An act to amend Section 3302.1 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, relating to unemployment insurance. insurance, and making an appropriation therefor.
Summary
AB 2054 would amend the definition of “covered active duty” in the Family Temporary Disability Insurance program under the Unemployment Insurance Code. The bill expands the circumstances under which a worker may take paid family temporary disability leave for a qualifying military exigency involving a spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the Armed Forces. In addition to the current focus on deployment to a foreign country, the bill would include training, other deployments, and, for reserve components including the National Guard, calls or orders to federal or state active duty.
The practical effect is to broaden eligibility for state wage-replacement benefits when a family member is away on military-related duty. Because the program is funded through the continuously appropriated Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund, the bill is also treated as making an appropriation for the expanded benefit coverage. The measure does not change the basic structure of the program, which still provides up to eight weeks of benefits for qualifying family care, bonding, and military exigency leave, but it would extend the military-exigency trigger to more service situations.
Impact
AB 2054 would amend Section 3302.1 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, changing the statutory definition of “covered active duty” for purposes of family temporary disability insurance. This would expand who can qualify for benefits tied to a military family member’s service, including National Guard members and situations involving training or state active duty. Because benefits are paid from a continuously appropriated state fund, the bill would authorize additional expenditures from that fund and could increase program costs if more claims are approved.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition. The bill advanced unanimously in committee votes, including a 8-0 vote and a 16-0 vote, and was sent onward with a recommendation for the consent calendar. There is no committee transcript showing substantive debate, but the unanimous votes indicate the measure was generally viewed favorably and as a relatively noncontroversial expansion of existing benefits for military families.
Contention
No major points of contention are evident in the provided record. The main policy issue is the scope of the expanded definition of covered active duty: supporters would likely view the bill as closing gaps for families affected by training, non-foreign deployments, and state active duty, while any concerns would center on added fiscal exposure to the disability fund and the breadth of eligibility. The bill text and digest also note an appropriation issue, but the committee actions do not show recorded opposition.
Employment security: administration; assessment of penalties, interest, or fees on certain unpaid restitution of benefit overpayments; prohibit. Amends sec. 15 of 1936 (Ex Sess) PA 1 (MCL 421.15).
Employment security: administration; plain language; require the unemployment agency to use in communications and determinations. Amends sec. 2 & 32b of 1936 (Ex Sess) PA 1 (MCL 421.2 & 421.32b) & adds sec. 32e.