AIMBlog_Logo_Resized

Brad MacDougall

Recent Posts

AIM Submits Comments on Proposed Paid Leave Regulations

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Mar 4, 2019 9:00:00 AM

Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) today submitted to state regulators recommendations intended to clarify the impending rules for paid family and medical leave.

The recommendations range from aligning the definitions of paid leave with those of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to defining the conditions under which employers may opt out of the state program and use a private insurance plan. More than 500 AIM member employers submitted comments to the association while the state Executive Office of Labor and Work Force Development conducted listening sessions on the issue.

TimelineAIM also suggested for the first time the possibility of postponing the July 1 implementation of contributions to paid family and medical leave if the system is not ready.

“Our overriding objective throughout this process is to ensure that the new program is launched efficiently, with minimal confusion or disruption for employers or their employees.  We are particularly concerned for our smaller employers for whom any new state mandate is challenging given their staffing levels,” AIM Executive Vice President John Regan noted in his comments to the new Department of Family and Medical Leave.

“Keeping this in mind, we are committed to staying in close communication with you, the Legislature, and the advocates with whom we have worked previously regarding the need for some delay which would ensure a first-class launch of this important program.”  

Regan commended state officials for listening to the suggestions of employers and others before developing draft regulations for the leave law passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Baker last year. The administration has conducted listening sessions in Boston, Springfield, Lawrence, Worcester, Greenfield, Hyannis, Fall River and Pittsfield, with more sessions scheduled this week in Northbridge and Fitchburg.

The sweeping paid leave law provides workers with 12 weeks of family leave and 20 weeks of personal medical leave. Workers on paid leave will earn 80 percent of their wages up to 50 percent of the state average weekly wage, then 50 percent of wages above that amount, up to an $850 cap.

“Ensuring that these regulations provide clarity for employers and employees about how this new law will be implemented by the agency and operationalized by employers is a monumental task both for state government and the private sector.  We must continue to work collaboratively to get this right, because the risk of getting it wrong is intolerable,” Regan wrote.

AIM’s comments offer 12 specific suggestions:  

  1. Alignment with FMLA: Definitions wherever possible should be aligned with those of the FMLA to lessen compliance burdens. Using FMLA definitions makes it easier for employers and employees to avoid confusion.  It was agreed during legislative negotiations last year that definitions should be aligned with FMLA, especially because significant case law and clarity around law is already available.
  2. Private-plan option:  More clarity should be given to how this provision would work, including when aplan would need to be approved and what employers are to do if private plans are not available by July 1.
  3. Abuse: As proposed, the definitions, and other aspects of the proposed regulations, must set clear expectations for both the employer and employee and must provide clarity regarding employers' ability to address abuse. 
  4. Former employee coverage: The bill states that former employees have the right to job-protected leave and that they can take that leave on an intermittent or reduced schedule.  How does that work when they are no longer employed? Accruals:  As proposed, the regulations would allow an individual to accrue benefits while on leave, which is different than the earned sick time regulations and different from standard practices.
  5. Covered Individual:  As proposed, many temporary workers, vendors and subcontractors with their own companies being issued a 1099 will be captured by this and possibly required to make double payments.
  6. Benefit tracking and stacking: Regulations must provide clarity regarding how an employer can track the leave and make clear that benefit stacking with unemployment, workers compensation insurance and other benefits is not permitted.
  7. Job protection:  The law provides for job protection, which was enabled by the statute.  However, there are several instances, especially in temporary work, where back-filling and rapidly changing business environments would create an enormous cost and compliance burden.
  8. Health insurance contributions while on leave:  As proposed, the regulations do not provide a mechanism for employees to contribute to ongoing health-care coverage or a process by which an employer may transition and employee from current health-care coverage to COBRA per current practices. 
  9. Multiple employers: How will benefits be administered when an employee is employed on a part-time basis by two or more employers? Specifically, when one employer opts out of the state program and the other does not.
  10. Payroll Tax:May employers elect to cover the employee portion of the payroll tax for some classes of employees but not all classes of employees? 
  11. Timing of payroll tax: Large employers typically pay insurance premiums on or about the month for which the insurance coverage applies. The pre-payment of the payroll tax is problematic in the sense that it will be impossible for an employer to know if they are going to self-insure or use a private plan for January 1, 2021 by July 1, 2019. Likewise, insurance companies will not have developed private plans in time for July 1, 2019
  12. Appealing a Private-Plan Denial:allowing individuals to appeal private plan denials will result in all private plan denials being appealed, thus reducing the administrative efficiencies of offering private plans. 

AIM submitted to the state a relined version of the proposed regulations with all the comments proposed by AIM members.

Employers who wish to review the relined document or who wish to receive regular updates on paid family and medical leave may contact Brad MacDougall, bmacdougall@aimnet.org.

Topics: Regulation, Mandated Paid Leave, Paid Family Leave

10 Things Employers Need to Know about Paid Family/Medical Leave

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Jan 31, 2019 10:42:45 AM

The Baker Administration last week published draft regulations for implementation of paid family and medical leave in Massachusetts.

Pregnant2-1Paid family and medical leave were approved by the Legislature and signed by Governor Charlie Baker last year as part of the so-called Grand Bargain between the advocacy group Raise Up Massachusetts and the business community. The newly published regulations represent the “rules of the road” that employers and workers will follow as the law takes effect beginning in July.

AIM has been working for months with the Executive Office of Workforce Development to address employer concerns about what will be a major new benefit program. More than 700 AIM members with an interest in paid family and medical leave are currently reviewing the draft regulations and formulating comments.

The state is conducting seven listening sessions though February 19 to provide employers and others an opportunity to comment on the draft regulations.

In the meantime, here are 10 facts that employers need to know about paid family and medical leave as outlined in the draft regulations:

  1. When it begins

    On July 1, employers and/or their workers must begin to pay 0.63 percent of all wages or other qualifying earnings or payments into the Family and Employment Security Trust Fund. Employees may take family or medical leave beginning January 1, 2021.

  2. Who pays?

    The employer is required to pay at least 60 percent of the medical leave contribution required for each employee. The employer is required to pay none of the contribution for family leave. Employers may, of course, pay a higher percentage for each category of leave or elect to pay the entire contribution for each employee. The employer may deduct the medical leave and family leave contributions directly from wages or other qualifying payments made to the employee or individual. Companies employing an average of fewer than 25 employees in Massachusetts will not be required to pay the employer portion of premiums for either family or medical leave.

  3. Surprise contribution for employees?

    Employers who elect to pay less than the entire family and medical leave contribution will need to communicate to employees the news that an additional several hundred dollars will be deducted from their paychecks each year. Few employees realize they may be required to pay into the family and medical leave system.

  4. How much leave?

    Beginning January 1, 2021, covered individuals are eligible for up to 26 total weeks, in the aggregate, of family and medical leave in a benefit year.

    Beginning January 1, 2021, covered individuals are eligible for up to 12 weeks of family leave in a benefit year for the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child, or because of a qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that a family member is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call to active duty in the Armed Forces.

    Beginning January 1, 2021, covered individuals are eligible for up to 26 weeks of family leave in a benefit year to care for a family member who is a covered service member.

    Beginning January 1, 2021, covered individuals are eligible for up to 20 weeks of medical leave in a benefit year if they have a serious health condition that incapacitates them from work.

    Beginning July 1, 2021, covered individuals are eligible for up to 12 weeks of family leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition.
  1. The pay in paid leave

    An individual’s paid family or medical leave weekly benefit amount is calculated as follows: (a) The portion of an individual’s average weekly wage that is equal to, or less than, 50 percent of the state average weekly wage is replaced at a rate of 80 percent; the portion of an individual’s average weekly wage that is more than 50 percent of the state average weekly wage is replaced at a rate of 50 per cent. The initial maximum weekly benefit amount is $850. Thereafter, the maximum weekly benefit amount for any individual will be 64 percent of the state average weekly wage.

  2. We are family

    The regulations define a family member as a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent or parent of a spouse or domestic partner of the covered individual; a person who stood in loco parentis to the covered individual when the covered individual was a minor child; or a grandchild, grandparent or sibling of the covered individual.

  3. Intermittent leave

    An employee may take family or medical leave on an intermittent basis for family leave to bond with a child during the first 12 months after the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement, but only if the employer and employee agree to it. Employees may also take intermittent family leave if medically necessary to care for a family member’s serious health condition; to care for a family member who is a covered service member, or for or the employee’s own serious health condition.

  4. Contractors

    An employer with a work force that is more than 50 percent self-employed individuals whose compensation is recorded on Internal Revenue Service form 1099-MISC shall treat those self-employed individuals as employees for the purposes of determining a company’s number of employees under the paid family and medical leave law.
  1. Exemptions

    An employer with an existing, private benefit plan that confers the same rights, protections and benefits provided under the state program make apply for an exemption from the public plan. An employer may apply for exemptions from medical leave coverage, family leave coverage, or both.

  2. Self-employed people

    A self-employed individual may elect coverage and become a covered individual for an initial period of not less than three years. A self-employed individual who elects coverage is responsible for the full contribution amount, based on that individual’s income from self-employment. If a self-employed individual elects coverage and fails to remit contributions owed for at least three years, the self-employed individual will be disqualified from electing coverage thereafter.

Want regular updates on paid family and medical leave in Massachusetts? Please contact Brad MacDougall at bmacdougall@aimnet.org

Topics: Employment Law, Massachusetts employers, Paid Family Leave

Legislature Tightens Access to Criminal Records; Adds Employer Protection

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Apr 4, 2018 4:46:57 PM

The Massachusetts Legislature today passed a criminal-justice reform bill that narrows the ability of employers to research the criminal records of job applicants, but also provides legal protection from negligent-hiring claims to companies that are unable to view a sealed criminal record.

ScalesofJusticeVerySmallThe state Senate and House of Representatives both passed the measure with overwhelming majorities. It now goes to Governor Charlie Baker, who has 10 days to sign or veto it.

Inclusion of the negligent-hiring provision grew out of discussions brokered by AIM last summer between sponsors of the bill and employers who rely upon criminal background checks through the Massachusetts Criminal Offender Records Information (CORI) system.  The provision protects employers that conduct background checks and end up hiring individuals with criminal records that are sealed, expunged, or no longer available to employers. 

Key elements of the reform bill for employers include:

  • Accelerates the ability of offenders to seal records from 10 years to seven years for felonies and from five years to three years for misdemeanors.
  • Raises the threshold that defines felony larceny from $250 to $1200, thus classifying more cases as misdemeanors that can be quickly sealed or expunged.
  • Assures that cases dismissed before arraignment do not appear on criminal records.
  • Assures that youthful offender cases tried in juvenile court are treated as juvenile instead of adult CORI.
  • Allows expungement of non-serious cases up to age 21 (both juveniles and young adults).
  • Prevents employers from inquiring about sealed or expunged cases.

Organizations that serve vulnerable populations, such as school systems or nursing homes, would continue to have broader access to criminal records.

AIM members with questions about the status of the legislation should contact Brad MacDougall at bmacdougall@aimnet.org. Members with questions about how the measure will affect their companies should call the AIM Employer Hotline at 800-470-6277.

Topics: Employment Law, CORI, Human Resources

Attorney General Releases Wage-Equity Guidance for Employers

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Mar 1, 2018 12:42:05 PM

Attorney General Maura Healey today issued much-anticipated guidance for employers on complying with the new Massachusetts wage-equity law that takes effect on July 1.

AG.Maura.Healey.jpgThe 30-page guidance document addresses key issues such as the definition of comparable work, the employees who will be covered by the law, permissible variations in pay, and the subjects that may no longer be discussed during employment interviews. There is also a downloadable calculator designed to help smaller businesses to identify differences in pay that may require analysis.

“Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) and its member employers are pleased to have played a constructive role in the development of the pay equity law and guidance,” said Richard C. Lord, President & CEO of AIM.

“We appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Healey and staff who have taken seriously the opinions of the employer community. AIM is now committed to helping Massachusetts businesses comply with the law and we look forward to working with the attorney general on those efforts.”

The first step in that compliance education effort will take place on March 13 and 15 as Genevieve Nadeau, Chief of the Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division, will join two AIM webinars looking at details of the new law. The March 13 webinar is for small employers while the March 15 session is for larger employers.

The law provides different compliance measures based on the size of a company’s comparable-work groups. For the purposes of the two webinars, large employers are those with one or more comparable work groups with 30 or more employees.  Comparable work groups cross organizational lines and departments and are comprised of jobs for which work is substantially similar in that it requires substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility and is performed under similar working conditions.

Smaller employers will likely be able to use the Attorney General's calculator exclusively. AIM members with questions about their status may call the Employer Hotline at 800-470-6277.

The wage-equity law, signed by Governor Charlie Baker on August 1, 2016, is intended to promote salary transparency, limit questions to job candidates about salary history, and encourage companies to conduct reviews to detect pay disparities. But the law also recognizes legitimate bases for pay differences among employees such as performance and differences in education, training, and experience.

The law states that “no employer shall discriminate in any way based on gender in the payment of wages, or pay any person in its employ a salary or wage rate less than the rates paid to its employees of a different gender for comparable work.

The Attorney General’s guidance document outlines the instances under which wage differentials are permitted. Those differentials may be based upon:

  • a system that rewards seniority with the employer;
  • a merit system;
  • a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, sales, or revenue;
  • the geographic location in which a job is performed;
  • education, training or experience to the extent such factors are reasonably related to the job in question; or
  • travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the job.

Joining Nadeau for the AIM small-business wage-equity webinar will be Kyle Pardo, Vice President of AIM HR Solutions, and David Wilson and Arielle Kristan, lawyers at the firm of Hirsch Roberts and Weinstein. The expert panel for the large-company webinar will include Nadeau, Pardo, and lawyers Robert Fisher and Hillary Massey of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Fisher chairs AIM’s HR-Labor Law Committee.

 

Register for the Small-Business Wage-Equity Webinar

 

Register for the Large-Business Wage-Equity Webinar

Topics: Attorney General Maura Healey, Pay Equity, wage equity

Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Graduated Tax Proposal

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Feb 6, 2018 10:49:37 AM

Lawyers for five prominent business leaders, including AIM President Rick Lord, argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today that a proposed surtax on incomes of more than $1 million violates the state constitution.

Adams Courthouse.jpgThe business leaders are challenging a proposed 2018 ballot question that would amend the state constitution to impose a graduated income tax and direct the revenue to be spent on transportation and education. The amendment would add a new four percentage-point tax (representing an 80 percent increase in the personal income tax rate) on all incomes more than $1 million. 

The plaintiffs assert that the proposal is riddled with constitutional flaws. It combines a graduated income tax that has been rejected five previous times by Massachusetts voters with attractive spending in a prohibited manipulation of the vote called “logrolling.”

And it does something that has never been done before: never in the history of Massachusetts has a tax or tax rate been set in the constitution, making the new tax essentially permanent and unchangeable. 

Attorney Kevin Martin of Goodwin Procter, who represents the business leaders, argued that it is critical to understand the difference between typical initiative petitions (also referred to as ballot questions) that amend state statutes, and this ballot question that would change the Massachusetts constitution and strip the Legislature of its ability to easily amend the policy in the future. Only three initiative petitions to amend the constitution have ever appeared on the ballot. 

The named defendants in the lawsuit are Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State William Galvin. 

The court today pressed advocates of the ballot question and the Attorney General’s office about the issue of combining the seemingly separate issues of a tax increase and funding for transportation and education.

“Why not add energy, health care, pension reform?” asked Associated Justice Scott L. Kafker, who mused that voters were apparently being asked to render a decision on three distinct policy matters within a single ballot question.

“So, what is the unified public policy here?” added Associated Justice Elspeth B. Cypher.

AIM opposes the graduate-tax proposal on a policy basis because it would harm thousands of small and medium-sized business that pay taxes on an individual basis. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue estimates that 80 percent of the returns that would be affected by the surtax include some amount of business income.

The five plaintiffs in the suit are: Christopher Anderson, President of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, Inc. (MHTC); Christopher Carlozzi, Massachusetts State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB); Richard Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer of Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM); Eileen McAnneny, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF); and, Daniel O’Connell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership (MACP). 

“We appreciate the careful consideration the SJC is giving this case, which is the first since 1937 to involve an initiative petition to amend the constitution.  Their questions to both sides were thoughtful and probing, and we await their decision,” said Martin.

Conact Brad MacDougall a bmacdougall@aimnet.org to receive updates on this issue.

AIM Weighs In On Key Employment-Law Issues

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Jan 12, 2018 12:48:37 PM

Associated Industries of Massachusetts weighed in yesterday on 73 bills pending before a key legislative committee considering employment-law issues ranging from independent contractors to the use of non-compete agreements.

State House 2015.jpgThe association delivered  a letter to members of the Joint Labor & Workforce Development Committee as the panel approaches a February 7 deadline to report out bills with either a positive or negative recommendation. AIM supports 29 bills now before the committee and opposes 44.

Among the measures that employers support are bills streamlining the complex definition of an independent contractor and compromise limitations on non-compete agreements that recognize the fact that employers often compensate workers for signing such agreements.

AIM opposes bills that would establish paid family and medical leave, increase the minimum wage, and impose vicarious liability for wage violations on any company that hires subcontractors. AIM also opposes legislation (S.1013) that would create civil liability and define workplace bullying.

“The February 7 deadline for Beacon Hill committees to report out bills under the Legislature’s Joint Rule 10 signals the start of a critical period for employers and the issues that affect them,” said John Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs at AIM.

“There will be a flurry of activity between now and the end of the two-year legislative session on July 31. Employers need to pay close attention since important bills often move quickly during this period.”

The independent contractor issue revolves around an overly restrictive statute that leaves Massachusetts on the sidelines of one of the fastest developing sectors of the economy.

One out of every three American workers, from software engineers and researchers to graphic designers, freelance journalists and nannies, today works independently outside the bounds of traditional 9-to-5 employment. The trend includes the so-called sharing economy that provides apps allowing individuals to exchange goods and services ranging from rides to housecleaning.

But Massachusetts' share of that job growth is threatened by a state law that imposes a confusing and complex three-factor test to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor.

On non-compete agreements, AIM has fought relentlessly for several years on behalf the vast majority of Massachusetts employers who wish to preserve the use of non-competes to protect intellectual property. The association supports a compromise that would limit non-competes to one year and give employees the opportunity to consult a lawyer when signing a non-compete, but not require companies that compensate employees at the time they sign non-competes to pay them again during the restricted period.

AIM also supports a group of measures intended to address discrimination and harassment in the workplace. One bill would allow employers to ask previous employers questions about an applicant’s work history (H.1046), while a second would encourage employers to engage in voluntary training regarding non-discrimination (H.1037/H.1047) and third would rewrite a highly confusing and problematic statute that makes adding disciplinary matters to a personnel record difficult (H.1049/S.1044).

The paid family and medical leave and minimum wage initiatives opposed by employers mirror similar measures headed to the statewide ballot in November. A third ballot question would create a constitutional amendment imposing a 4 percentage-point surtax on incomes of more than $1 million for thousands of subchapter-S and other pass-through business in Massachusetts.

AIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard C. Lord and four other prominent business leaders are challenging the proposed tax amendment in court.

Please contact me at bmacdougall@aimnet.org for more information on any of these issues.

Topics: Independent Contractor Law, Massachusetts Legislature, Employment Law, Non-Compete Agreements

Reduced Employer Access to Criminal Records Harms Ex-Offenders

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Nov 13, 2017 8:00:00 AM

Update: The Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill last week that will narrow employer access to the criminal records of job applicants. AIM believes such restrictions will hurt the very ex-offenders they are designed to help. 

It also seeks to expunge some offenders’ criminal records. Both the House and Senate bills would allow convictions to be sealed after seven years for a felony and three years for a misdemeanor, down from 10 and five years today.

The House bill would also allow someone to seal a conviction for resisting arrest, which currently cannot be sealed.

The House bill expands the ability for someone who had a record sealed to be able to say he has no record in applications for housing or professional licenses.

The House and the Senate will next convene a committee of conference to negotiate the differences in the two pieces of legislation and then send it to Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk.

AIM told members of the state House of Representatives this morning that  the proposed narrowing of employer access to the criminal records of job applicants will reduce employment opportunities for former offenders.

ScalesofJusticeVerySmall.jpgAIM is concerned about language in a criminal justice reform to be debated today that would make access to information through the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) more difficult by sealing records and limiting access.

AIM believes the changes would harm the very people those the measure is designed to help.  Without access, employers are left without relevant information about potential hiring decisions. Restricting an employer’s access to information has been shown to hinder job applicants and employer’s ability to maintain a safe workplace. 

The commonwealth’s largest employer association has provided feedback in a number of ways during the current legislative session. AIM sent letters to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on April 28, 2017 and on July 17, 2017, and also hosted a briefing on this topic with the legislative sponsor and AIM members.

AIM appreciates that those and other conversations resulted in the inclusion of a negligent-hiring provision contained in SECTION 87 subsection 100S of the proposed reform bill.  AIM is also supportive of a provision that would enable the commonwealth to move towards fingerprinting and exchanging data with the National Criminal Information Center (NCIS) to ensure that records are accurate and connected to the correct person.

The Massachusetts Senate approved its own version of criminal justice reform on October 26.

AIM is concerned about the following provisions:

Sections 81-86 and 87: Sealing and Expungement of a Criminal Record: As proposed, the language would reduce the wait time to seal a misdemeanor conviction from five years to three years and a felony conviction from 10 years to seven years.  To address this AIM supports:

  • Amendment #50 to remove sealing and expungement provisions
  • Amendment #132 to allow employers that have employees with access to financial information, cash instruments and vulnerable populations to retain access to five years of misdemeanors and 10 years for felony convictions as currently provided under law
  • Amendment #134, to provide employers with six months to make changes to job applications, internal policies and to conduct training for hiring managers

Section 84 and 87 Job Applications: This language requires employers to amend job applications to acknowledge the candidate’s proposed rights under the expungement provision.  Employers would be required to add the language from section 84 and section 87, which contains similar language for job applications.  To address this AIM supports:

  • Amendment #130 and #131, to retain currently proposed language into one paragraph to address a candidate’s rights regarding sealing and expungement.
  • Amendment #120, to provide employers with six months to a year to fully implement changes in job applications, internal policy documents and to conduct training for hiring managers.

AIM supports amendment #50 to strike the language and amendment #118, which would provide for six months for employers to be in compliance and conduct training for hiring managers.

Sections 49-56, 62: Felony Thresholds: This language will make it challenging for employers to address growing concerns with larceny and ongoing threats related to personal information and credit card fraud.  AIM supports amendment #126, which would strike these provisions.

Takeaways:

 

 

Topics: Employment Law, CORI, Massachusetts House of Representatives

AIM, Citing Safety Concerns, Opposes Criminal Justice Bill

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Oct 25, 2017 10:00:00 AM

Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) this morning announced its opposition to the state Senate’s criminal justice reform bill because the measure would unduly restrict the ability of employers to ensure the safety of employees, customers and others in the workplace.

ScalesofJusticeVerySmall.jpgThe proposed legislation will, in fact, harm the very people the proponents of the bill seek to help. AIM-member employers met with the legislative sponsor of the bill in July and made clear that candidates for jobs are less successful in achieving gainful employment when employers have less information.

“An employer is more likely to hire an ex-offender when that employer has the information available to make a balanced decision,” said John Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs at AIM.

AIM has a long history of involvement with efforts to balance the need for employers to conduct responsible criminal background checks with the ability of offenders to find employment.

The association helped to forge the 2009 Criminal Offender Records Information (CORI) legislative compromise and worked on the recent regulatory changes to CORI. The business community made significant concessions in the 2009 bill, but the current legislation goes far beyond what employers agreed to in 2009.

Employers believe that criminal background checks are necessary to ensure that the company or institution is complying with state and federal regulations, in addition to international standards. These standards apply for a variety of businesses including hospitals and financial institutions.

Employers also believe that inability to access criminal histories makes companies vulnerable to claims for everything from negligent hiring and failure to meet regulatory obligations to failure to protect client data and failure to protect visitors from harm.

“Employers face significant risk and legal liability for hiring and retaining employees who pose a risk. As written, the legislation does not acknowledge that employers would still be responsible for negligent hiring and negligent retention without a waiver of liability,” Regan said.

The Senate is expected to debate S.2185 and several amendments tomorrow.

Takeaways:

 

Topics: Massachusetts senate, Employment Law, CORI

Infographic: Paid Leave Law Raises Benefit Costs by 87 Percent in California

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Jun 26, 2017 8:30:00 AM

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering a paid leave bill that would establish the right of employees to receive job-protected paid family and paid medical leave.  Benefits would include up to 16 weeks of paid family leave, and 26 weeks of paid medical leave.  Weekly benefits would begin at 50 percent of the employee’s weekly wage and capped at $1,000 per week.

But benefit costs would accelerate quickly if the bill becomes law. The 50 percent salary replacement level required at implementation in January 2019 would increase to 90 percent by January of 2021.

How fast will costs increase? Consider the following information about California's decade-old paid family leave law:

Paid Leave.jpg

 State of California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency

Register for the Paid Leave Webinar

 

Topics: Employment Law, Mandated Paid Leave, Paid Family Leave

Paid Leave Bill Would Create Massive New State Bureaucracy

Posted by Brad MacDougall on Jun 12, 2017 8:30:00 AM

If you’re an employer who enjoys navigating the endless disputes, hearings and paperwork of state bureaucracies – think the unemployment system – then you’ll love the proposal now before the Massachusetts Legislature to mandate paid family leave in the commonwealth.

StateHouse-resized-600.pngThat’s because the paid leave proposal, which will be the subject of a State House hearing tomorrow, would create a new office Department of Family and Medical Leave within the Executive Office of Labor to administer the new leave program. No one on Beacon Hill will say publicly how much it will cost to run the department, but AIM projects that employer-paid family leave will require an operation similar in size to the state Department of Unemployment Assistance, which operates with a budget of $70 million.

And that doesn’t account for the cost to employers of the new leave program itself. AIM estimates that the likely cost per week per employee to fund the program will exceed $520 per employee yearly, more than the average $508 per employee that companies now pay for the $1.3 billion Massachusetts Unemployment Insurance program.

The Senate paid leave bill creates a new Massachusetts law establishing the right for employees to receive job protected paid family and paid medical leave under certain circumstances.  Benefits include up to 16 weeks of paid family leave, and 26 weeks of paid medical leave.  Weekly benefits initially are 50 percent of the employee’s weekly wage and capped at $1,000 per week.

But benefit costs would accelerate quickly if the bill becomes law. The 50 percent salary replacement level required at implementation in January 2019 would increase to 90 percent by January of 2021.

Furthermore, the average weekly wage would then be tied to the Consumer Price Index for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy consolidated metropolitan statistical area. This an extraordinarily high rate of compensation that would focus the wage rate on the area of the commonwealth with the most expensive cost of living. The result will distort the economic complexity of different areas in Massachusetts, placing an undue burden on employers and employees living in less costly areas.

Senate President Stan Rosenberg said recently that the paid family leave issue will go to the statewide election ballot in 2018 if the Legislature does not approve it.

“I am hopeful that the legislature will take this question up during this term and get it to the Governor's desk," Rosenberg wrote during a question-and-answer session on Facebook. "If we fail to do so, I expect there will be a ballot question putting this matter into the hands of voters. It would be far better to do it in the legislature than the ballot. Everyone concerned about this should contact their State Representative, their State Senator, and the Governor."

Associated Industries of Massachusetts opposes the bill and will testify against it on Tuesday. John Regan, Executive Vice President of AIM, said that the last thing employers need is another regulatory bureaucracy to divert time, energy and resources from business growth.

“We agree with the proponents of these bills that Massachusetts’ citizens need to balance the needs of work and family.  We do not agree, and do not believe, that this legislation is a reasonable, manageable, or affordable approach in addressing those needs, either from an employee or employer perspective,” Regan said.

Many AIM member employers already provide paid leave through disability insurance.

According to the 2016 AIM Benefits Survey, 87 percent of member companies offer short-term disability to their employees with benefits ranging from 51 to 70 percent of salary replacement. Seventy-nine percent offer long term disability insurance and 59 percent have a leave of absence policy.

AIM believes a mandated paid leave law will prompt many of those companies to discontinue their current policies and direct all employee leaves through the state program.

The leave bill provides that family leave is leave taken by an employee to provide care for a family member.  Family is defined as spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, parent of a spouse or domestic partner, an individual who stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a minor child, grandchild, grandparent, or a sibling of the employee.

Leave may be for any of the following reasons: to bond with the employee's child during the first 12 months after the child's birth or the first 12 months after the placement of the child for adoption or foster care with the employee; for a serious health condition of a family member; or because of a qualifying exigency pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(e), arising out of a family member of the employee being on active duty in the armed forces of the United States.

Medical leave is leave taken by an employee from employment due to a serious health condition of the employee that renders the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee’s position.

AIM will conduct a complimentary Brown Bag Webinar at noon on June 27 to review the details of the paid family leave proposal. Bring your lunch and your questions.

Register for the Paid Leave Webinar

Subscribe to our blog

Posts by popularity

Browse by Tag