Skip to main content

The Twin State Voluntary Leave Plan Proposed By Vermont & New Hampshire Governors


Last Wednesday, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu and Vermont Governor Phil Scott held a joint press conference in which they unveiled their "Twin State Voluntary Leave Plan".  This proposal would provide voluntary paid family and medical leave to workers in both states.  Under the proposal, enrolled public and private sector employees in New Hampshire and Vermont would be eligible for 60% wage replacement for six weeks at competitive rates for qualifying events.  What would count as a qualifying event under this plan you ask?  The birth of a child, the adoption of a child, the fostering of a child, a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform essential functions of his/her job, an urgent situation involving a close relative that is an active duty member of the military, or the need to care for a close relative that faces a serious health program would all qualify.

This inevitably then leads to the question of "Ok, how are you going to pay for it?"  Under the Twin State Voluntary Leave Plan, New Hampshire and Vermont would select an insurance carrier (or carriers) through a coordinated request for proposal process to assume the risk and manage the benefit and claims under the plan.  The insurer/s would then develop a state rate.  (The state rate would be the per employee cost that each state would pay to provide a Family Medical Leave Insurance plan to its employees.  Under this proposal, each state would provide the paid leave to its  approximately 18,000 public employees in New Hampshire and Vermont as a new benefit.  It is expected that it would cost Vermont about $2.5 million per year.  Costs for public employees in New Hampshire are not readily available at this time.)  For private employers, depending on the number of employees they have the the level of participation among employees in The Twin State Voluntary Leave Plan, insurance rates would vary.

For those wondering, while both Governors of New Hampshire and Vermont are Republicans, Democrats control both state legislatures.  Democrats in both states were quick to criticize the Twin State Voluntary Leave Plan after it was announced, calling it a "PR stunt" and "useless".  It is notable that both Governors vetoed paid leave programs within the past year, although those bills were vetoed in part because they included a small income tax (to pay for the leave) and included mandatory individual participation, which Republicans in both states opposed.  Whether this proposal will gain traction in either state remains a bit of a mystery.  I would not be surprised if one (or both states) ended up creating a different bi-partisan proposal instead, with enough support among Republicans and Democrats to gain traction and become law.


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