Julianne Malveaux Column

 

WHAT ABOUT ECONOMIC SECURITY?

BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX

 

            If you lost your job on September 11, you’ll be losing your unemployment insurance on March 13, 26 weeks after terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon both rocked our nation’s sense of security and also our economy.  While relief checks have been doled out to the airlines, and there has been considerable jawboning about providing businesses with relief from 9-11, nothing has been done to those at the very bottom, those workers who lost their jobs and can get no more than 26 weeks of help.

 

                Current unemployment laws also prevent people who worked part time from collecting unemployment benefits, yet many in the service industries held part-time jobs.  The current structure of the unemployment insurance system does not segue with the current realities of the labor market, where part-time employment is growing, and more and more workers, especially low-wage women, cobble together one or two part-time jobs but are ineligible for unemployment and health benefits.

 

                Meanwhile, there were 1.24 million people who had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more in January 2002, a whopping 74 percent more than the number who had been unemployed for the same length of time in January 2001.  For all the talk of an impending economic recovery, this is a recovery that will be a long time trickling down.  Who bears the brunt of it?  Workers at the bottom.

 

                It is ironic that President Bush has budgeted $48 billion more for defense spending next year, while at the same time slashing funds for job training.  It is even more ironic to surf the Department of Labor’s web site to find a page titled “workforce security” that describes unemployment and other programs.  There is workforce security and homeland security, increased airline security, and even hotel security, but the fact is that too many folks are experiencing increased economic insecurity.  Their situation could be alleviated if Congress would simply extend the number of weeks that people can get unemployment insurance payments, and also provide more funds to the states, since unemployment insurance is a joint program between the federal government and individual states.

 

                The matter of extending unemployment insurance benefits was held hostage, this fall, to a Republican insistence that corporations get tax rebates as part of an economic stimulus package.  In January, the matter of stimulus was set aside.  Though Democrats have jawboned the issue of extending unemployment benefits, they haven’t proposed legislation or rushed to move it through committee.  Perhaps they feel they don’t have the votes.  Certainly, they ought to feel that those who economic security was shattered by 9-11 ought to get relief.

 

                Our nation spent weeks in an outpouring of generosity, sending more than a billion dollars to relief-related charities for the victims of September 11.  Most of the focus has been on the families of those who perished, and that is understandable.  But there must also be relief for those who were so economically affected that they can no longer make ends meet.  What use is homeland security, really, without economic security?

 

                Two things need to happen to provide economic security to those who have been unemployed because of 9-11.  First of all, we must extend the number of weeks that people are eligible for unemployment insurance, from the current 26 weeks to at least 39 weeks.  Secondly, the structure of unemployment insurance needs to be reformed so that part-time and temporary workers can have their wages replaced in the same way that full-time workers do.  According to the Center for Policy Alternatives, the current unemployment system was “created on a depression-era model of factory employment” that focuses on the full-time male worker.  With today’s labor force including more seasonal, temporary and part-time workers, many are not eligible for unemployment compensation.  Only two in five unemployed workers collected benefits in 2000.  If some of those workers found jobs, then lost them in 2001, they are again ineligible for unemployment compensation because most states require people to work a full year before they can even receive unemployment.

 

                While some Americans are anticipating economic recovery, and reveling in statistics that show slow growth (as opposed to negative growth), and increased home sales, others are worried about whether they will be able to pay their rent next month. There are more women, more people of color at the bottom of the heap.   The soft glow of patriotism has not yet disappeared, and most Americans are mindful of our President’s exhortation that increasing homeland security will require sacrifices and challenges.  Those who are unemployed shouldn’t shoulder all of the sacrifices.  What about their economic security?


Back