Various changes to the unemployment insurance law and requiring approval by the Joint Committee on Finance of certain federally authorized unemployment benefits. (FE)
This legislation looks to tighten the criteria under which individuals qualify for unemployment benefits. It recalibrates the definition of misconduct related to employment termination, broadening the scope of actions that can disqualify employees from receiving benefits. This includes not only theft but also vague standards such as absenteeism unless justified by valid reasons. Furthermore, violations of employer policies, as communicated and acknowledged by employees, are set to potentially impact UI eligibility, indicating a shift toward stricter accountability for employee conduct.
Senate Bill 198 introduces several significant changes to the Wisconsin unemployment insurance (UI) law. Key provisions require that claimants residing outside Wisconsin must register with their local job center or labor market exchange to maintain their benefits. Additionally, the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) is mandated to conduct random audits of at least 50 percent of work search actions reported by claimants, enhancing scrutiny on the compliance of individuals claiming benefits. These audits aim to ensure the integrity of the unemployment benefit system by verifying that claimants are genuinely seeking work as required.
Throughout the discussions surrounding SB198, notable contention arose regarding the balance between safeguarding the integrity of the unemployment system and ensuring fair access to benefits for eligible claimants. Critics of the bill express concerns that the expanded definition of misconduct and increased auditing could disproportionately affect vulnerable workers who may already be struggling to find employment. Supporters argue that such measures are necessary to prevent abuse of the UI system and to ensure that taxpayer funds are allocated effectively. The requirement for the Joint Committee on Finance to approve any federally authorized benefit augmentations is also a point of contention, raising questions about efficient management of state resources.