March 18, 2026 · Public Insurance and Pensions Committee · 6,805 words · 8 speakers · 88 segments
Good morning. Welcome to the Public Insurance and Pensions Committee. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Peterson? Yes. Vice Chair Tesco? Yes. Ranking Member White? Yes. Representative Byrd? Here. Present. Representative Brennan? Here. Representative Claggett? Here. Representative Glassburn? Here. Representative Matthews has checked in. Representative Miller? Present. Representative Romer? Here. Representative Swearingen has checked in. Representative Thomas? Here. Representative Young?
We have a quorum present. We'll continue as a full committee. The first order of business is to approve the minutes. They have been distributed. They're on your iPads. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, are they approved without objection? Seeing no objection, they are approved. Our next order of business is House Bill 726, sponsor testimony, Representative Demetrio. Thank you for joining us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Peterson, Vice Chair Tesca, Ranking Member White, and members of the House Public Insurance and Pensions Committee, thank you for the opportunity to sponsor testimony on House Bill 726. House Bill 726 is a workforce-focused, common-sense proposal that addresses a clear gap in Ohio's unemployment system. It specifically impacts workers facing temporary weather-related seasonal layoffs. Under current law, individuals receiving unemployment compensation are required to actively seek work each week to maintain eligibility. That requirement plays an important role in ensuring Ohio's unemployment system encourages individuals to re-enter the workforce as quickly as possible. However, in certain industries, particularly construction and other outdoor trades, There are situations where both employee and employer already know the interruption at work is temporary and the employee will return to the same job once weather conditions allow work to resume. In these circumstances, requiring workers to document job searches for positions they have no intention of taking does not strengthen the workforce or improve employment outcomes. It simply creates unnecessary administrative burden. It's also important to note that this concept already exists in Ohio law under revised code 4141.29 which allows for limited waivers of the work search requirement in situations such as temporary layoffs with a defined return to work date. However, that provision is currently limited to a 45-day window. House Bill 726 builds on that existing framework by extending a similarly clearly defined waiver to workers whose jobs are temporarily halted due to Ohio's harsh winter conditions, where work simply cannot be performed. House Bill 726 provides a narrow and clearly defined solution. The bill allows the Director of Jobs and Family Services to waive the active work search requirement for up to 17 weeks for individuals laid off due to weather between December 1st and March 31st, provided the employer notifies the state of the layoff and supplies a documented date when work is expected to resume. Just as importantly, this legislation includes clear guardrails. House Bill 726 does not expand unemployment benefits or create new eligibility or increase the duration of benefits available under Ohio law. Individuals must still meet all existing requirements, including being able and available to work. This bill simply acknowledges the realities of seasonal employment in Ohio. When a worker has a defined return-to-work date and an employer expects them back on the job, forcing that individual to go through the motions of a job search serves no practical purpose. House Bill 726 supports both workers and employers while maintaining the integrity of Ohio's unemployment system, and it removes unnecessary bureaucracy and aligns our policy with how these industries operate. Chair Peterson, thank you again for the opportunity to provide my testimony.
I'd be happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you for your testimony. Representative Miller with a question.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Representative, for bringing this here. I'm trying to understand some of the – what I read in code right now seems to allow this, but is it adding a certain group of people to – yeah.
So, Mr. Chairman, Representative Miller, in the code it says the Director of Job and Family Services may extend the waiver. And we're changing that word to shall under the given conditions I listed. December 1st to March 31st, the employer documenting which employees. It's industry or business that's directly affected by weather-related work stoppage. So that's kind of what we're trying to do here.
Quick follow-up.
Continue.
Thank you, sir. Thanks, Chair. So this sounds like those in landscaping and those type of jobs where weather, obviously, every year comes and that type of work doesn't happen. Is that what this is for? Can you give me a list of examples of what type of industries, what type of workers would need this?
Sure. this would be primarily trade, outdoor trade. So like, you know, if somebody paving companies, for example, that, you know, no one's gonna be paving up in Northeast Ohio, as you know, in the middle of January. So we're just defining, and specifically for non-union shops as well, just to clarify that as well, so.
Okay.
Representative Brandon with a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for bringing the bill, Rep. Demetrio. So are we possibly setting a precedent where union membership results in fewer benefits or protections under state law?
Chair Peterson, Representative Brennan, thank you for the question. We did our best to run this by our friends in the skilled trade unions before we introduced this. Obviously, there's lots of different flavors and opinions across those organizations, and we'll continue to work with them because my intent is certainly not to rain on their parade, if you will. We're not trying to address them at all. Frankly, I think their process makes a lot of sense, and we're just trying to offer that to workers across the spectrum of the workforce in Ohio and industries that are affected by these seasonal stoppages.
Follow-up?
Continue.
Thanks. Would it be wise to amend the bill to include union workers or remove the exclusion entirely?
Mr. Chairman, Representative Brennan, I want to be sensitive to not kind of step in on precedent as far as their framework, right? I think I'm open to any suggestions. suggestions. In fact, you know, talking to the operating engineers right before testimony. So open to those conversations. You know, I can't stand here right now, especially as a non-attorney, and say, yeah, we got the solution. But again, want to be sensitive to that and really not even trying to address them because they're already kind of squared away addressing the other members of our workforce that are kind of going through this unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
President White, you have a question.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your testimony today. What I wanted to ask a little bit about moving on to the workforce and the way we're working on retaining workers in Ohio. With this bill, the thing that I do like about it is that we're making sure that people that opt and also work hard in doing seasonal work are able to receive benefits to stay in the state of Ohio. Do you see that as being a benefit to this bill, work retention, and also recruitment and having people come to the state of Ohio?
Mr. Chairman, Representative White, yeah, I think what I'm trying to do is I hope that's an outcome, obviously. But I think I'm just trying to acknowledge reality. You know, again, I don't own a paving company in Ohio, but I imagine a lot of those workers are, you know, when we're getting around Christmas time or maybe right after Thanksgiving, they're not out doing their job. I imagine that we're going through a lot of motions right now just to satisfy bureaucrats in Columbus instead of actually trying to get back to work when the time's right. So we're just acknowledging reality here. And these guys get paid pretty well. I think that's why they continue to do the jobs. and we just don't want to affect other industries that might get a call on a job posting just to satisfy the Department of Job and Family Services to meet work requirements for those unemployment regulations. So we're trying to help everyone sort of in the workforce spectrum, the employers that are directly affected to this, the other employers that might be getting calls that go nowhere on job posting. So hopefully that makes sense.
Chair, could I ask one follow-up just for clarification? And so something else you mentioned is we're talking about entrepreneurship, that not only are we protecting workers with this bill, but also small businesses and those that are entrepreneurs that are stepping into doing seasonal work with the conditions as we look at the state of Ohio, our weather conditions, not knowing when it's going to be spring, really, or summer. So when we're looking at people both owning businesses and working for those businesses, we're looking at both helping economically in the state of Ohio. Is that what you're also, this bill does?
Mr. Chairman, Representative White, yeah, I think at the end of the day, we want more, we need more people here in Ohio, and we certainly need more businesses coming here and more workers. And, you know, my hope is just by eliminating this sort of unnecessary bureaucratic burden, and we just make Ohio friendlier for all of the above. So that's my intent, and I hope if this bill becomes law, that that will help sort of achieve the outcomes you laid out there. Thank you, Chair.
Is it also fair to say that you view this bill as an opportunity to level up across different entities within this workspace? Some may have this benefit already and others may not. Is that a fair statement or not?
Mr Chairman certainly I think we just want to give every worker in Ohio sort of equal opportunity if you will you know as far as just making it easier to comply with work requirements here in Ohio So I think that's certainly, you know, a side effect of this bill.
Representative Claggett, with a question?
Yes, Chairman, this is probably going to address to you, maybe a little bit to you, I don't know. there's an opportunity here on at least three fronts that we could clean some stuff up. So from the construction industry, you've got employers who are wanting to retain skilled people who are doing these type of tasks. And so that's kind of the genesis of what he's getting at. But in Chairman Hall's committee yesterday, we heard another round of testimony in regard to people that are applying for a job and have no attention. And so there's this idea that there should be some skin in the game if they're going to apply for a job and never even show up. So that's a concern. And that's kind of what you're getting at. This is what people do. Yes. So those two things can be dealt with together. And then the third thing is we talked about it several months ago, I believe it was in this committee, in regard to charging the industry that has a higher usage rate on the same issue. So then you have a date range issue because you've introduced a date range to this thing. So in my mind, it would behoove us to tie all these issues together. I'm not sure there's a question there, but you're welcome to respond if you'd like.
Good thoughts. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Young with a question or a comment.
Yes, I have a question, sir. I appreciate this. This is pretty good thinking through. if it wouldn't be more appropriate to define the eligibility based upon like seasonal weather-related or dependent jobs, because that's the way I'm reading this.
Mr. Chairman, Representative Young, if memory serves me correct, and I'm trying to look through the analysis quickly, and anyone, please feel free to fact check me here. but I believe we do have some parameters with regards to weather seasonality here. And certainly that was one of my concerns kind of going into this. The biggest concern is just not having everyone pile on and saying, oh yeah, we're a seasonal business as well, and trying to directly tie it to weather impact. So please feel free to read through it if there's something we can fix. Like I told Representative Brennan, I don't think this is the first and only draft here. So open to any thoughts.
Yes, I just want to make sure that when we segment off different types of brackets of employees, I just want to make sure we're using ODJFS to oversee this so we don't run into any misclassifications like you just mentioned. And we might want to think that through a little bit more.
Chair Peterson, Representative Young, yes, I'm certainly always amenable to telling the agencies exactly what we want them to do.
So I have one question and a comment maybe that I'll ask you to respond to. So one of my deep frustrations is dates on a calendar dealing with weather. I deal with that on the farming side. And this week has been a great example, 70 degrees on Sunday, beautiful opportunities to get off of a driveway and actually do work in a field if you wanted to. and then Monday, bitter cold, ice, freezing rain, difficult conditions, and then by the end of the week, Friday, probably back to nice weather, opportunities to do things. Your bill, as it's currently written, puts specific dates, December 1st to March 31st, especially in Ohio and the variability from north to south, northern Ohio to southern Ohio. There's lots of days within that four-month time period where work can be done. And certainly I would grant that paving companies, in the example you use, are limited as to when the asphalt plants are open and they can gather workforce. But other industries, construction, just amazes me, the work that got done on this flyway behind my back on 170 interchange in the depths of some bitter cold weather. So, I mean, we're finding ways to work. Why would we want to limit it to a specific? I get the parentheses, but the specific dates on the calendar are problematic for me. that they, it's Ohio, and we could have beautiful weather in March and horrible weather in May.
Mr. Chairman, you know, I agree with, you know, especially being a fellow Ohioan, knowing that how crazy the weather can change from day to day during these months. You know, I guess our premise was employers and the worker employees, you know, they want to get back to work. I mean, And at the end of the day, they're not making money just by sitting on their butts saying it's cold outside if they can actually get out and work. So I think that's kind of what we went into thinking and just kind of acknowledging, like, all right, this is usually the rough winter months, December 1 through March 31. But, again, there's ways to maybe make those dates a little flexible to get going earlier, to reduce some burden on the unemployment system. Like, absolutely, let's do it.
Representative Clagg, with a question. Thank you, Chairman.
If you tie together these two concepts that I spoke about in regard to the company paying a higher rate for the unemployment system that they're engaging in, if you tie those two things together, you would put the appropriate metrics in place to be sure that the company agrees that the person that they're laying off is part of that system. You follow me? because if they lay them off and don't have a skin in the game in regard to paying a higher rate to bring them back, then it seems to me that the motivations may be disjointed. So that's premise number one. So I want to assure you to address that. And then secondly, I read this as a date range, not a date certain. So can you address both those questions?
Mr. Chairman, Representative Claggett, yeah, definitely want everyone to have some skin in the game. So, again, open to thoughts on how to make this bill better. And, sorry, can you remind me of the last comment or question? Is it a date range? Oh. Or is it a – Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Representative Claggett, I believe it is like a date – I think there is some sort of – I just think we're trying to say you can't go beyond these dates. and again, you know, I don't have the full bill in front of me, so let's look at that, again, on the date part, open to ideas.
Representative White, you have a question?
Yes, thank you. Just to follow up with the chair, I know that when you, one of the, is it with unemployment that you take still, so you're not changing the amount of time, So when you apply for unemployment, which my question is, you're not cutting the amount of time. So people still have to wait that time period. It's almost 14 days, somewhat in there, before they even are able to apply. So if the employer at that time is saying, hey, you can come back between the state, they can call them back before they can actually receive any benefit, and then it starts over. And I just wanted to make sure that that doesn't change with that. And also, if the company says, hey, we can go out and do this, which is why seasonal work is different, than weather inclement work. That if they called someone back, then that's going to disrupt their unemployment. So with a great date range, then help also employers to say that we can work within, if we lay people off, we have that 14 range to call them back. And also, if we're just gonna get a couple of days of good weather, we can go out and work with what we can. Maybe getting things ready before the end of that date.
Mr. Chairman, Representative White, Yeah, interesting thoughts and ideas there. Frankly, I'm not sure if we thought those through, and I think through this committee process, we're going to hear from a wide array of groups. And so I think we'll, you know, I'm sure that there'll be some employers that come in to talk about this, good, bad, or ugly, and I'm sure they'll have some thoughts, and hopefully that's something we can think about with them and to make this bill better if needed.
And Chair, can I add one? Follow. Yes. And overall, this bill is focused on retaining retention and also making sure that employers have employees and employees stay in the state of Ohio when they don't go to another state for they can stay here, be able to survive. They're not going to make what they make when they're normally working. So this is just to get them through like holidays and times, making sure their families are taken care of. so much to, and also I appreciate what Rep. Claggis said. We also want people just putting in applications at other employers just because they wanna get back to the job that they love to do. And coming from that background of working with people, I have family members that do work seasonal jobs and it's not easy.
Mr. Chairman, Representative White, absolutely. We're just trying to make Ohio friendlier for workers and employers and yeah, like we were all saying, Let's just acknowledge reality. You know, these workers can't work during these months. We want them to stay in Ohio. We also don't want them annoying or creating a burden on other companies that legitimately need job applicants. So let's just acknowledge reality and make this common sense change. That's what we're trying to do.
Representative Miller with the last question, I believe.
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the extra time. The sustainability for the company, I like it. I think this is something that I would have assumed was already in law. I didn't realize that the director could just go, no, we're not going to give you that unemployment, and then put companies and their workers in a bad position. But it says under the analysis of the bill that the bill requires the director of jobs and family service to waive up to 17 weeks, a requirement that an individual be actively seeking. And one of the bullet points says that the individual is not a member of a bona fide labor organization, essentially a union Why does that have to be put in there Like why are we just not Mr Chairman Representative Miller as I was talking with Representative Brennan about my intent and my goal is our union workers they have a great system already that been working for them for a long time
and we're not trying to change that. And so I guess to put it simply, we're trying to figure it out for everyone else. Okay. So that's why we had to put that in there. Thanks. And again, like first shot here. So let's make more sense if we can. Open to ideas.
Thank you for bringing the bill forward. We share your goal of making sure we retain talent and attract talent to Ohio. and welcome to the joys of unemployment compensation.
Yeah, excited to be here.
And the quagmire that that may be. Thanks. Thanks, everyone. You're welcome to stick around for the rest of the committee because that's what we're talking about next. Can't wait.
Thank you.
Next, we call up House Bill 376 for a second hearing. Proponent testimony. And first we have Kevin Shimp. Mr. Shim, thank you for joining us.
Morning, everyone. Chairman Peterson, Vice Chair Teska, Ranking Member White, members of the House Public Insurance and Pensions Committee. My name is Kevin Shim. I'm a partner at the law firm Dickinson-Wright, testifying on behalf of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is the state's leading business advocate. It represents over 8,000 companies that do business in Ohio, and our mission is to aggressively champion free enterprise, economic competitiveness, and growth for the benefit of all Ohioans. In our efforts to champion economic competitiveness, we support House Bill 376 because lowering the maximum duration of unemployment benefits to 20 weeks, especially if combined with other reforms, will help put Ohio's unemployment trust fund on a path toward solvency. The Ohio Chamber is committed to reforming the state's unemployment system because Buckeye State employers face the prospect of higher payroll taxes each economic downturn because the state has not reached the U.S. Department of Labor's solvency target in more than 50 years. It was 1974, it was the last year. Ohio's Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund is financed entirely through employer payroll taxes, and it's Ohio employers who are responsible for paying back any loan that the state incurs to cover benefits when the trust fund goes insolvent. Employers pay back these loans through a credit reduction on their federal share of unemployment taxes. That credit is equal to $21 per employee in their first penalty year. This credit reduction can be significant because it compounds every year, and it grows by $21 per employee until the state pays off the loan. Using the 2008 recession as example, Ohio borrowed $3.4 billion from the federal government, and we did not repay the loan until 2017. During this period, Ohio employers faced yearly tax increases that ultimately resulted in them paying an additional $105 per employee in the final year due to the credit reduction, and they paid a total of $260 million in interest charges. These added costs apply to all employers, regardless of size and industry, and it effectively results on a tax on hiring because it's a tax on a per-employee basis. Thankfully, we avoided this situation following the coronavirus pandemic because Governor DeWine, along with support from legislative leaders, used a portion of the state's ARPA funds to pay back the unemployment loan of approximately $1.5 billion. The enactment of House Bill 376 will prevent history from repeating itself again at the next economic downturn by reducing the total payouts from the state's unemployment trust fund. Lowering the maximum duration from 26 to 20 weeks, which still allows for five full months of benefits, will save the system approximately $165 million annually, and that grows to $1.8 billion over 10 years. The resulting drop in revenue that LSC's fiscal note shows House Bill 376 creating can be addressed by further reforms that better align employer tax contributions with experience ratings. Currently, Ohio has approximately 250,000 total contributory employers in the state, and only slightly more than 15,000 are what we call negative rated employers because they have unemployment benefits that exceed their tax contributions. These tax rates range from 7.5% to 10.2%, the maximum rate in Ohio. Under the current tax structure, negative-rated employers account for only 20% of all tax contributions, yet they are responsible for over 50% of all benefit charges. Moreover, the nearly 8,500 employers with the maximum tax rate only account for 3% of the statewide tax contributions, but they are responsible for nearly 40% of all benefit charges. These figures illustrate how Ohio's unemployment insurance program does not align with actuarial principles, and is why the Ohio Chamber has proposed adjusting the tax structure to have negative-rated employers pay more into the system. We believe this approach is suitable since it places more of the burden to finance the system on those who utilize it the most. However, simply charging employers more will not be enough to put our state's unemployment trust fund on a path towards solvency. That is why we believe lowering the benefit duration to 20 weeks, as House Bill 376 proposes, should accompany greater employer contributions into the trust fund. After adjusting the number of benefit weeks, any solvency reforms will fall disproportionately on the backs of employers. In closing, the Ohio Chamber supports House Bill 376 because reducing the maximum duration of benefits to 20 weeks can take the first step towards enacting meaningful solvency reforms that protect Ohio employers from facing higher taxes at the next economic downturn. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I welcome questions from the committee.
Thank you for your testimony. Representative Tesco with the first question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming in and providing your testimony. Tony. Question for you. What is the average duration someone is on unemployment in Ohio currently?
Yeah. Chairman, Representative Teska. The number fluctuates a little bit, but it's right about 13 weeks. So, you know, the average unemployment claimant is not impacted by a reduction from 26 to 20 weeks. Continue.
Why do you think the construction industry is among the heaviest users of unemployment?
Chairman, Representative, kind of the conversation that was happening before, there's this belief that they can't perform construction work throughout the winter months and other months, and so they tend to lay off their employees at the end of the working years or at the end of the working months and then hope that they come back, but kind of expect them to come back when it's time to get ready to work. And as a result of that kind of business model, they are the heaviest users or among the heaviest users.
Other questions for the witness?
So I have a couple. One, if you could delve into negative rated employers, certainly we appreciate those employers being in Ohio, but they pay, the state pays out more than they pay into the system. So this is an I would characterize this as being like an insurance program. It's not because it's government run, but it's like the insurance program. And the insurance programs don't pay, don't stay in business if they're paying out more than they're they're collecting. So how might that be adjusted to help deal with that situation?
Yep. Chairman. So, you know, as I mentioned, the testimony, there's about 15000 of these negative rated employers. It's about 5% of the state's total employer population. And as you mentioned, these are folks where the taxes that they pay into the system do not cover the benefits that charges and payments that their former employees take from the unemployment trust fund. You know, we have proposed essentially kind of targeting those employers for increasing their maximum rates. So I mentioned that these negative rated employers pay right now currently between 7.5% and 10.2%. There's been proposals that we've considered that would increase that by 50%, that would double it for some. And the idea there is if we're going to attack solvency through employer contributions, the folks that are by and large not using the system because most employers are not heavy users of unemployment. It's a true circumstance where it's an unexpected loss of employment for the claimant but also kind of unexpected loss of employment by the employer. These negative rated employers, it tends to become more cyclical for them, especially when you get to that maximum rating. And so for us, addressing those individuals is important to any solvency reform.
And we've been dealing with this issue long enough that would you speak to some of the other states that maybe are less than 26 weeks? And how the system functions in those states? Sure.
Chairman, so there are 10 states that have benefits under 26 weeks. Most of them use a sliding scale, a sliding scale from anywhere from 12 to 14 weeks, 12 to 20 weeks, kind of just depends on the individual state, and they tie it to the state's unemployment rate. So when unemployment is low, the maximum duration is low. As unemployment rates tick up, they add additional weeks to the eligibility. Thank you.
Representative Young with a question. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. How many people, what I'm going to focus on here is the shifting of benefits. How many instances, if they exceed, in your case, the 20%, or today, the 26 weeks, I guess, or whatever it is, when they go beyond that time period aren we shifting it a fiscal trap aren we shifting over to paying out more benefits out of other programs SNAP whatever, any support systems, or you have any data that shows that exchange, are we just putting pressure on other types of support systems after the 26 weeks? Chairman, representative, so no data, but you know what I would say is one of the
important components of being a claimant on unemployment compensation is workforce training. These are requirements that the USDOL puts on, there's requirements that ODJFS has, and so that re-employment piece is important, and we're hopeful that folks that truly, you know, kind of have an unexpected loss of job are able to take advantage of those and find themselves gainful employment. I just checked, so the data that I most recently have is about 23% of claimants exhaust benefits at 26 weeks. So it's still, it's a small number of folks that, you know, find themselves over 26 weeks, you know, pressure on to SNAP, you know, Certainly, you know, other public benefits, but, you know, it's not commonplace or it's not the most frequent thing that happens.
Follow up. Yes, please. When you come up with 20 weeks and you talked about that, why that number? We talked about what are the other states around us are doing 19, 18, 28, 26, whatever. How did you why is that such an important number?
Yeah. Representative, Chairman Representative, you know, it was a number that, you know, Rep. Tesco chose. I think for us, 20 weeks is reasonable. It's still five months of benefits. And it allows us, I think, to, you know, have the conversation about weeks when we talk about solvency. Because if we go say, hey, we're going to do 12 weeks, I think that gets kind of rejected out of hand. You know, if we do something less than 20, you know, I guess, you know, between 20 and 26, like what sort of solvency reforms are we really getting? So we thought we think that that 20 is an appropriate number that brings meaningful reforms to the amount of funds that are coming out of the system. And that to us is one of the things we've always said is when the chamber looks at unemployment solvency, we want balance. And that means balance on the tax revenue and balance on the benefit payouts. Reforms that were considered, you know, during the budget and during last year had employer revenue contributing 90 plus percent to the solvency performance or benefits. And so ultimately, when faced with a solution that was 90% on employer taxes, and yes, it was negative rated employers that were going to pay those taxes, but still, there wasn't going to be benefit reforms on the other side of that, which made it hard for the business community to say we can agree to a deal that has 90% of it on our backs.
I'd just like to make a comment, please. I appreciate that. I would like you to go back and look at some additional figures, and I'll work with the co-chair as well. The fiscal trap is the issue that I'm really looking at. How much are we, what is the cost? You said 23%. It doesn't, that's a big number when you're talking about other benefits, and it's multiple benefits on top of that. I just want to make sure that we're not creating unintended consequences of moving from an unemployment rate or percentage of dollars into a situation where we're increasing benefit costs on the other side. Although, you know, the business community is paying for this, but they're in essence paying for the other side too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman, Representative, I'm willing to work with you, and I think he raised a good point. I'm going to lay out several facts, as I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of those or if you have a different opinion. One, I mean, you're here representing the Ohio Chamber. Yes. I appreciate the work that the Ohio Chamber has done on this issue throughout my time here and even before. And the Ohio Chamber represents a variety of companies of all sizes. And as we talked about negative-rated employers, I assume that there are Chamber members that are likely negative-rated employers. So when you're bringing this proposal, are these thoughts to us? You're representing businesses on all phases of the unemployment spectrum. Is that true? Chairman, yes. You know, the Chamber is unique. We represent all industries, all businesses of all sizes. And so, yes, this would impact directly Ohio Chamber members. And that's why it's important that if we're going to agree to, you know, essentially increasing what they're paying into the system, that there's a balanced reform on the other side.
Other questions? Thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. Next, I call up Michael Wang for proponent testimony. And Michael's with the NFIB.
Thank you for joining us. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chair Peterson, Vice Chair Tesco, Ranking Member White, and members of the Public Insurance and Pensions Committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of our nearly 21,000 members here in Ohio to express NFIB's support for House Bill 376. A bit of background. NFIB was founded in 1943 and is the nation's largest small business advocacy organization dedicated to representing the interests of small and independent businesses. NFIB's mission is to promote the right of our members to own, operate, and grow their businesses here in Ohio. Our average member has 10 or fewer employees and comes from all industry sectors located in all 88 counties here in Ohio. For several decades, our state's unemployment insurance trust fund has been bordering on insolvent, meaning that a moderate recession or economic downturn would rapidly exhaust the balance of the fund. The fund's insolvency, however, is an issue that only tends to reappear at the forefront every few years when our economy faces an economic downturn. For instance, as a result of the 2008-2009 recession, Ohio employers were faced with years of increased state and federal unemployment taxes and had to pay back over $3 billion in loan and interest repayments over several years to the federal government. This money needed to be borrowed as the state's trust fund was quickly depleted to meet our system's high unemployment claim obligations. Seven years went by before the loan was fully paid off in 2016, and that only occurred due to unclaimed funds dollars being used to complete the payment. More recently, Ohio's employers were once again going to be faced with increased federal unemployment taxes to pay back the loan plus interest following the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, through the good work of the Ohio General Assembly, the federal loan was repaid using $1.47 billion of American Rescue Plan funds from the federal government, sparing employers from increased unemployment taxes. House Bill 376 is one way to begin to achieve solvency for the trust fund. Today, thanks to sophisticated job matching programs such as the newly announced WorkOhio initiative and a tight labor market, it no longer takes six months to find a job. The data from ODJFS backs this up. Most claimants do not use all 26 weeks, with the average claim lasting about 14 weeks. Therefore, 20 weeks is still well above the average length of the average unemployment claim. States such as Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, and South Carolina have decreased their maximum weeks to 20 weeks or less. In addition, as benefits get closer to expiration, the data shows the rate of individuals finding jobs increases. This suggests that workers respond to the impending end of benefits, whether that's at 26 or 20 weeks. According to the most recent NFIB jobs report, 50% of small businesses are trying to hire right now, with 31% of owners reporting job openings that they cannot fill. The bottom line is small employers understand the need for a strong safety net, but they also need a system that encourages work insolvency. Chair Peterson and members of the committee, we respectfully ask for a favorable consideration. I'm happy to answer any question at this time.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there questions for the witness?
Representative Tesco with a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for coming in with your testimony. I just want to say that my husband and I's business is one of the 50% of the small businesses trying to hire, and we have job openings that we cannot fill. So this is a very important issue for us. How much were small businesses paying in unemployment taxes after the Great Recession?
Yes, thank you. Through the chair to the vice chair, actually all employers in Ohio were paying, it was $147 per employee after the Great Recession to pay back the loan from the federal government. And just to kind of note, that was every employer, for every employee in every industry, whether they had laid people off or not. Follow?
Thank you. Do you think it really takes six months to find a job right now, with unemployment rate being that it is?
Thank you, Chair, to the Vice Chair. The data I've seen has not shown that, with the average claim being 14 weeks, and, you know, half of small businesses have job openings. It doesn't appear that way.
Thank you.
Other questions for the witness?
So I have one. I did a quick, I pulled up a map just to make sure I had this right. So you reference other states that do this, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, South Carolina. Certainly Arkansas and South Carolina are farther south than Ohio is, but looking at the map that I just pulled up, Iowa, Missouri, very similar to Ohio, likely weather pattern similar to Ohio. Is that a fair statement?
Yes, I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman.
And so you would suggest if Iowa can get by with 20 weeks and function, Ohio might be able to do that also?
Yes, that's correct.
Are there other questions for the witness?
Thank you for being with us. Thank you.
And with no other business before us, we are adjourned. Have a great day.