The mere mention of guaranteed employment is likely to excite widespread interest and support from those persons and groups who desire, through the enactment of state unemployment compensation laws, to prevent unemployment as well as to alleviate its effects. The very term "guaranteed employment" connotes an advance security which is not implied in connection with the standard (unemployment benefit) provisions of state laws. Since guaranteed employment plans call for an advance guaranty of employment for a minimum number of hours per week and for a stated number of weeks per year, such plans immediately appeal as "job assurance" in contrast to "unemployment insurance." It is apparently with the purpose of providing for this socially attractive option that the Wisconsin, California, and Oregon laws contain provisions permitting guaranteed employment plans.' Employer interest in such plans may be explained on two grounds, either of which may, depending on individual circumstances, play the dominant role: (i) Some employers will select guaranteed employment plans out of a definite desire to undertake a greater responsibility to their employees than is ordinarily required. Many such employers are, however, not unmindful of the fact that their employment picture is already such, by the nature of their business, that guaranteed employment will not prove particularly costly. (2) The merit rating assured by such plans may induce a few less stable employers to undertake the plan, but as a rule, only where alternative merit-rating plans are not available.