Pennsylvania House Bill HB1691

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/1/25
• Refer: 7/1/25

Caption

In compensation, further providing for qualifications required to secure compensation.

Impact

If enacted, HB 1691 would reform state unemployment compensation laws by narrowing the eligibility criteria. This could potentially eliminate benefits for some individuals who may not meet the new requirements. Stakeholders in the labor market are likely to feel the effects, with those who are unemployed needing to adapt to a more stringent qualification landscape. The increase in the earnings threshold could lead to a significant number of claimants being denied benefits, increasing financial strain for affected individuals and families.

Summary

House Bill 1691 focuses on amending the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, specifically the qualifications required for securing unemployment benefits. The proposed changes include increasing the minimum earnings threshold that claimants must meet after separation from work to be eligible for compensation. Under the current regulations, individuals must have worked ten credit weeks and earned at least six times their weekly benefit rate, but this bill proposes to raise that requirement to 15 times the weekly benefit rate, which may significantly impact many claimants.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 1691 appears to be mixed. Supporters argue that tightening eligibility requirements is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the unemployment compensation system and ensuring that only those who genuinely need assistance can access it. Conversely, detractors express concern that the bill could leave many unemployed workers without crucial financial support during periods of joblessness, especially those recovering from extraordinary circumstances. This reflects broader discussions in the legislative assembly about the balance between fiscal responsibility and social safety nets.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the appropriateness of increasing the minimum earnings required after separation, as it may disproportionately affect low-wage workers and those with less stable employment histories. Critics argue that by amending these qualifications, the state would be unfairly penalizing individuals who may already be in precarious financial positions. The discussions around HB 1691 are indicative of a broader debate regarding unemployment benefits and labor rights, particularly concerning how to best support individuals facing economic hardship.