More

Hire Just One: Congress Looks At Philanthropist's Unusual Jobs Idea

First Posted: 01/24/2012 4:28 pm Updated: 01/25/2012 1:28 am

Philanthropist Gene Epstein says he donated $250,000 to assorted charities on behalf of businesses that hired unemployed people starting in 2009. Now he's trying to broaden his impact, attempting to sway Congress on a bill to encourage hiring the unemployed.

Several members of the House of Representatives have taken an interest in Epstein's idea, which would allow businesses to collect a new hire's remaining weeks of unemployment insurance in a move similar to a measure introduced in the House last year by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio). Epstein, 72, has been lobbying for his version of the bill by relentlessly emailing and calling Republican and Democratic staffers.

"We are working with him," Tali Caiazza, a spokeswoman for Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), told HuffPost. "He came to us. He's a resident of southeastern Pennsylvania and we've been working with him and other offices to work out the details and put forward a good piece of legislation."

In 2010, Epstein, a former car dealer and real estate investor near Philadelphia, pledged to make a $1,000 charitable donation on behalf of any business that hired an unemployed person as part of his "Hire Just One" initiative. HuffPost and other news outlets interviewed businesses that participated and made hires that that year; Epstein said he reached his self-imposed $250,000 donation limit in no time.

Epstein said Hire Just One encouraged businesses to take a proactive approach to healing the economy, and that the message resonates. "They didn't do it because of the $1,000 to charity," he said. "They did it because it made sense."

The new Hire Just One proposal would allow a business that hires a laid-off worker to collect the remaining duration of the new hire's unemployment insurance. The business has to pay at least double what the person was earning in unemployment payments, and it can't eliminate a position in order to qualify. The new hire would have to be somebody who has been out of work longer than six months and receiving money from unemployment insurance. A bill has not been introduced, but Epstein shared a draft of the measure with HuffPost.

"I want to see the economy stimulated quickly," Epstein said. "A business has 120 days to sign on to this program once it's enacted by Congress."

In June of 2011, freshman Rep. Renacci introduced a bill called the "Empowering More Productive and Lasting Opportunity Act," which garnered bipartisan support and would have done essentially the same thing. The business would receive up to 90 percent of what the unemployed person received in benefits and would have to pay the worker at least 110 percent that amount. A modified version of Renacci's legislation was approved by the lower chamber in December as part of a broader bill that failed in the Senate.

That failed bill contained a host of reforms to the unemployment insurance system, some of which could be revived when Congress takes up another reauthorization of federal unemployment insurance in February.

Most labor and worker advocacy groups probably won't like Epstein's idea, as it directs unemployment money to businesses instead of holding it in reserve for workers. But the proposal is similar to one put forward by the White House last summer. The Obama administration's "Bridge to Work" plan, which had bipartisan support, would have let businesses train unemployment insurance recipients for a short period of time without having to pay them.

Epstein doesn't see why anyone would oppose his plan. "I cannot conceive in my wildest dreams how any advocacy group for workers would not completely be thrilled to endorse this program, which will provide the unemployed with dignity and new good paying jobs where their income will be, at a minimum, double what they're receiving on unemployment," he said.

Schwartz and Renacci's offices declined to say what they're planning, but Epstein intends to thank them with full-page ads in Philadelphia-area newspapers. "Your caring will change the lives of millions of people and get our economy on the track to prosperity," a draft version of the ad says.

Make your voice heard:

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Philanthropist Gene Epstein says he donated $250,000 to assorted charities on behalf of businesses that hired unemployed people starting in 2009. Now he's trying to broaden his impact, attempting to s...
Philanthropist Gene Epstein says he donated $250,000 to assorted charities on behalf of businesses that hired unemployed people starting in 2009. Now he's trying to broaden his impact, attempting to s...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 34
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jennifer Malcom
Waiting for the revolution...
12:42 PM on 01/26/2012
I like this, but what about those of us who don't get unemployment insurance?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
slocomgp
10:40 AM on 01/28/2012
Us = A lot of people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jennifer Malcom
Waiting for the revolution...
11:52 AM on 01/28/2012
Exactly!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
09:42 PM on 01/25/2012
Where's Tom Hendricks and his "National Hiring Day" idea? Sounds similar.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bmcombs
Liberal, Gay, Atheist - The Whole Package
03:09 PM on 01/25/2012
As a nonprofit executive director - this would have very little impact on my hiring decisions. I suppose it is worth a try to see if it would work, but, I'm not all that crazy about it.
10:39 AM on 01/25/2012
Mr.Epstein please don't give up.Those who don't want businesses to have their unemployment checks would rather stayed unemployed but there are millions of us that would gladly have a business take the checks and pay us more than double our compensation checks.WE WANT TO WORK! We want our DIGNITY! Thank God for people like you.Please DO NOT GIVE UP!
10:14 PM on 01/24/2012
The problem with Just hire one is its a small time cherity project no employer is going to hire one that they dont need unless they can get his unemployment check and make him work for it to. Under my plan I will need to hire permadent employees and there sacrifice of unemployment benefits for work will be repaid by profit sharing and employee ownership of the new company from invention conception of new products with myself to help assure sucess.Of course we need startup money from congress for only top new marketable products consumer demand unsatisfied and changes in patent reform to accomplish this
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainRenault
Here to keep an eye on the rascals.
07:50 PM on 01/24/2012
[HuffPo webmaster: Why does my cursor go to the top of the page here whn I try to select a comment as a Favorite? This is not normal. Just FYI. ]

^ ^

*************************************************************************************************
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptainRenault
Here to keep an eye on the rascals.
07:45 PM on 01/24/2012
Outstanding! . . . Thank you Mr. Epstein!!

We need more guys who think like this and take action to back up their ideas! (Congress, are you listening??!)

^ ^
photo
bookreader451
"You can't ever have my books," she said.
07:33 PM on 01/24/2012
Congress doesn't want to pay benefits to people but to corporations no problem.

As for Epstein Kudos.
photo
hetrose
And it harm none, do what you will.
07:03 PM on 01/24/2012
What I am about to say may seem like a small distinction, but it is an important one...

Money from the Unemployment Insurance Fund should Never be given to any business. That is an Absolutely Not under Any circumstances stance. It flies in the face of the purpose and meaning of the Fund.

BUT, if you think this idea has any merit at all, then consider this alternative...

The business that will hire someone who is currently receiving Unemployment Compensation, or "someone who was receiving it and is no longer receiving it but who is still unemployed", will be rewarded in the following manner: For a reasonable length of time, according the type of employment being offered (how long does it take to train a new employee and what does the job pay After training is complete), the new employee will continue to receive Unemployment Compensation checks from the government and the new employer will only have to pay the difference between that and the normal salary. At the end of the training period the checks from the government will stop and the employer will then pay the full After Training salary. For this consideration, the employer will agree to keep the new employee (barring any really egregious behavior which would normally lead to dismissal) for a minimum of one year (or perhaps two years).
10:55 PM on 01/24/2012
UI "should never be given to any business." Exactly what I was thinking. And wasn't that the plan proposed last summer?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bmcombs
Liberal, Gay, Atheist - The Whole Package
03:04 PM on 01/25/2012
Your plan is really just six to one, half a dozen to another.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SirenForSanity
Hi De Hi Hi De Ho Times
10:51 AM on 01/28/2012
Your perspective is from an employer who would not abuse the program. That is not the case for many employers.
06:57 PM on 01/24/2012
What a great idea!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ManwithaParachute
Not Seeking Your Approval
06:33 PM on 01/24/2012
More theft from the class Warmongers of the RIGHT.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drkazmd65
Mom Taught me - Question Everything - Thanks Mom!
05:16 PM on 01/24/2012
Well - I've definately heard dumber more lame-brained ideas. Give it a shot as some pilot program in a State and see how it flies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aychrist
05:14 PM on 01/24/2012
Am I missing something? The people who want to get rid of unemployment now want to pay unemployment to companies that would likely be hiring people anyway?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drkazmd65
Mom Taught me - Question Everything - Thanks Mom!
05:19 PM on 01/24/2012
It gives a prospective employer a chance to 'try out' an employee with lower risk. If the employee works out - you've essentailly had the Government (who was going to pay some anyway) underwrite an on-the-job training stint at a private company.

The employer might get a great employee. If not - they are not out much money.

The employee gets a chance to prove him/herself, get some higher income, redevelop their self respect and work ethic, and gets their foot in the door

In the longer run - the Government regains another taxpayer off the unemployment roles.

Where's the downside? I don't really see one.
photo
FLFan
Live by example.
05:32 PM on 01/24/2012
The only downside I see is that it applies ONLY to people who are still eligible for unemployment. There are many (and I don't have statistics, but I would bet it's a high number) who have exhausted their benefits. What can be done for them? Are they just SOL?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SirenForSanity
Hi De Hi Hi De Ho Times
10:55 AM on 01/28/2012
Right to work states have very, very few jobs that would hire anybody with wages double unemployment. They will balk at continuing that wage once the subsidy has run out.
06:43 PM on 01/24/2012
Its a warfed out version of my original plan of using unemployed workers collecting unemployment as new top marketable invention startup company owner employees in partnership with myself. Georgia turned it into free money for employers and now this it seams congress will go in any wrong direction possible
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:07 PM on 01/24/2012
that means companies are deliberately not hiring people .... why why why?
photo
WI Patriot
Defending the Constitution.
06:23 PM on 01/24/2012
Why is it libs are so clueless on how business works? Are you a govt worker? You can't simply just raise taxes to cover costs.

Here just one why -

1. When a business hires someone - particularly for medium to small businesses - its a huge deal and you will be taking a loss for 3-6 months - which is a long, long time. If the worker doesn't pan out you just threw $10-$20K of your OWN money into the trash can! Boom gone like that.

Do you have $10k-20k to burn? I didn't think so.

This would at least soften the blow to the loss the business will take in the short term, for hopefully a long term gain with money that's going to be gone anyway.



1. When a business takes on
05:01 PM on 01/24/2012
No one hires people they don't need regardless of incentives. If people are hired, it's because they are needed. This is just another giveaway to business owners and pays them for making a decision they would have made anyway.
11:49 PM on 01/27/2012
Yes and no. I agree that people not needed are not hired. BUT for businesses that need someone, especially if they want the business to grow, but are right on the edge for being able to get someone in and to a productive level of return on investment...this could be enough of a jump start, particularly for smaller businesses. He's advocating this for longer-term unemployed, 6 months, which is good if the money left is enough to be more than a token, because the longer term unemployed have a harder time getting a job (stigma, more qualified folks get hired in tight times first, etc.)

Worth looking at...wonder if there is a provision that requires the employer to keep the person employed for a certain period of time...like housing incentives that require the homeowner to remain in the home for 5 years, or the training incentives that say the employee has to stay on the job 3 years or reimburse for the training.

Anyway, props to Epstein for trying to make something happen.