CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Tax rollback thwarted for 17th year
as socialism expands in Bay State
The House recessed at 3:17 pm, planning to return
tomorrow at 10 am. Before recessing the House blocked an effort to amend
its own budget with Gov. Mitt Romney’s plan to phase the income tax rate
back to 5 percent over two years.
State House News Service
Monday, April 24, 2006
House recesses after defeating effort to lower income tax
Commuters who use Bay State tollways and those who ride
trains, subways and buses to and from work every day could get a tax break under
an amendment adopted yesterday by House members.
The measure, similar to a temporary measure adopted by lawmakers in 2003 in
response to toll hikes on the Mass Turnpike, would give commuters who spend more
than $150 on MBTA passes or in Fast Pass tolls a year the ability to deduct up
to $750 per year.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Lawmakers consider giving Pike,
MBTA commuters a pass on some taxes
It has been over six years since the citizens of
Massachusetts reduced the income tax rate to five percent. In light of last
year's $1.2 billion budget surplus and another surplus projected for this fiscal
year, today the arguments put forth in 2002 in support of rebuffing the will of
the voters and freezing the rate at 5.3 percent simply do not hold. The budget
filed by our Administration proves that we can return hard-earned money to the
taxpayers while also balancing the budget and providing additional aid to our
cities and towns. By contrast, the House Ways and Means budget excludes the
income tax cut and adds at least $84 million in unnecessary new spending while
at the same time eliminating cost-saving reforms proposed in House 2.
Simply stated, I believe in many cases that the House Ways and Means budget
reflects the wrong priorities.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Department
Letter from Lt. Gov. Healey
to House Members regarding tax cut and budget
Gubernatorial candidates Kerry Healey and Tom Reilly used
last week’s tax deadline to renew their calls for cutting the state income tax
from 5.3 percent to 5 percent - at an eventual cost of about $750 million a
year. Given the uncertainties associated with the new health care bill and the
cuts made in recent years to state colleges, social services and environmental
programs, it’s not at all clear the state could afford such a cut.
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 24, 2006
Tax-cutting pols aim at wrong tax
By Edward Moscovitch
A Republican effort to excuse cities and towns from having to
pay the 21-cent state gas tax was squashed by House leadership today, delaying
much-needed financial relief for local communities.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Office of the Minority Leader
April 24, 2006
House leadership guts effort to help cities and towns
Senate leaders this week will propose legislation to offer
all workers in Massachusetts up to 12 weeks' paid time off to care for newborn
and adopted children or sick family members, financed by an employee payroll
premium of at least $1.50 a week.
The bill, which would pay employees their full salary, up to $750 a week, would
create the most generous paid leave policy in the nation....
The legislation drew a cautious reaction from businesses and labor groups, which
may oppose the proposed employee premiums, and could face a tough fight in the
House. The premium amount has not yet been determined, but Travaglini aides said
it would likely be between $1.50 and $2.50 a week.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Family paid leave on Mass. agenda
Proposal in Senate is nation's most generous
A Power Point presentation provided by Travaglini’s office
underscores the point: "This Massachusetts program would be the most generous
paid leave law in the nation."
"It dovetails nicely out of the health-care reform," said Travaglini
spokesperson Ann Dufresne. Travaglini must have enjoyed his turn at the
spotlight as a progenitor of health-care reform. But surely there’s an easier
way to earn national recognition than to saddle business with yet another
complicated, unprecedented employee benefit....
The first guy I got on the phone from the Left Coast, Martyn Hopper, state
director of the National Federation of Independent Business, was not exactly
sanguine about the state of small business affairs there.
"It’s the camel’s nose under the tent," Hopper said. Ever since paid leave’s
passage, businesses have been fighting to stop its sponsors from imposing the
costs on employers as a mandate, he said....
I shudder just thinking about the monster that will come out of some future
conference committee.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Trav, stifle yourself on paid leave push
By Virginia Buckingham
Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini will
introduce legislation today for a bold paid family leave program that would
bring the state into the 21st century of employment realities, the ones where
most families tenuously juggle job and family responsibilities.... It would
provide up to 12 weeks of job protected leave (after a one-week waiting period),
replacing 100 percent of weekly earnings up to $750 per week.... The program
would be financed by worker contributions to a newly established Strong Families
Trust Fund.
What a paid leave program will do is spread the economic risk and costs over all
workers and over longer periods of time. Like other social insurance programs,
this one redistributes costs and benefits....
The second redistribution that will occur is among workers.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Family leave bill benefits both sides
By Randy Albelda
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
We taxpayers and voting majority got stiffed again by a House of Reprehensibles
that's convinced it's immune from voter dissatisfaction -- they ran the
same game last year around our legislative allies, the old "send it to a
study" dodge. If you'll recall, this is the
same Beacon Hill
middle-finger salute that state Rep. John J. Binienda (D-Worcester)
stuck in the eyes of his constituents and the rest of us citizen-voters
and taxpayers last year.
The language of the amendment which the House adopted
yesterday seems to state that, once its requisite report is provided to
the Joint Committee on Revenue, the rollback kicks in legislatively as
adopted by the further amendment. Just get that report done and
we've got our rollback, so long as the same language is included in the
Senate budget proposal or comes out in the Legislature's Joint Ways &
Means Committee budget report.
But from
last year's experience, we know how this cookie-cutter parliamentary
dodge will work again in the senate. The House Taxation Committee
chairman proposes something down the road; the senate president then
refuses to take it up, blocks it as non-germane -- stonewalling the
voters' mandate once again. "Democracy" in action for the benefit
of the Beacon Hill pols and tax-and-spenders, by them and for them.
So bottom line: "Screw you, voters: you
elected me and I couldn't care less what you say now," again. "I'm
here and you're not, so stick it." I wonder if we collectively
will ever wake up to this tyranny and do something different?
Remember how important it's supposed to be, according
to the Beacon Hill pols, to keep the rollback in their coffers so they
can "help the cities and towns"? So what did they do the first
chance they had to help the cities and towns with the escalating cost of
gasoline -- specifically the state tax on gasoline? Why the House
Democrat tax-and-spenders killed the Republican proposal to make
municipalities gas-tax exempt! Good start, Dems, convincing us
you're sincere and not just spending us into the next fiscal crisis
while looking to expand the ever more Socialist Commonwealth of
Massachusetts -- as Senate President Travaglini is now proposing to do
with his new plan for three months of "paid family leave."
Remember way back when President and Hillary Clinton
first proposed "Unpaid Family Leave" and we said it was merely the
camel's nose under the tent? It gets old being so accurate all the
time. In my commentary of Jun. 23, 2000 (CLT
Update - Commentary) I wrote:
Coming up Monday on Beacon Hill --
ready for this? -- will be a hearing on PAID family leave; a new
proposal to use "surplus" Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund money to
pay for voluntary parental leave. (Did anyone ever believe "unpaid
family leave" would remain unpaid once the More Is Never Enough
crowd got past their first incremental step?)
Barbara wrote about it in her column of
Aug, 22, 2001 (On
family leave: It's not business, it's personal):
Pretty soon, most of the workforce will be home
changing diapers or pushing wheelchairs. A few people without needy
family will have to do the work and pay for the family leave of the
others, which seems unfair as well as untenable. So let's stop and
think about the law of unintended consequences: high taxes or employer
costs, a huge labor shortage, and of course lots of cheating as some
people on leave neglect their kids and parents while still getting a
check to support their newborn leisure.
Here we find ourselves once again. It's budget
surplus time again on Beacon Hill, time for another feeding frenzy here
in the nation's leading "laboratory of democracy." The existing
"Unpaid Family Leave" law is about to be followed inevitably by "Paid
Family Leave," just as the mandated new universal Health Insurance law
will surely be followed by a single-payer universal socialized medicine
proposal down the road.
Massachusetts has always been committed to "first in
the nation" socialism. But now it's in a headlong rush to economic
decline, not even waiting to see if universal health insurance works
before moving on to paid family leave. Are either affordable?
Let's not even worry about it. Let's just go for broke, plunge
right in. Legislators have got to spend those state surpluses
while they're rolling in, create business mandates while we still have a
few employers remaining. The state's choking on our surplus
cash again, for now -- so let's throw a May Day celebration for the
"Socialist People's Party."
 |
|
Chip Ford |
State House News Service
Monday, April 24, 2006
House recesses after defeating effort
to lower income tax
The House recessed at 3:17 pm, planning to return tomorrow at 10 am.
Before recessing the
House blocked an effort to amend its own budget with Gov. Mitt
Romney’s plan to phase the income tax rate back to 5 percent over two
years.
The House adopted an amendment establishing a permanent deduction from
taxable income for Fast-Lane tolls and monthly transit passes.
The House rejected a proposal from Republicans to exempt cities and town
from paying state gasoline taxes on the fuel they use in municipal
vehicles. An aide to House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said the relatively
brief session was due to the Committee on Third Reading processing
technical changes, and to this evening's wake for Rep. Angelo Scaccia's
mother. The aide said the House was likely to address overrides on Gov.
Romney's vetoes to health care legislation tomorrow or Wednesday. Rolls
calls tomorrow are not expected to begin until after 10:30 am.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Lawmakers consider giving Pike,
MBTA commuters a pass on some taxes
By Kimberly Atkins
Commuters who use Bay State tollways and those who ride trains, subways
and buses to and from work every day could get a tax break under an
amendment adopted yesterday by House members.
The measure, similar to a temporary measure adopted by lawmakers in 2003
in response to toll hikes on the Mass Turnpike, would give commuters who
spend more than $150 on MBTA passes or in Fast Pass tolls a year the
ability to deduct up to $750 per year.
"For the speaker and all of the membership, this is one thing we thought
we had to do to help people," said House Ways and Means chairman Rep.
Robert A. DeLeo. "We really wanted to help commuters."
DeLeo also blasted Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey for a letter she sent yesterday
to House members chiding them for backing a spending plan that includes,
among other things, "$25 million in subsidies for the MWRA."
"People paying thousands of dollars in water and sewer rates" need a
break, DeLeo said. "I’m shocked that the lieutenant governor would do
that (and) it shows she is somewhat out of touch with the average
working man and woman."
DeLeo said he had not yet spoken to Senate members to gauge the support
of the commuter tax break plan. Sen. Stephen Brewer, (D-Barre) filed a
similar budget amendment in the Senate.
Return to top
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Department
Kerry Healey, Lieutenant Governor
Letter from Lt. Gov. Healey
to House Members regarding tax cut and budget
April 24, 2006
Dear House Member:
As the House begins its budget deliberations this week, I urge you to
reconsider some of the choices reflected in the spending plan reported
out by the House Ways and Means Committee, and to restore crucial
reforms and spending priorities that were included in House 2.
It has been over six years since the citizens of Massachusetts reduced
the income tax rate to five percent. In light of last year's $1.2
billion budget surplus and another surplus projected for this fiscal
year, today the arguments put forth in 2002 in support of rebuffing the
will of the voters and freezing the rate at 5.3 percent simply do not
hold. The budget filed by our Administration proves that we can return
hard-earned money to the taxpayers while also balancing the budget and
providing additional aid to our cities and towns. By contrast, the House
Ways and Means budget excludes the income tax cut and adds at least $84
million in unnecessary new spending while at the same time eliminating
cost-saving reforms proposed in House 2.
Simply stated, I believe in many cases that the House Ways and Means
budget reflects the wrong priorities.
The House Ways and Means budget excludes the citizen-approved tax cut
but adds $31 million in additional spending for Boston's Big Dig and $25
million in subsidies for the MWRA.
It also reduces education funding (Chapter 70) to cities and towns by
$72 million below the levels proposed in House 2, eliminates $93 million
in education reforms, eliminates our proposed $30 million housing
incentive program intended to lower housing costs in Massachusetts, and
provides $5.3 million less in funding for the PILOT program.
Furthermore, the House Ways and Means budget excludes key reforms that
would help welfare recipients to achieve self-sufficiency and would save
the Commonwealth an estimated $24 million by avoiding penalties for our
current failure to meet federal standards. Instead of investing in
employment services, the House budget increases cash assistance to
welfare recipients by $17 million, and adds $11 million for lottery
advertising and administration.
Of course, I understand that different constituencies have different
priorities. This is a core characteristic of our Commonwealth, and at no
time is it more evident than during the budget season. However, as
elected officials we all answer to a single, supreme constituency - the
people of Massachusetts. In fact, the Constitution of the Commonwealth
states that all power resides with the people, not the Legislature, and
that we on Beacon Hill simply "are their substitutes and agents, and are
at all times accountable to them." Six years ago the people exercised
their constitutional powers and directly reduced the income tax rate to
five percent. It is unacceptable that over half a decade later, with a
large surplus and a growing economy, the House is poised to once again
turn a deaf ear to their clear instructions. We can both cut taxes and
increase local aid; we can reform welfare and hold spending in check; we
can, and must, respect the people and the Constitution, and we can do so
without cutting necessary services.
As you move forward in your debate, I urge you to roll back taxes, to
restore local aid to the levels proposed in House 2, to restore our
proposed cost-saving reforms and to resist the temptation to implement
unnecessary spending increases reflected in the House Ways and Means
budget and in many of the scores of amendments that have already been
filed.
Sincerely,
Kerry Healey
Lieutenant Governor
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 24, 2006
Tax-cutting pols aim at wrong tax
By Edward Moscovitch
Gubernatorial candidates Kerry Healey and Tom Reilly used last week’s
tax deadline to renew their calls for cutting the state income tax from
5.3 percent to 5 percent - at an eventual cost of about $750 million a
year. Given the uncertainties associated with the new health care bill
and the cuts made in recent years to state colleges, social services and
environmental programs, it’s not at all clear the state could afford
such a cut.
But even if there is extra money, it would be far better to cut local
property taxes by raising state aid. Property taxes, after all, are not
based on ability to pay, while the income tax is the fairest tax we
have.
Local governments across the state are in crisis. With skyrocketing
health-care premiums, local aid well below what it was four years ago
and Proposition 2½ overrides hard to pass, cities and towns are closing
firehouses, cutting back library hours, bringing on fewer police cadets
and raising class sizes.
Desperate to keep things from getting worse, towns across the state are
working hard to keep out any but the wealthiest new residents. Their
zoning requires extremely large lot sizes, in the hope that young
families with kids - families that would push up police, fire and school
costs - will move to some other town.
In a recent study for the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, I found
that the average lot size for new single-family houses built between
Route 128 and I-495 is 1.3 acres. That’s as big as the entire Patriots
playing field, along with the end zones. By contrast, classic New
England town centers, in desirable towns like Andover and Ipswich, are
built on lots of one-third or one-quarter of an acre.
Statistical analysis of selling prices shows that, when correction is
made for square feet of living space, there’s virtually no premium for
larger lot sizes. If two identical homes were for sale in Ipswich, for
example, one on a half-acre and the other on an acre and a half, the
price difference would be only $9,000! This means we’re building on
large lots not because people want them and will pay for them, but
because local zoning requires them.
As a state, we’re actively discouraging the construction of new homes.
Home prices are in the stratosphere and far too many of our young people
are moving out of state. The few houses we do build are chewing up our
open space at an alarming rate. And all to no effect - the poor still
live somewhere, and towns are still cutting police, fire and school
budgets.
A critical part of any plan to address our housing/local finance/open
space crisis is a big increase in local aid. If we followed the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s long-term local aid guidelines,
we’d be spending an additional $1.5 billion. We should make sure there’s
aid to cover the extra costs of towns that welcome low-income families
and encourage smart growth on smaller lots.
Sure, taxpayers voted to reduce the income tax because then-Gov. Paul
Cellucci told them it wouldn’t affect services. He then skipped town
before he actually had to deal as governor with the impact of his cuts.
Taxpayers also want low property taxes, more cops, re-opened fire
stations, small class sizes and lower tuitions at state colleges.
Taxpayer demands don’t add up; a governor who promises to give them
everything they want must eventually fail. Is it naive to hope for a
governor who levels with us about the choices we face and the true costs
of cutting the state income tax?
Edward Moscovitch is president of Cape Ann Economics.
Return to top
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Office of the Minority Leader
April 24, 2006
House leadership guts effort to help cities and towns
A Republican effort to excuse cities and towns from having to pay the
21-cent state gas tax was squashed by House leadership today, delaying
much-needed financial relief for local communities.
The proposal, filed as a budget amendment by House Minority Leader
Bradley H. Jones Jr., could have saved cities and towns close to $10
million a year.
“It is extremely disappointing that a majority of my colleagues in the
House chose to snub cities and towns by denying them this relatively
small financial break,” said Jones, R-North Reading. "I sincerely hope
that this begrudging attitude toward our communities is not an indicator
of how the rest of the budget debate will play out. I know my Republican
colleagues and I will continue to fight for cities and towns every step
of the way."
Jones’ proposal would have exempted cities and towns from paying the
state gas tax when filling the tanks of municipal vehicles, including
fire trucks, ambulances and police cruisers. The plan was backed by the
Massachusetts Association for Pupil Transportation.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Family paid leave on Mass. agenda
Proposal in Senate is nation's most generous
By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff
Senate leaders this week will propose legislation to offer all workers
in Massachusetts up to 12 weeks' paid time off to care for newborn and
adopted children or sick family members, financed by an employee payroll
premium of at least $1.50 a week.
The bill, which would pay employees their full salary, up to $750 a
week, would create the most generous paid leave policy in the nation.
"What family hasn't been touched by some emergency," said Senate
President Robert Travaglini, who will formally unveil the proposal
Tuesday before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. "I've been
through physical and medical problems. Knowing you're not going to lose
your job and you will continue to be compensated will provide
significant comfort."
The legislation drew a cautious reaction from businesses and labor
groups, which may oppose the proposed employee premiums, and could face
a tough fight in the House. The premium amount has not yet been
determined, but Travaglini aides said it would likely be between $1.50
and $2.50 a week.
Under the bill, all employees would be required to pay into the fund,
regardless of whether they believe they would ever take advantage of the
benefits.
The premium proposal comes only days after Beacon Hill lawmakers enacted
a healthcare law that includes a $295 per worker tax on employers that
do not provide health insurance coverage.
Even though he is suggesting a payroll tax in an election year,
Travaglini predicted his family leave proposal will gain support because
the premiums would be so low. He said he hadn't decided when the Senate
would take up the measure.
"I'm convinced the overwhelming majority of people will view this in a
favorable way," said Travaglini. "Employees are the direct
beneficiaries, and the ... contributions are a very small amount of
money that can provide significant comfort and coverage in the event of
a medical emergency or the birth of a baby."
The Massachusetts proposal would also attempt to protect employees'
jobs, making it illegal for an employer to fire someone who opts to take
a paid leave under the new policy.
The legislation would cover all 3 million employees in the public and
private sectors, who would be eligible for a leave after working at
least 900 hours in the previous nine months. Workers would be required
to use their own vacation or sick time for the first week of their leave
and then could receive an additional 12 weeks, paid by the new program.
Workers could also use the paid leave time to recover from an illness or
to care for an ailing relative.
Travaglini, who batted down reports last week that he may leave the
Senate, sees the proposal as part of an agenda to help working families,
aides said. Democratic Senator Karen Spilka of Framingham, chairwoman of
the Senate Committee on Children and Families, said the bill will
especially help families who struggle paycheck to paycheck.
"This will help working families across the Commonwealth," she said.
"Parents of newborns or newly adopted children who are so often unable
to take time off. It will help employees who need to care for elderly
parents and may help employees down the line recover from illness. This
will touch probably every single employee of the Commonwealth during
their lifetime."
The law is modeled after a similar law in California, the only state
that currently mandates paid leave for family emergencies or parents
with new children. But the California law pays employees only 55 percent
of their pay for up to six weeks and is capped at $840 a week.
Currently, the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act requires private
employers with at least six employees to grant women up to eight weeks
of unpaid maternity leave for the birth or the adoption of a child.
Nationally, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act requires larger
employers with 50 or more employees to offer their workers time off
without pay.
A 2000 survey found that about 12 percent of companies offered paid
maternity leave and about 7 percent offered paid paternity leave,
according to the National Partnership for Women & Families, a
Washington, D.C.,-based advocacy group.
The Senate proposal, which offers paid leave, would put Massachusetts in
the forefront of a national trend by states to pick up where the FMLA
left off, advocates say.
"The Family and Medical Leave Act unfortunately covers only 60 percent
of the workforce and is unpaid," said Deven McGraw, chief operating
officer of the National Partnership for Women & Families. "We'd like to
see something happen at the federal level, but bills that have been
introduced aren't getting any traction. The states are stepping in and
making strides.
"California offers partial pay, up to a ceiling, as opposed to full pay.
But it doesn't have job protection built into it. That is why this new
proposal would put Massachusetts out front."
In 2001, lawmakers and Acting Governor Jane Swift considered several
leave programs, but business groups balked and the state's budget
situation worsened after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Senate, for example, proposed spending $120 million of state funding
to provide 12 weeks of partial pay for new parents who wanted time off.
Last week, local business and labor leaders said they were unsure
whether they would back the latest proposal, which relies on employees
-- not employers or the state's taxpayers -- for the bulk of its money.
"This is not a benefit that has historically been paid by employers, so
we will have to have some discussion before we can declare it's good or
bad, " said Rich Marlin, legislative director of the Massachusetts
AFL-CIO, which represents 400,000 employees across the state. "How it
will get funded and how affordable it is are still up in the air. In the
end we may want some employer contribution."
Employees are clamoring for relief, he added. "Given what's going on
with families now, they are desperate for something like this. That is
something we will have to weigh."
Business leaders said they will review the proposal, but are already
feeling burdened by the new healthcare law.
"We have to look at the details," said Alan Macdonald, head of the
Massachusetts Business Roundtable, a group of 75 business executives
from across the state. "We've checked with the California Business
Roundtable, and the law there seems to be working fairly well. But our
concern is that it will be difficult for all sized companies to do this
with the same effect. The smallest of companies may have difficulty
losing an employee and guaranteeing their position.... But as you can
guess, we want to focus on the new healthcare law now -- that's the big
focus."
Said Jim Klocke, executive vice president of the Greater Boston Chamber
of Commerce: "The macro questions with a proposal like this are how are
the (benefits) structured, how do they affect our competitiveness, and
how do they work day to day in the real world. The answers will become
clear once a bill comes forward."
Paid leave advocates say the programs help employers, who must make up
for lost productivity of employees who take unpaid leaves, and
employees, who lose thousands of dollars if they are forced to take off
time without pay.
"People are already paying a high cost to take leaves," said Randy
Albelda, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at
Boston. "Individuals are paying a particularly high cost over a short
period of time. What this does is spread the cost over everyone, now and
over time."
Ann Bookman, executive director of the MIT Workplace Center, predicted
the plan could help stem the exodus of workers out of state. "People see
this as something for working families," she said. "But it will help
employers. It will create a more stable and more engaged workforce.
Workers won't have to worry they'll lose their jobs if they exercise
their right to leave. This will send a message -- we want Massachusetts
to be a model for workers at different income levels.
"Families are in a lot of difficulty right now. A lot of workplaces
aren't set up to accommodate the dual pressures people are feeling: They
have to hang on to their jobs but have to care for their families. This
new initiative will resolve that," she said.
According to McGraw, 25 states introduced paid leave bills in 2005. In
addition to Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
Washington are considering paid family or medical leave legislation,
advocates said.
Reached late last week, spokesman for House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and
Governor Mitt Romney said they would withhold comment until reviewing
the Travaglini legislation.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Trav, stifle yourself on paid leave push
By Virginia Buckingham
If Rob Reiner is for it, I’m against it. I figure, as a public policy
rule of thumb, Meathead’s advocacy is as good a measure to use as any.
As Boston business leaders scoop scrambled eggs and cantaloupe into
their mouths this morning while Senate President Robert Travaglini
spoonfeeds them some nonsense about his "completely harmless" paid leave
proposal, perhaps they’ll keep the Reiner Rule in mind, too.
"This law is the first of its kind anywhere in the United States ... we
are going to see this transported to other states," said Reiner when the
Golden State’s paid leave act was implemented in 1994.
Forget the race to the bottom feared by skeptics of states as
laboratories of democracy. There’s a lot more to fear from political
leaders’ insistence on winning the race to the top.
A Power Point presentation provided by Travaglini’s office underscores
the point: "This Massachusetts program would be the most generous paid
leave law in the nation."
"It dovetails nicely out of the health-care reform," said Travaglini
spokesperson Ann Dufresne. Travaglini must have enjoyed his turn at the
spotlight as a progenitor of health-care reform. But surely there’s an
easier way to earn national recognition than to saddle business with yet
another complicated, unprecedented employee benefit.
Now, now, no need to choke on the bad coffee, Trav will say to his rapt
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce audience. This is not a mandate on
business.
No? Whose human resources department is going to have to help employees
figure their way through the state bureaucracy that will oversee the new
benefit (envisioned as the state office of workforce development)? Who
is going to help employees figure out how the new benefit melds with the
existing state eight-week maternity leave law and the 12-week federal
family leave law? And what of the sick leave, personal time and vacation
time already provided by employers? Does it count toward the leave? On
top of it? And for the small businesses that are lucky to have two
cashiers, never mind an HR department, who is going to pick up the slack
of the absent workers and pay overtime for replacements?
Ah, all these questions were asked and answered in California, Trav will
say. You can’t prove that by me. The first guy I got on the phone from
the Left Coast, Martyn Hopper, state director of the National Federation
of Independent Business, was not exactly sanguine about the state of
small business affairs there.
"It’s the camel’s nose under the tent," Hopper said. Ever since paid
leave’s passage, businesses have been fighting to stop its sponsors from
imposing the costs on employers as a mandate, he said. The paid leave
law’s been "underutilized," they complain. Perhaps that’s because
existing state and federal laws already allow employers and employees to
work out an agreeable and sustainable leave policy there, as here?
Travaglini knows whatever he proposes will be one-upped by the now
Finneran-less House. So what’s his starting point? California imposed a
new tax on employees to pay for six weeks of leave. Massachusetts would
tap employees for 12 weeks. California funds 55 percent of wage
replacement up to $840 per week. Massachusetts would pay full salary up
to $750 per week. California has no job guarantee for workers who take
leave. Massachusetts would.
I shudder just thinking about the monster that will come out of some
future conference committee.
So will business leaders simply respond "how high" when Trav asks them
to jump? Or will they take a cue from Archie Bunker who typically
handled Mike Stivic’s moralizing with a pointed: "Did you ever hear of
shut up" or "Mind your own beeswax?" Either will do.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Family leave bill benefits both sides
By Randy Albelda
Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini will introduce
legislation today for a bold paid family leave program that would bring
the state into the 21st century of employment realities, the ones where
most families tenuously juggle job and family responsibilities. The
family medical and leave insurance program would offer workers time off
to recover from an illness, or care for newborn or adopted children or
ill relatives. It would provide up to 12 weeks of job protected leave
(after a one-week waiting period), replacing 100 percent of weekly
earnings up to $750 per week. The program would be financed by worker
contributions to a newly established Strong Families Trust Fund.
Concerns about the proposal include the program's cost and how it might
affect both workers and employers. In a forthcoming report on the costs
and benefits of paid family and medical leave that I coauthored with
Alan Clayton-Matthews for the Institute for Women's Policy Research and
UMass Boston's Labor Resource Center, many of the questions are
answered.
An important thing to consider about the new costs of a paid leave
program is that there are costs already. People take leaves or need
care. Workers have children, pressing medical needs, and/or relatives
who demand their care for serious illness.
Using a simulation model that estimates the costs and usage of family
and medical leave, we calculate the amount of lost wages to the
estimated 360,000 Massachusetts workers who take about 442,000 family or
medical leaves each year to be $1.6 million. More than two-thirds of all
leaves in the state are supported with some type of employer wage
replacement (usually paid sick days and vacation time) to the tune of
$370 million annually. While the total cost (employer benefits and
workers' uncompensated wages) comes to about $530 per worker of all
workers in the state, the average cost to the person who takes the leave
is about $3,000 annually.
We estimate the number of leaves will increase to 470,000 under the new
proposed program, supporting just over 200,000 leaves. Over half of
those who take leaves won't use the new program because they are not
eligible or their employer provides better coverage.
We estimate a paid leave program will cost about $132 per worker
annually ($2.50 a week), assuming two-thirds of eligible workers use the
program. The cost could be less depending on program outreach and
employers' and employees' attitudes toward using the new program.
What a paid leave program will do is spread the economic risk and costs
over all workers and over longer periods of time. Like other social
insurance programs, this one redistributes costs and benefits. In this
bill, there are two redistribution mechanisms. The first is between
employer and employee. Previous research indicates that workers are more
likely to stay with an employer when they take a leave that is paid,
reducing turnover costs and saving employers money. Workers will use
fewer sick days with access to this new program, also reducing costs to
employers. The entire costs of this paid leave program are paid by
workers even though employers will benefit.
The second redistribution that will occur is among workers. While all
workers will increase access to wage replacement, low-income workers
have the most to gain. Currently, we estimate 40 percent of leaves taken
by workers in households with income of less than $20,000 receive any
pay. This program boosts that to 60 percent. Low-income workers won't
achieve parity, but this program will tilt a very uneven playing field.
Travaglini's proposal provides a much-needed safety net for Commonwealth
workers. It will create more economic security for employers and
employees. Employers are getting a great deal -- at no cost to them.
Employees too are getting a good deal, as they will be able to take time
off for family without the fear of having no income.
Randy Albelda is a professor of economics at UMass-Boston.
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|