Will changes to R.I.’s unemployment policies ease hiring woes?

Updated at 3:31 p.m. on May 21, 2021.

RHODE ISLAND OFFICIALS have made changes to the unemployment insurance benefits, which will go into effect on May 23. The changes are intended to persuade more people to return to the workforce. / AP FILE PHOTO/NAM Y. HUH
RHODE ISLAND OFFICIALS have made changes to the unemployment insurance benefits, which will go into effect on May 23. The changes are intended to persuade more people to return to the workforce. / AP FILE PHOTO/NAM Y. HUH
The age-old debate between academia and the business world has resurfaced, this time over whether generous unemployment insurance benefits are to blame for employers’ hiring woes. Small-business owners and business organizations contend the extra $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits is why they can’t fill open positions, despite the state’s still-elevated unemployment rate. But…

Register to keep reading or subscribe today and receive unlimited access.
Register Now Already a Subscriber? Login now

Purchase NowWant to share this story? Click Here to purchase a link that allows anyone to read it on any device whether or not they are a subscriber.

No posts to display

2 COMMENTS

  1. Sarah Bratko is absolutely CORRECT!!!! Academia and “real world” are 2 very different things! Trying to find certified nursing assistants for nursing homes prior to the pandemic was a struggle, during and after the high government dole outs it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get people hired and show up for work everyday! The nursing home industry is paying the highest wages to CNA’S, benefits do not matter anymore because benefits are from the government already. SO it is swimming against the tide, then put minimum staffing legislation on top of it, NO WIN SITUATION!

  2. What Mr. Krinsky is forgetting is that people historically could not afford to not work because of “low pay.” The government is subsidizing them to stay home so that they have the luxury of choosing to work for “low pay” or not. If the government removes the subsidy (the extra $300 / week), workers will be motivated to get a job to cover expenses. So, yes, Mr. Krinsky, the $300 is directly related.