Unemployment

Maryland business groups dismayed by Gov. Martin O'Malley's proposal to expand unemployment benefits, which could cost companies an estimated $20 million a year, are negotiating ways to offset the expense. O'Malley said last month that he wants the state to broaden the qualifying period for benefits so that the state can access about $127 million in federal money to prop up its quickly shrinking unemployment insurance fund. The change requires legislation. Business groups have balked at O'Malley's proposal to implement what's called the "alternative base period," which increases the period of time that is examined when determining whether someone is eligible for unemployment benefits.

Gov. Martin O'Malley has proposed a law that would help to modernize Maryland's unemployment insurance system, which is woefully outdated. If passed, the bill would bring our system into the 21st Century by looking at a person's most recent work history to determine eligibility - and bring Maryland approximately $126 million in much-needed federal stimulus money. Passage of this bill should be a no-brainer. Yet, some business groups say they oppose it. They want to slash benefits for low-wage workers, cut the $8 dependent care credit, and force people to wait a week with no income before applying for benefits.

BEYOND Baltimore, the news is excellent: job growth up, unemployment down. Inside the city's borders, though, unemployment remains distressingly high. Close to a quarter of Maryland's unemployed live in Baltimore, even though the city accounts for just 11 percent of the state's civilian labor. Within the region, the city represents 23 percent of the work force, but a whopping 41 percent of the unemployed. It's a situation that has persisted throughout Maryland's long expansion. The state unemployment rate for September stood at 3.4 percent -- well below the national average.

Throw a life preserver to drowning men and the last thing you might expect is a lecture from these waterlogged souls about how you're making them dependent on life preservers. But that's exactly how some ungrateful Republican governors have responded to federal stimulus aid. There are flaws in the stimulus program, and we've identified them before. But what seems to annoy South Carolina's Mark Sanford and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal is that a temporary boost in federal funding for programs such as Medicaid could prove addictive.

Unemployment in Maryland dropped to a low 3.8 percent in January, the federal government said yesterday, but employers didn't add very many jobs - just 1,300. The preliminary numbers, adjusted by the Labor Department to account for seasonal variations, continue a trend of conflicting messages about the state's job market. The unemployment rate, which improved from 3.9 percent in December, is nearly as good as it was in the economic boom years of 1999 and 2000. But job growth has turned fairly anemic.

Maryland employers added thousands of jobs last month, a sign that prospects could be improving for out-of-work residents, though unemployment continued to rise. The Labor Department estimated Friday that companies created 10,000 jobs between June and July, adjusted for seasonal variations. That's an unusually large number - the biggest increase in four years - but economists cautioned that the picture is probably skewed by the agency's attempt to account for normal hiring and layoff patterns in these abnormal economic times.

Unemployment in this recession could have long-term ripple effects because many more of the long-term unemployed are educated, middle age and middle class. Retirement systems will face the consequences of lower contributions and early retirements. Parents are having trouble funding college as they lose income. Those previously with stable credit can't pay mortgages and other obligations. The presence of so many older, educated people among the ranks of the unemployed requires a nuanced policy response.

If I am fired for refusing to perform newly instituted mandatory overtime, will I be ineligible for unemployment? When I took the job, the company didnM-Ft tell me I would have to work mandatory overtime. You could be fired even if you worked the overtime. In an employment- at-will state (which is just about every state), you can be fired at any time for any reason except discrimination on the basis of race, gender, etc., unless youM-Fre covered by a contract. You wouldnM-Ft qualify for unemployment under your scenario.