Working Families Bill

On June 8, the state Legislature’s committees on Labor and Workforce Development and on Children and Families held a hearing on Senate Bill 2535, relating to family and medical leave. The bill, if signed into law, would require all employers, regardless of the number of their employees, to provide for a job-protected paid leave for any sanctioned absence under the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), including caring for a new child, as well as caring for a sick family member (child, spouse, or parent, as well as self). The employee will be entitled to full pay up to a cap of $750 per week for up to 12 weeks and be entitled to job protection as detailed in the federal statute. The proposed program would be funded through an assessment on all employees in an amount to be determined by the state; estimates range from $1.50 per week per employee to as much as $6.00 by some sources.

Government Affairs Committee member, Jonathan M. Dennehy, Esq., testified on behalf of the Chamber in opposition to Senate Bill 2535. He urged the two committees, working jointly, to give an unfavorable report on bill, noting that this proposal would only make Massachusetts less competitive in attracting and retaining business. Dennehy also commented on the cost to business, especially small business, which such a proposal would create. Despite the fact that the assessment would be employee funded, Dennehy noted that the cost to business would include lost productivity, hiring temporary help, as well as implementation and administrative costs. A link to the written testimony is provided below.

SB 2535 was recommended ought not to pass by both the Joint Committee on Children and Families and the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on July 11, 2006. However, there is pending legislation relative to establishing a Massachusetts Work-Family Council, HB4216, the apparent goal of which would be to establish a paid family-leave policy in the state. The membership of the Work-Family Council, as laid out in the text of the bill, is unbalanced in favor of paid family leave advocates. This issue, whether in the form of a newly established council or in re-filed family-leave legislation, does not appear over. HB4216 was engrossed by both Chambers in October 2006; it has yet to be laid before the governor.

The Chamber’s position to oppose legislative efforts in Massachusetts to establish a family and medical leave program is in compliance with previous Chamber policy on similar bills in 2001 and 1988.

Members should contact their state legislators to share their own business concerns about this legislation.

* See Attachment “2006 Testimony" & “Council Bill 4216"

Unemployment Insurance
The death knell of all bills sounded back in February when a study was ordered by the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on reforming the Commonwealth’s unemployment insurance system. Action does not appear to be forthcoming on this much needed reform.

Employer Immunity
A bill intended to grant employers, or their designees, immunity from liability for disclosure of qualified information about a current or former employee to prospective employers met a similar fate as the UI reform bill, namely a study was ordered by the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development. The driving force behind this bill was to put a stop to “vanilla” references.