Will advocates of delay, who include a well-respected
Democratic state senator and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the
state’s premier business group, throw in the towel? Or will they make another stab at
postponement during upcoming Senate budget deliberations?
As we chin-rubbers like to say: time will tell.
The amendment in question would have delayed
implementation of Chapter 505 of the Acts of 2014 for three months after the
day on which the attorney general releases the final regulations spelling out
how employers are to comply with the law.
Chapter 505 requires all businesses with 11 or more
employees to give everyone 40 hours of paid sick time per year, and businesses
with fewer than 11 employees to allow unpaid sick time of at least 40 hours.
In November, 2014, voters approved (59-41 percent) a
statewide referendum mandating earned sick time across the board. The measure
was subsequently codified in Chapter 505, with the stipulation the law take
effect on July 1, 2015. As is often the
case, the law directed the attorney general to adopt rules and regulations
necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of the legislation.
Attorney General Maura Healey filed a draft set of
Chapter 505 regulations with the office of the secretary of state on Friday,
April 24, and announced a schedule of six public hearings where anyone may
suggest changes to the regulations. The
hearings will be held at locations around the state, starting May 18 and ending June 5. Healey has said she will accept comments on
the regulations through June 10 and expects to issue the final set sometime
around the middle of June. She has made
it clear that, barring some new action by the legislature and governor, the law
will go into effect on July 1.
It should be noted that, under the draft regulations,
employees would begin to accrue sick time on the dates they were hired.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones of North Reading
originally filed an amendment to the House budget that would have delayed
implementation of Chapter 505 until January 1, 2016. He subsequently changed the wording so as to
delay implementation until “90 days following the promulgation and release of
regulations by the office of the attorney general…”
Thus, if Jones’s amendment had been adopted in the House,
and if a similar measure were adopted in the Senate, and if the governor were to approve that measure as part of the overall new budget, Chapter 505 would take effect sometime in
mid-September, rather than on July 1.
We’re talking a two-and-a-half month delay here.
Just after 2:00 P.M. this Wednesday (April 29), Jones
rose on the House floor to explain the amendment. He said, in part, “Just this week the
regulations came out in a draft form for a public comment that ends in June. So
the regulations wouldn't be finalized until just days before this takes effect,
so businesses will have only a matter of days to make changes to payroll and
how they run their business.”
Jones emphasized, “This (amendment) does not seek any
changes to the law made by voters. I'm sensitive to the fact that voters chose
this law. But the regulatory framework is far behind, especially as this
chamber has kept treble damages. I'll harken back to the tech tax and it took
effect before the Department of Revenue even knew what it all meant."
[NOTE: All
statements by legislators quoted in this post have been excerpted from a State
House News Service account of the proceedings in the House on the afternoon of
April 29.]
Rep. John Scibak, a Democrat from South Hadley, spoke
next. “It's an interesting situation
that we're in,” he said. “We had a referendum vote in November. The vote was
clear. The gentleman (Jones) said we're not changing anything. In reality we
are. Suspending this for 90 days means an employee can't accrue that sick time.
It's true the regulations were released Friday. The attorney general is seeking
feedback on the draft. We should let the process play out. We're looking at a
change based on speculation. So we’re being asked to delay this without any
hearing, any input, but just a feeling.”
In reply, Jones said, “I appreciate the comments of the
gentleman from the west, but are they saying the draft regulations are a done
deal and the public comment period is a ministerial façade? That concerns me. It
sounds like we don't care. We know what the regulations are. They came out last
Friday. Look at the tech tax, done in a rush. We're not proposing one i or dot
be changed. We just say let there be a 90- day period as there is with most
laws we pass, so people know what the ground rules are. I don't think that's
unreasonable.”
With the “tech tax,” Jones was referring to a
controversial 6.24% sales tax on a range of computer and software services,
which was passed by the legislature early in 2013 as part of a transportation
infrastructure funding bill. Once the
business community realized the impacts the tax would have, it mobilized
against the law in a way seldom seen in Massachusetts. Many businesses threatened to leave the state
if the law stayed on the books. The
legislature quickly repealed it, and the governor just as quickly signed the
repeal into law.
Rep. Sheila Harrington, a Republican from Groton, said, “What
we learned from the tech tax was that we found out we made a few mistakes and
we repealed it. Let's make sure we don't have egg on our face three months
after the law is implemented. I think the tech tax taught us a lesson. We don't
know all the facts right now, and we may have a lot of problems with the
implementation.”
Rep. Kenneth Gordon, a Democrat from Bedford, said, “This
is a matter of carrying out the will of the ballot initiative. And we're
talking about calculating dates, here. In 90 days, there are people who will get
sick. The balance is important to take into account. People who are getting
sick are relying on this.”
Rep. Shauna O'Connell, a Republican from Taunton, said, “I
think it's interesting that there is talk of not ignoring the will of the
voters, but that certainly did happen when voters decided to roll back the
income tax to 5 percent. That was supposed to be a temporary tax. Now we're not
going to give the business community a break. This does a great injustice to
the small business communities, to people who are self-employed. Ninety days is
perfectly reasonable.”
Rep. Denise Provost, a Democrat from Somerville, said, “…the
analogy to the tech tax is not a good one at all. There is no ambiguity in the
parameters of the sick leave law. It was clear on the ballot.
Whereas (with) the tech tax, it was never clear what the
entity was that was going to be taxed, and that's why some of us voted against
it.”
Rep. Byron Rushing, a Democrat from Boston, said, “I want
to speak against this amendment because we do this process all the time and it
is unusual that when we have laws passed by the people directly - and when was
it passed? It was passed in November. In November businesses could begin
thinking, What are the problems they need to solve to carry out this law in
July?
“I don't know how many businesses belong to associations,
but I do know that most of the organizations spent tons of money mailing me.
They are out there working to change laws all the time. Most of the businesses
in this state have sources. They have help in what they are asking for, changes
in the preliminary regulations. If they are given another three months they
will come to us at the beginning of the fall saying delay it again.
“Let us let the process go. Look at the preliminary
regulations and give all the opinions they wish to give. Let's see what those
permanent regulations are. If the attorney general is not having hearings, or
it is a setup process like the minority leader suggested, then let us come back
here. We're not going anywhere. We have a lot of work to do. But let us not
assume that the system is not going to work. I think the system's going to work
and I think we have time if, in some strange happening, the system falls apart
and we come to the end of May and it looks like no one knows what they're
doing.”
At Jones’s request, there was a roll call vote on the amendment,
meaning every member in the House chamber at that time was recorded in favor or
opposed. This differed from the quick
voice votes on which most budget amendments are decided in the legislature.
Forty-five representatives were recorded in favor of the
Jones amendment and 114 were in opposition.
One member of the House, Edward Coppinger, a Democrat from Boston, was
absent at the time.
Of the 160 members of the House, 35 are Republicans.
Of the 125 Democrats in the House, 10 voted in favor of
the Jones amendment. Those 10 are:
Bruce Ayers of Quincy, Thomas Calter of Kingston, Josh Cutler of Duxbury, Stephen DiNatale of Fitchburg, James Dwyer of Woburn, Colleen Garry of Dracut, William Pignatelli of Lee, Dennis Rosa of Leominster, Walter Timilty of Milton, and Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner.
No comments:
Post a Comment