact statement from DPB (SB239S1)
02/17/2010Placed on Calendar
02/17/2010Read first time
02/17/2010Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
02/18/2010Assigned C & L sub: #2
03/02/2010Subcommittee recommends laying on the table (6-Y 5-N)
03/14/2010Left in Commerce and Labor

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 33 minutes.

Comments

Bill Chaffin writes:

Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am one who would receive benefit from the passing of this bill. Where I obviously have a personal stake, I keep an eye on the economy and individuals in and around affected and effected by unemployment. Speaking to business owners and those in the real estate market tell me that this recession may not end for another year or better.
Without the political rhetoric that often ensues, I do want to state that any monies going directly to the people and not through corporations or banks, etc. can only help stimulate the economy and help keep those unemployed souls' heads above water until the state and the nation recover.
I know it is rough to continue spending money that does not offer a quick return on investment but this is what our citizenry needs. Vote 'YES'.
Regards,
Bill Chaffin

Patti Vachon writes:

Not happy at all. I have been a Military Spouse for over 13 years, and lived and worked in VA for 8 years. My husband was relocated to FL. Forcing the family to leave. I have been looking for work since March and have been unsuccessful. I tried Unemployment and was denied. Stating left without good cause. So layoffs payout but being a Military Spouse gets denied. Makes me sick!