Hawley bill would exempt farmers from unemployment insurance for immigrant workers

"Under state law, alien laborers are not eligible for unemployment insurance, so there is no need for employers to pay into the unemployment insurance fund."

And yet farmers have been paying for decades. Where did the money go?

Typical Albany mismanagement and dysfunction. I wouldn't be surprised to see downstate democrats/liberals manufacture a reason to keep it. They don't care about farmers and crave every red cent they can get from all of us.

On it’s face this proposed legislation makes every good sense. In fact I have to ask why did this not get addressed long before now? Especially in the districts where farming regularly uses alien workers.

But re-reading I find it says “Under state law, alien laborers are not eligible for unemployment insurance, so there is *no need for employers to pay into the unemployment insurance fund*”. I'd like some clarification on this language. Does this Bill propose that farms that employ alien workers pay “nothing” into the UI program? The answer is probably obvious, but then never take anything for obvious when it comes to politics.

"Does this Bill propose that farms that employ alien workers pay “nothing” into the UI program? "

Brian, that's exactly what it says, maybe not in those exact words, but in a round about way.

You raise a good point Brian. I don't store any faith in ANY politician's verbal communication so I'd be interested to see how that's written up before jumping on the bandwagon... I can see this being worded properly to include ALL farm employees pretty easily. Although the article states "for workers who are ineligible", I do see a crack opened in that back door that needs to be slammed tight with some clarification.

I'm all for changing this law, but I'm not willing to give them a bye on the whole farm's employee roll. I... for one... am getting tired of giving all of these "poor farmers" exemptions for everything under the sun while somehow these supposedly poor folks can afford to ride around in top of the line 4x4 pickups. And they don't seem to have any problem replacing these high dollar "farm" trucks on a regular basis either!

Brian, Ed, Et al. - The text for said bill concerning this press release can be found at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A06256&term=2015&Summa…

As I read the text of A06256, (to me) it would appear to (possibly) be an addition, or a change, to an existing 'law'.

For anyone wanting further clarification, I would guess that you have the option of 'following the links from A to Z'.
Should make for some pretty good bedtime reading/research.

As said bill doesn't affect me, I'll leave that (investigating) to those which may be affected.

Hope this helps answer your questions/fears/curiousity.

I wonder if this Bill will also exempt these aliens from having to pay income tax? Here's some of the Bill's Text... "THE TERM "EMPLOYMENT" DOES NOT INCLUDE SERVICES RENDERED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS AN ALIEN ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES TO PERFORM AGRICULTURAL LABOR".

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A06256&term=2015&Summa…

""for workers who are ineligible"

Ed, how is that not clear and concise????

Well Bob... I'd like to know exactly who is and who isn't included in their definition of that word "ineligible". And it needs to be precisely defined in the new law when it's written.

Politicians are highly skilled at playing shell games with words. All I want is the shells off the table and the pea right out there in the open.

Agricultural workers, which include farm workers, are covered by unemployment insurance
when their employer is required to pay unemployment insurance contributions by becoming
liable under the UI Law. Agricultural employers become liable:
• As of the first day of the calendar quarter in which they pay wages of $20,000 or
more to agricultural workers, or
• As of the first day of the calendar year in which they employ ten or more
agricultural workers on each of 20 days, each day being in a different week, during
a calendar year or the preceding year, or
• As of the first day of the calendar quarter in which they pay any wages to
agricultural workers in this State, if the employer is also liable under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act with respect to agricultural workers.
A farm labor contractor (crew leader) would also have to pay unemployment insurance
contributions if they have met the conditions for liability above and if:
• The contractor is not the employee of the farm operator, and
o The contractor holds a valid Certificate of Registration under the federal Farm
Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963, or
o All of the crew operate or maintain mechanized equipment that the crew leader
provides.
Agricultural employers who do not meet the conditions for liability may choose to cover their
employees voluntarily.
Employers who are not sure if they are required to pay unemployment insurance contributions,
or who wish to cover their employees voluntarily, should write to:

New York State Department of Labor
Unemployment Insurance Division, Liability and Determination Section
State Office Building Campus
Albany, New York 12240.

https://labor.ny.gov/formsdocs/wp/ls118.pdf

Hi, Ed.
I understand what you're saying and fully agree. 'GOOD' politicians are usually good wordsmiths, and, if they aren't, they hire them.
What looks like a simple typo could totally change the meaning of a sentence. (ie. affect vs. effect, blah blah blah)

Now, I have no idea what Steve Hawley's workload consists of. As he represents, I'm guessing, tens-of-thousands of constituents, I know it isn't a position that I'd want. JUST reading some of the comments here on thebatavian (and that's just 1 website), I've seen people complain that (Hawley) does absolutely nothing. I highly doubt that. I've gotta imagine his email box, alone, would be somewhat overwhelming. And, he's probably fielding phone calls all day, too. Then he's traveling from one meeting to some other function to some honorary 'ribbon-cutting', blah-blah-blah. No thank you!
So he sends out these press releases, to sites such as this, to cover, hopefully, a larger area.
If you read the press release above, it lists the (bill) number. You (now) have several options (as opposed to pre-internet days):

(A) you can call him, and, if extremely lucky, have him take 3, or 4, or 10 minutes explaining this one item to 1 constituent. Not very productive, though, if, say, 137 people call for said info (on just 1 item!).

(B) you can email him, and wait & hope that you get a satisfactory reply

(C) you can 'do the legwork' (which, today, is much, much easier than it was 20 years ago - when you would've had to call this person & that person, and go to this courthouse or that library, etc. to get your answers to any and all of your concerns). NOW, you can read the bill online, trace backwards thru the info in the bill's text, and, hopefully find what you need.

By going to the link I provided in my 1st comment, there is info in the bill's text that can be backtraced - for those that have the will to do so, because it'll entail reading unemployment laws, immigration laws, blah-blah-blah.

Ed, I'm not trying to be a hardass. Just trying to help. Personally, if I was gonna try to alleviate my concerns, I'd try a phone call first (keeping in mind, of course, that just because somebody says something verbally doesn't necessarily make it true). So, if you want 100% guarantee's, you'ld probably be better off spending countless hours on the 'net' backtracking.

Just throwing this out there:

Imagine if 5 US Citizens are working at a local farm. Then they are "displaced" by 5 aliens coming from Mexico. The Farmer now no longer needs to pay UI on these 5. Who Pays for the Unemployment Benefits those 5 US displaced workers receive? ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES IN NY! Every time we shift the burden away from one person, it's put on the backs of others. EVERY person hired to work for wages should count and be "paid on" by the employers who employ them, regardless of whether they can legally receive the benefits or not! This would only serve to further incentivize Farmers to hire MORE aliens and LESS Americans. I don't support this at all. If you come to this country and displace an American from his job, that employer should not get a "break" for laying off a US Citizen. Pay the UI. Cutting the funding source does not mean the expense goes away! In this case, there's a very good chance that cutting the funding source (UI Premiums) actually makes the expense grow (Benefits that need to be paid).....for other businesses to pick up!

As I'm sure the only Democrat responding to this thread (because this site is becoming known for rabid conservatism) I'm a little surprised at the responses. This is Hawley once again pandering without understanding the financial impact on the other side! Happens all the time locally because people vote with the "gut" and if stuff "feels right". Total BS. Just like the Veteran's exemption on School Tax. This should have AT LEAST been "means tested". Perhaps a Veteran living in a home under $60K. Something like that. It "feels right" to award Veterans and that's why it passed overwhelmingly. My father-in-law did 2 tours in Nam (one of my hero's), has a nice Military Pension which he earned, and great retirement from OTB, and picks up his Full SSI. He makes more money now than while he was working. His School Tax dropped $80 and mine went up $110. So even if the school board can settle on a budget with no tax increase, there will still be a tax increase due to shifting the burden on non-military folks. I'm happy to pay this additional share, and thankfully have the means to do so, but there are many folks who simply can't. But how could you possibly vote against Veterans? How can you possibly vote against those farmers growing our food? This type of legislation is all frosting an NO CAKE. Much like the State and National representation we've had in this area for a LONG time!