At June 19, 2025, meeting of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council, the labor and management proposals this year were presented to the public.
Labor proposals
The labor proposals this year reflect many of the Department’s own proposals (for good and bad).
Increase the maximum weekly benefit rate for unemployment benefits to $497 per week in 2026 and then have the rate indexed for subsequent years.
This proposal mirrors Department proposal D25-04.
Eliminating the one-week waiting period.
This proposal mirrors Department proposal D25-03.
Increasing the wage cap to $672 in 2026 and then having the wage cap indexed in subsequent years.
Other than Department proposal D25-05 increasing the wage cap to $692 instead of $672, this proposal is a duplicate of the Department proposal.
Note: The discrepancy between $672 and $692 is probably a typo.
Expanding worker mis-classification penalties to all industries and make the penalties identical to claimant fraud.
Here, labor representatives support adoption of Department proposal D25-02 that would expand worker mis-classification enforcement and penalties from construction to all sectors of the state’s economy.
Expanding the suitable work period (aka, the canvassing period) from six weeks to ten weeks.
Labor representatives are adopting the suitable work/canvassing period changes in Department proposal D25-10.
No longer disqualifying spouses in general when forced to relocate.
This proposal mirrors Department proposal D25-11 to allow any spouse to quit a job when they have to relocate because their partner needs to move for their job. Currently, only military spouses are allowed unemployment benefits for such a forced relocation.
Ending the substantial fault disqualification.
This proposal mirrors Department proposal D25-09.
Undoing the Bevco decision.
This proposal seems to mirror the Department’s effort in D25-08 to undo Bevco Precision Mfg. Co. v. LIRC, 2024 WI App 54.
The only notable exception from the Department proposal is that the labor caucus does not also seek to exclude off-duty use of marijuana as no longer disqualifying drug use.
Note: Many birdies have informed me that, while employer policies still list marijuana as an illicit substance, these employers have directed testing labs to no longer test for marijuana use. It seems that the legalization of marijuana in all the states surrounding Wisconsin as well as federal allowance for hemp-derived THC have effectively made marijuana-testing impossible to apply if employers want a workforce.
Ending drug test reporting.
This proposal mirrors the Department effort in D25-07 to end voluntary employer drug-test reporting (which has not happened) and the potential requirement to implement the Department’s own drug testing.
In light of what has happened with marijuana testing, see above, this drug testing and reporting requirement, if ever actually implemented, would magnify the current labor shortage issues in the state. Good riddance.
Expanding the quit to try exception from 30 days to ten weeks.
Here, the labor caucus is adopting the other part of Department proposal D25-10 regarding how long a person can work at a new job before quitting for a reason that would qualify as refusing the job offer in the first place.
Repealing the lame duck work search and work registration changes and expanding the work search waiver to apply to seasonal layoffs.
The labor caucus here is adopting Department proposal D25-12 and pushing for restoration of the seasonal work search waivers that previously existed.
Note: The end of the seasonal work search waivers under Scott Walker is probably one of the most hated changes in unemployment law (by both employer and employee) during the past fifteen years. See Winter work search concerns (4 Nov. 2017).
Creating an SSDI offset in place of the SSDI eligibility ban.
Despite my pleas, the labor caucus has endorsed the Department’s efforts in D25-06 to create an SSDI offset for unemployment benefits and thereby continue to prevent disabled workers from receiving unemployment benefits.
Forcing all employers to communicate via on-line only mechanisms.
This proposal mirrors Department proposal D25-01. I guess what is good for claimants is good for employers.
Adding a penalty for unknown impostor fraud and creating an administrative financing account.
Both of these proposals, LRB5529 (administrative fund and clean-up of numerous provisions) and LRB5530 (impostor fraud and mandatory e-filing for employers), were previously supported by the Advisory Council, with draft legislation proposed but never acted on by the legislature.
Management proposals
The management proposals are largely a repeat of prior proposals as well as continuing legislative efforts for a legislative veto on federal funds, anti-ghosting legislation, and tying the number of unemployment eligibility weeks to the state’s unemployment rate.
Even more program integrity
Here, management presents a series of proposals that generally will accomplish little other than to add even more administrative sludge to an already difficult claim-filing process.
Increasing work search audits to 50% of claimants is generally meaningless, as more than 50% of those who file initial claims are denied eligibility for unemployment benefits and so never paid anything in the first place.
As shown here, more than 50% of all initial claims are being denied eligibility, and the vast majority of those denials are for non-separation reasons (i.e., a claim-filing issue like able and available status, a work search issue, or the on-line only work registration requirement not being satisfied). Only around 13% of all initial claims are being denied because of a separation issue concerning a quit, misconduct, or substantial fault issue.
At present, Department staff audit the work searches of ALL or NEARLY ALL claimants who are paid unemployment benefits. Auditing work searches of claimants who are never paid any unemployment benefits accomplishes nothing and is simply creating busy work for everyone.
The identify verification proposal likewise does nothing. The Department has already switched to login.gov for identity verification and already checks death records, inmate records, and quarterly tax reports on file with the Department (although the quarterly tax verification is delayed for two to three quarters). IP addresses are now also recorded and tracked for on-line claim-filing.
None of these proposals and techniques, however, get at the truly difficult problems of people filing unemployment claims with stolen credentials or making up on-line credentials with personal information available on the dark web.
To stop that kind of identity theft, the Department needs to put in place measures for contacting claimants and employers at their old or available information to verify that a new initial claim is truly connected to that individual. In addition, the Department needs to advertise to explain the ongoing and growing problem of identity theft to all involved.
Creating an anti-ghosting portal for employers also does little. Employer’s currently have the ability to report all kinds of job interview and application information through the Department’s fraud reporting system.
Also, mandatory job search audits done pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 108.14(20) catch the interview and job offer information. This proposal would essentially give employers a direct avenue for challenging claimant eligibility when those claimants are NOT their former employees. For temp companies that have already seen their unemployment tax bills markedly reduced, this proposal secures an additional tool for cutting that tax bill even further. When claimants cannot collect unemployment benefits, then unemployment tax bills decline even further.
Finally, the proposal to create a legislative veto on receipt of federal funds ignores the federal legislative process that approved of those funds and now probably runs afoul of the recent decision in Evers v. Marklein, 2025 WI 36, that found that legislative committee vetoes are illegal.
End the exclusion of union members from weekly job search requirements.
Claimants who are working part-time, starting a new job in four weeks or less, will return to their current employer in the next eight weeks or so, AND union members who register on their union’s out-of-work list are exempt from doing four job searches per week. This proposal would require union hiring halls and union members who are on out-of-work lists with their unions for the union itself to report any work offers from the union hiring hall that are refused. In short, this proposal turns the union into a snitch for its members.
Reducing employer liability for benefit charges
This confusing proposal seeks to undo employer liability for their unemployment whenever their former employees are later disqualified.
The proposal, in part, does not make any sense, as misconduct already eliminates any employer liability and various quit provisions (such as taking care of a family member) also exclude liability (as benefits are paid out of the balancing fund rather than the general unemployment trust fund).
It appears that this proposal seeks to apply the wage disqualification available for misconduct disqualification to quit and substantial fault disqualifications in general. Not only would such a change run afoul of federal requirements that any removal of wage credits only apply to intentional misconduct, but it would undo the whole point of experience-rating for employers.
Each employer’s contribution rate should vary in accordance with its own unemployment costs, as shown by experience under this chapter. Whether or not a given employing unit can provide steadier work and wages for its own employees, it can reasonably be required to build up a limited reserve for unemployment, out of which benefits shall be paid to its eligible unemployed workers, as a matter of right, based on their respective wages and lengths of service.
End the 30-day quit-to-try a new job provision.
This proposal is another change that would greatly benefit temp companies by eliminating one of the main mechanisms employees may still qualify for unemployment benefits after trying out a job and quitting within the first 30 days.
By eliminating this provision, employees of temp companies would have to remain at every assignment regardless of fit, skill, wage, and working conditions until the assignment is ended by the employer to retain any hope of qualifying for unemployment benefits at some future date. Indentured servitude, in short, is making a comeback with this proposal.
Link the number of weeks of unemployment benefits available to the unemployment rate.
This proposal has been a bugaboo since 2010, as it essentially undermines the ability and scope of unemployment programs to respond in times of crisis. States that have implemented this linkage, like Florida and North Carolina, have been unemployment disaster zones, in part, because regular unemployment benefits were cut off prematurely during the pandemic. See also NELP’s brief on benefit duration.
One major point to unemployment benefits — “The decreased and irregular purchasing power of wage earners in turn vitally affects the livelihood of farmers, merchants and manufacturers, results in a decreased demand for their products, and thus tends partially to paralyze the economic life of the entire state” — is ignored and completely undercut by this proposal. Who would think that the penalties for first degree murder, for instance, should be linked to a state’s crime rate? Yet, management representatives are making a similar linkage here.
Misconduct and substantial fault modifications.
For misconduct, management representatives want to add additional disqualifications concerning employer or customer information while also removing a requirement that employees act intentionally for any alleged “violation.” Employees would be strictly liable for a violation of an employer’s social media policy, once the employees are made aware of that policy.
As previously noted, these changes would directly run afoul federal requirements and loose Wisconsin employers their federal unemployment tax (FUTA) credit.
Note: A state’s administration of unemployment is funded through the Federal Unemployment Tax Act on their payroll (the first $7000 paid to each employee) that employers pay, called FUTA. Should a state be found to be applying the loss of claimant wage credits for “unintentional” misconduct, Wisconsin employers would lose their FUTA tax credit and be subject to the full 6.0% unemployment tax rate rather than just 0.6%.
On the other hand, management proposals here seek to undo the holding in Bevco Precision Mfg. Co. v. LIRC, 2024 WI App 54, that again made employees strictly liable for any absenteeism or tardiness in violation of employer policies. Under this proposal, advance notice and a valid reason from an employee could again prevent a finding of misconduct. But, the default absenteeism disqualification is lengthened to 180 days (from 120) and the default tardiness misconduct disqualification would apply to any three instances of tardiness without advance notice and valid reason.
In regards to substantial fault, management reps want to undue the court decisions in Operton v. LIRC, 2017 WI 46, and Easterling v. LIRC, 2017 WI App 18, by limiting inadvertent error to errors that do not violate any written employer policy, that do not cause bodily harm, and that do not recur after a warning. As such, inadvertent errors would again be limited to immaterial and inconsequential errors (which begs the question why an employer would ever discharge an employee for such an error in the first place).