THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, MAY 28, 2021 Page 23 BHRC | FROM PAGE 22 as an economic lifeline to provide for their families and boost the Massachusetts economy.” “The unemployment benefits crisis was directly caused by Gov. Baker’s shutdown of the state’s economy and the Legislature’s failure to act,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “The federal government provided relief with its American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), but the House chose not to use those funds to mitigate the burden the state imposed on employers. It is unconscionable for the state to further abuse devastated businesses when federal funds have been made available to alleviate that pain.” “This proposal is a good step to help provide employers immediate unemployment insurance tax relief, but it is not a longterm solution,” said National Federation of Independent Business’s (NFIB) Massachusetts State Director Christopher Carlozzi. “The state forced businesses to close their doors and rollback operations resulting in widespread layoffs. Because of this, employers alone should not be left to shoulder the entire UI tax burden and policymakers must use some of the billions of dollars in federal aid to help replenish the UI trust fund like so many other states have done.” “This legislation is an important stopgap step to prevent up to 1,600 percent immediate tax increases for Massachusetts employers,” said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. “It will amortize the multi-billion-dollar COVID-related claims over 20 years, spreading out, but not eliminating the pain. Still there needs to be a shared responsibility with the government to cover some of the UI Trust Fund debt. The orders, restrictions, messaging, emergency benefits and fraudulent claims were related to government actions, not that of employers. So there still needs to be a determination on how much of the federal relief dollars under either the CARES Act or ARPA will be the government’s responsibility for the debt of approximately $4 billion. Massachusetts will be receiving $4.5 billion under the ARPA. Most other states have used federal COVID relief dollars to reduce the overall UI tax hit for their employers, and Massachusetts must support their small businesses and employers in a similar way.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Donald Wong Yes Sen. Brendan Crighton Yes EXCLUDE MUNICIPAL WORKERS (H 3771) House 0-158 (Senate on a voice vote without a roll call) rejected Gov. Baker’s amendment that would exclude municipal employees from the emergency COVID-19 paid leave program. The Baker administration has defended the exclusion of municipal workers arguing that they already have strong leave protections in place and that many municipalities can access federal funds to implement their own leave programs that could align with state and federal leave guarantees. Rep. Josh Cutler, (D-Pembroke), House chair of the Committee on Labor and Workforce Development disagreed with Baker. “As the speaker has made clear, the House stands firm in supporting COVID emergency paid leave for all Massachusetts workers,” said Cutler. “That includes our municipal employees, the teachers, police officers, firefighters, health agents, janitors, veterans’ agents and many others who have been essential to our state’s COVID-19 response. Further, our actions today to address unemployment solvency account rates will help stem rising costs for employers and small businesses.” House GOP Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) also disagreed with Baker, a fellow Republican. “Having access to emergency paid sick leave is essential to workers who are recovering from the coronavirus, caring for a family member or trying to schedule their vaccination,” Jones said. “Municipal employees—including essential frontline workers like police and firefighters—have also faced numerous challenges created by the COVID-19 global pandemic, and the House’s vote will ensure that they are also entitled to the same paid sick leave benefits as other non-municipal workers.” (A “No” vote is against the amendment and favors including municipal employees.) BHRC | SEE PAGE 25
24 Publizr Home