Editing 76-02-B4 (section)

= Humphery - Hawkins Bill (Jobs B) =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
No one who grew up in the Great Depression can be indifferent to the suffering that goes with wanting to work and not being able to find a job. I'll be right back.

Yesterday when I was talking about the threat to freedom inherent in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill I was aware of the danger that I might appear callous to the plight of the unemployed. This is not so. I don't question the intentions of Senator Humphrey or Representative Hawkins. They mean well and are sincere in their concern for the plight of the jobless.

I hope they and you will credit me with the same sincerity in the same measure of sympathy for the unemployed. I say this because I'm going to ask some questions about the present unemployment rate and whether in our desire to eliminate suffering we haven't in truth added to the problem.

During the recent primary campaign an article appeared in the press quoting a man who was reported to be president of the nation's largest employment agency. His firm has more than 500 offices nationwide. He claims that three million jobs are going begging. His agency had openings listed for unskilled workers secretaries medical personnel file clerks salesmen and even marketing specialists and management trainees.

Maybe a story caught my eye because for some time now I've been keeping count of the number of full pages in the classified section of the Los Angeles Sunday Times wherein employers advertise for workers to fill job vacancies. Los Angeles has an official unemployment rate of around 10 percent but every Sunday there are 30 full pages of help wanted ads. Take a look at your own metropolitan paper.

The Long Beach office of the California State Labor Department was seeking applicants for secretarial jobs at $870 a month, cooks at $1000, security guards had better than $3 an hour and craftsman at $6.50 an hour. And the unemployment rate was 10.3 percent.

To get back to the article, the president of the employment agency said that politicians who sound off about unemployment figures tend to scare job seekers out of looking for a job. He also said that we had gone so far in unemployment benefits that we've made it too easy not to work. He gave examples.

In Plainfield, New Jersey a man unemployed for five months came to their office. They found him a job at $20 a week better than the job he'd lost-same kind of work. In 90 days his pay would go up another $30 a week. He turned it down. Hhe and his wife were receiving $9880 a year in unemployment insurance, were moonlighting for another $5200 and were eligible for food stamps. At better than $15,000 a year plus food stamps he couldn't afford to take the job they'd found for him. In another case a secretary turned down a job saying, "I'm going to take a 26-week vacation on ninety dollar a week unemployment benefits tax-free."

Now let me ask a question. I'm not making this as a statement just asking. Why shouldn't anyone unemployed have to take a job which he or she is capable of performing? Why shouldn't the unemployment check be reduced by the amount of the paycheck? In the meantime let the state employment office be assigned to find as quickly as possible the right kind of job. Was unemployment insurance ever intended to fund 26-week vacations?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>09/21/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-265</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:bSMzF8AmdRo|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>