Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Massachusetts Legislature to Consider Paid Sick Leave and Minimum Wage Hike Bills

The Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Health Care Financing is considering An Act Establishing Earned Paid Sick Time (H. 3995), which would require companies with fewer than six employees to provide unpaid sick time, and all other employers to offer paid sick time. The bill is an amended version of the Paid Sick Days Act (H. 1398 S. 930), and it was reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on March 19.

The proposal would require that workers be eligible for an hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. The bill does not apply to seasonal workers. A worker in a business with more than 10 employees would be able to earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours annually. A worker in a business with six to 10 employees would earn paid sick time at the same rate, up to 40 hours annually. A worker in a business with fewer than six employees would earn one hour of unpaid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to 40 hours of unpaid time annually. Employers would be prohibited from disciplining workers for using earned sick time and they would also be barred from requiring workers who used paid sick time to take on additional shifts.

Variations of this legislation have been filed since 2004. Earlier versions of the bill would have required all companies to offer paid sick time, regardless of size or other benefits offered. The revised bill would allow businesses to meet the mandate as long as they provide an equal or greater number of hours of other forms of paid time off (i.e., vacation).

Advocates for businesses opposing the bill have ripped the proposal as a costly mandate that would take away the flexibility needed to design innovative benefit programs and would impose crippling productivity challenges on employers. Earlier in the month, William Vernon, President of the Massachusetts National Federation of Independent Business, argued that the revised version will hamper small businesses and cost thousands of jobs over the next several years. On March 27, Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) sent a letter to members of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Health Care and Financing expressing employer opposition to the proposal. “AIM believes that decisions regarding any benefit provided to employees should be left to the discretion of the individual employer based on economic circumstances, the size of the company, the nature of the employment relationship with each employee and the competitive environment,” said Bradley MacDougall, the Vice President of Governmental Affairs.

The proposal’s supporters, including workers, employers, nurses, and elected officials, participated in a rally organized by the Massachusetts Paid Leave Coalition at the Statehouse on March 27. Backers say that the mandate will let up to a million workers who currently don’t have access to sick time be able to earn time off to care for themselves and their families. They argue that it will be good for businesses because it helps them improve preventative care, limit illnesses from spreading in the workplace, cap healthcare expenses, and foster loyalty. Governor Deval Patrick and other senior administration officials have voiced support for sick time legislation and the bill has over 50 co-sponsors in the House and Senate. We will keep you updated on its progress. The legislative session ends on July 31.

An Act to Promote the Commonwealth’s Economic Recovery with a Strong Minimum Wage

A bill that would raise the minimum wage in Massachusetts unanimously cleared a legislative committee this week, creating the possibility of a vote in the Senate on the first minimum wage hike in four years. In brief, the bill (S. 951 / H. 2291) seeks to increase the Massachusetts minimum wage in July 2012 to $9.50 an hour, and again in July 2013 to $10 an hour. The legislation also calls for tying future wage adjustments to the Consumer Price Index, a plan that was rejected the last time the Massachusetts minimum wage was increased in January 2008, when it rose to $8 an hour.

The Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development released the bill on March 20 after members voted in an e-mail poll. Nine members, including the committee’s co-chairs, Senator Daniel Wolf and Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera, supported the bill along with Senators Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport) and Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett), and Representatives John Fresolo (D-Worcester), Denise Andrews (D-Orange), David Torrisi (D-North Andover), and James Arciero (D-Westford). Representative Lori Ehrlich, the committee’s vice chair, and Representative Keiko Orrall (R-Lakeville) and Senator Barry Finegold (D-Andover) reserved their rights. Representatives Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), Demetrius Atsalis (D-Barnstable), Linda Dean Campbell (D-Methuen), and John Rogers (D-Norwood), and Senators Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) and Michael Rush (D-Boston) did not vote.

The bill has strong support from the AFL-CIO, which identified the wage adjustment as one of its top priorities this legislative session. However, retailers and business groups warn that raising the minimum wage could cost jobs or derail a fragile economic recovery. Jon Hurst, President of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, called a $10 wage “too aggressive.” He said that the timing is wrong and that “we need to be focusing on growing jobs and growing payroll, not encouraging employers to reduce payroll by hiring less people and reducing hours.”

Senator Marc Pacheco, one of the bill’s lead sponsors, said he was “pleased and encouraged” that the committee advanced the bill, but also said he would not be surprised if it took another year or more to build support for the increase. He said if the bill did come up for a vote, he would expect the implementation date of July 1, 2013 to be modified. We will keep you updated on its progress. 

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Project Analyst

Devon is a Project Analyst in the Boston Office. She graduated cum laude from Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in International Studies.

During her time at Wake, Devon co-founded the Arch Society, an on-campus group committed to fostering academic discussion outside of the classroom. Devon composed the organization’s founding documents, directed meetings, planned on- and off-campus events, and coordinated with administrative officials. 

In the Political Science Department, Devon’s studies focused on public health in...

617-542-6000

About the Author

Vice President, Legislative Affairs

Julie is Vice President of Legislative Affairs at ML Strategies.

Julie has more than a decade of government affairs and legislative counsel experience. She clerked for several justices in the Superior Court of Massachusetts. Julie served as legal counsel to the Committee on Criminal Justice and as legal counsel to the House Committee on Ways and Means in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Julie also served as general counsel, legislative liaison, and spokesperson for the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Prior to joining ML Strategies, she held an of counsel position...

617-348-1885

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.