GOP bills revamping unemployment rules get Assembly hearing
State Rep. Jerry O'Connor gives testimony in favor of a bill that would require state agencies to report on various metrics for training and workforce development programs they supervise. (Screenshot/WisEye)
Republicans in the state Legislature are taking another run at changes to unemployment insurance and workforce programs in Wisconsin that Gov. Tony Evers vetoed in August 2023.
While sponsors of the bills cited a couple of modifications in some measures, they are for the most part unchanged, they said during public hearings Wednesday for four bills in the Assembly's labor committee.
One, AB 162, would require state agencies to compile a series of metrics on training and workforce development programs under their supervision, including the unemployment rates and median earnings of participants six months after they graduate from a program.
'We want to make certain our money's being spent in a way that generates a positive beneficial return both for taxpayers and for the individuals participating in the programs,' said state Rep. Jerry O'Connor (R-Fond du Lac), testifying in favor of the bill. 'We'd look at the percent of individuals enrolled in training programs who obtained a measurable skill gain.'
O'Connor said the bill draws its performance measures from the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a federal workforce training law updated in 2014.
In vetoing the version of the bill that passed the last session of the Legislature, Evers said that many state programs it covered didn't fit with WIOA's reporting structure and 'have separate requirements under current state law.'
Three other bills would impose tighter restrictions on the unemployment insurance (UI) system.
AB 167 would expand the definition of employee misconduct that would be grounds for denying an unemployment insurance claim as well as for a worker's compensation claim. The bill would also require DWD to conduct random audits of 50% of all work searches reported by people claiming UI.
AB 168 would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting felony fraudulent UI claims to eight years. It would also require the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to produce more training materials for employers and UI claimants, operate a call center and expand its hours in times of higher volume, check various state and national databases to verify that UI applicants qualify, and implement 'identity-proofing' measures.
AB 169 would penalize UI recipients who do not show up for a job interview they have been granted or a job they've been offered — 'commonly referred to as ghosting,' said state Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), the bill's author.
A UI recipient who fails to respond to an interview request or job offer, fails to report for a scheduled job interview or who is not available to return to work at their previous job would lose unemployment benefits for the week in which that occurred. The bill does not impose the penalty for the first offense.
State Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson) asked Knodl whether the bill had gone through the state's Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. The joint labor-management body revises the state's UI law every two years. In the past Evers has vetoed UI proposals for not going through the council.
'This is one of those that they're not going to visit,' Knodl said. 'So that's why we're here as a stand-alone bill.'
Nobody testified against the bills Wednesday, but Victor Forberger, a Madison attorney who represents people with UI claims, sent the committee a four-page memo opposing them. He wrote that DWD already does most of what AB 168 would require, and that it would 'hamstring' the department 'when new practices and resources emerge.'
The measures 'will do nothing to make unemployment more useful and efficient for Wisconsin workers and employers,' Forberger wrote.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest | Opinion Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest. Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Rule No. 2: Protesters can only use American flags Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy Rule No. 3: No spitting on or disrespecting law enforcement officers In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. Follow Trump's protesting rules, or he'll call in the troops It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Readers sound off on the Trump/Musk rift, anti-ICE protests and Diddy's abuse
Dartmouth, Mass.: Being the richest man in the world does not appear sufficiently ego-gratifying for Elon Musk. Observing his recent involvement with the Trump administration, with his destructive actions leading the DOGE crusade to disrupt or destroy American governance, one wonders what his motivation is. Is it financial gain, media attention or a quest for power? Or is it a grand plan conceived by a man with a deep psychological disorder? Musk's recent severe criticism of President Trump's legislative agenda is perhaps the first salvo in his plan to save America from the conflagration he ignited and helped enlarge. Is the grand scheme to now be the white knight who comes to the rescue and douses the flames, thereby becoming the hero who saved America? The legislative and judicial branches of government have either enabled, been enriched by or ignored the destruction occurring to American democracy. Musk can now assume the role of hero by utilizing his enormous resources to defeat Trump's agenda by threatening to 'out-primary' any Republican legislators who continue to support the president. Trump has certainly provided a roadmap by imposing or threatening tariffs, or defunding and then dowsing the flames with a change of course, thus appearing as though he's coming to the rescue of America. Musk has far more personal resources and grasp of political strategy than Trump, and may have greater aspirations as he interjects himself into the politics of Brazil, Germany and the United States. Betty Ussach Glendale: From the ancient text 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu, it is said, 'All war is based on deception.' The same applies to the accusations of division now viewed as front-page news regarding Trump versus Musk. Such antics create a storyline that hurts people. Also stated in the book: 'There's no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.' Our country is experiencing a period of adjustment whereby deception has been made to separate us. The lesson from the book stipulates, 'There are times when you have to forgive your enemies and love them as your own.' Hatred never ends if people embrace only what makes them comfortable. Jonathan Kiddrane Brooklyn: Let me get this straight. TACO man sits on his hands when his criminal cultists storm the Capitol, but he unleashes the National Guard on peaceful protesters? When is this madness going to end? Don't tell me America is not in the midst of a constitutional crisis. June Lowe Staatsburg, N.Y.: Trump deploys the National Guard for individuals who are protesting in Los Angeles. Rioters attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 and the National Guard was not deployed, then the rioters were pardoned. What's wrong with this picture? I really hope no one tries to explain this to me, because it's obvious that this so-called president has no idea how to run this joke of a country that the United States has become. Glenn Marowitz Manhattan: Joe Biden thought he needed woke approval to be reelected. Woke devotees created sanctuary cities and no immigrants could be deported. That and no bail for repeat criminals was the end for Biden and the Dems. They would not allow the bad apples to be vetted and deported. Trump had a royal straight flush in this game of hold 'em. An inexperienced Vice President Kamala Harris only added to the pot. Trump got elected and decided to deport everyone. All those righteous people are now thrown in with the criminals. These uprisings in California are just the beginning. We will soon see violent terrorist operations carried out secretly. People like AOC and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams are responsible. Fascist Trump is smiling and licking his lips as if he just had a jelly donut. There are no strong Dems to counteract him. We are in big trouble. Michael Malewich Avon-by-the-Sea, N.J.: There were a few letters in yesterday's edition questioning why ICE agents cover their faces. Simple answer: Same reason the protesters do — to avoid discovery. Protesters want to evade arrest and prosecution. ICE agents want to protect their families and selves from retaliation. The liberal justice system would most likely free the criminals while ICE agents face physical retaliation. Robert Stiloski Bronx: Where is the outcry from the left demanding that protesters remove their masks? More importantly, where is their condemnation of the violence and destruction taking place? Those who take part in destructive mobs should be held accountable and required to pay for any damages caused. Even a simple act of assault or resistance against a federal officer can carry up to a year in jail. Enforcing the law consistently is essential to stopping this wave of violence. Al D'Angelo Smithtown, L.I.: Voicer Katherine Raymond agrees with democratic-socialist ideas such as taxing the rich but, like almost all liberals, 'the rich' are anyone making more than her. She shows her hand by questioning how anyone can think a household income of $1 million qualifies as rich. Is she kidding or is this a misprint? Andrew Ross Bronx: As a 48-year Belmont/Little Italy resident, community advocate and 37-year NYC Board of Education/Department of Education educator and parent, it has become abundantly clear that neither Rafael Moure-Punnett, the rest of Bronx Community Board 6, The Belmont BID or, as of yet, any of our local politicians have shown a genuine or active interest in the safety and wellbeing of the children, teenagers or families in our neighborhood in regard to the completely unchecked speeding that has been going on for more than a decade one block from our local elementary, middle and high schools. Despite the Department of Transportation claiming to have done a study in this area, one of their representatives would not provide the time or date they did so, yet insisted that their conclusion had been there was no need for a traffic light on the corner of this highly dangerous intersection. Jeff Vargon Peekskill, N.Y.: To Voicer John Weiss: Wrong you are! On page 24 in Friday's Daily News, there was an article on the 81st anniversary of that momentous day ('WWII vets are still toast of Normandy even 81 years later,' June 6)! I guess it appeared in my paper and no one else's. Steven Bevacqua Pleasantville, N.Y.: To Voicer Nick Smith: My letter wasn't saying that criticism of Israel is always antisemitic, it was more about why Israel is the only country heavily criticized for fighting terrorism. Every year, when Yom Haatzmaut, which is known as Israeli Independence Day, and the Salute to Israel Parade come up, I always hear a bunch of anti-Israel fanatics calling it Nakba Day as an insult. Had the Arabs just accepted the UN Partition Plan back in 1947 rather than attack the Jews that day, there wouldn't be such issues now. As for me living where I do, it was because my father had a major job transfer when I was an infant that brought my family here. If you really believe in giving land back to indigenous groups, then give your property to the Native American tribe that originally lived there. Tal Barzilai Staten Island: So far, everything I have read or seen about Sean 'Diddy' Combs shows that he is rich, controlling and a bully. No matter what, people's lives have been ruined. I hope he can't buy his way out of this. Thomas Bell Bronx: To Voicer Stephanie Revander: You do not disagree with what I said, but how I said it. I could have made my point and saved four words by leaving out 'run-of-the-mill.' In retrospect, I should have stated that while some rapists can be reformed, that does not include those who brutally beat and/or choke their victims unconscious. They should serve life. Richard Warren
an hour ago
GOP House Homeland chairman Green to retire from Congress early
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The House Homeland Security Committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, announced Monday that he will retire from Congress once the House votes again on the sprawling tax and budget policy bill backed by President Donald Trump. In a statement, Green said he was offered a private sector opportunity that was 'that was too exciting to pass up' so he informed House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday of his retirement plans. The move comes more than a year after Green announced he wouldn't run again in 2024, but changed his mind when fellow Republicans implored him to stick around. Green's next election would have been in 2026. Green voted for Trump's sweeping legislation when it passed the House last month. The bill is now in the Senate's hands, and would need to return to the House for agreement on any changes. Trump wants the bill on his desk for his signature by July 4. Green's delayed departure could help with the GOP's narrow margins in the House. Republican leaders need every vote they can get on their big tax bill, which they managed to pass last month by a single vote and will have to pass again once changes are made in the Senate. They now have a 220-212 majority. 'It was the honor of a lifetime to represent the people of Tennessee in Congress," Green said. "They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so.' Green's seat will be decided in a special election. The timing will depend on when he leaves office. Ahead of his 2024 reelection, Green had announced that February 2024 he would not run again. The decision was revealed a day after the impeachment of then-President Joe Biden's Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But many fellow Republicans had called on him to reconsider, and he jumped back into the running just two weeks later. He was unopposed in the Republican primary and then defeated Democrat Megan Barry — the former Nashville mayor who resigned in 2018 in scandal — by more than 21 percentage points in November 2024. Green, 60, has served since 2019 in the 7th Congressional District, which was redrawn in 2022 to include a significant portion of Nashville. The city was carved up three ways in the 2022 redistricting so Republicans could flip a Democratic district in Congress that had covered Music City, which they successfully did. Green previously served as an Army surgeon and in the state Senate and is from Montgomery County. Green flirted running for governor in 2017, but suspended his campaign after he was nominated by former President Donald Trump to become the Army secretary. He later withdrew his nomination due to criticism over his remarks about Muslims and LGBTQ+ Americans.
