Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Paid Family Leave Policy (Vermont)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  

This is one to keep an eye on.


Recently, Democratic lawmakers in Vermont introduced a bill in the State Legislature which would expand the family leave policy in the state and allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave per year for childbirth, serious illness, or to care for an aging parent.  (The current family leave plan in Vermont provides for about 4.6 weeks of leave.)  Of course the question that follows is always, 'ok, how are you going to pay for it?'  And that is perhaps where this proposal gets a bit contentious.  Under the current proposal, there would be a .93% mandatory payroll tax on employees in Vermont.  Note, the .93% could be adjusted each year but would be capped at 1%.  As well, employers could voluntarily cover some of that payroll tax if they chose to, but it would not be a requirement.

Under this proposal, workers who took the paid family leave would be entitled to receive their normal weekly income capped at twice the state livable wage (approximately $1,042.00/week).  It goes without saying that providing up to 12 weeks of paid family leave would put Vermont at the forefront as a trailblazer on the issue (as this proposal would provide nearly four more weeks of leave than any other state).

That is not to say there will not be a fight to get this proposal passed.  While family advocacy groups, the Vermont AARP, and some Vermont businesses (with approximately 47% of businesses in the state backing paid family leave) support the proposal, the Republican Governor, Phil Scott, has argued that the bill would ultimately cost workers in the state money and hinder growth.  In fact, a recent analysis has shown that the expanded family leave plan would cost Vermont $2.5 million in new technology to implement the bill as well as costs to make up for employees taking the additional time off.  As a result, the Governor has indicated he would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

Last Friday, the Vermont House Committee on General Housing and Military Affairs votes in favor of the bill by a 7 - 4 vote.  The Vermont House Committee on Ways and Means is to take up the issue next.  This bill has a ways to go still, as the House Speaker Mitzi Johnson indicated the bill is not a priority this year.  Rather, the plan would be to approve the bill and advance it out of the Hoise so that the Senate could consider it next year.  Perhaps it is true that good things really do take time...



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more