By a 7-4 vote, the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee advanced the legislation. It’s unclear, however, whether the bill — strongly opposed by business organizations — will make it through the full legislature this year.
The legislation calls for a 0.93 percent mandatory tax on all employees in Vermont. That money would go into a pool to pay for up to 12 weeks time off for the birth of a child, a serious personal illness or caring for a seriously ill family member starting in 2019.
The committee backed down from the original proposal that would have taxed both employers and employees, settling instead on taxing just employees, starting in July 2018.
That change came after the committee learned this week that taxing employers would cost the state government $2.8 million in 2019 to cover state employees. The cost to Vermont schools could be $4.4 million. Replacements for workers who take leave could cost another estimated $1.5 million to $7.5 million, according to the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office.
“There were big concerns about employer burden, most especially around the state budget and state employees,” said committee chair Helen Head (D-South Burlington).
Rep. Heidi Scheuermann (R-Stowe) was among the four Republicans on the committee who voted against the bill. “We just voted out a bill that raises taxes on Vermonters by $80 million,” she said, referring to the total employees would pay per year. “It’s just flabbergasting.”
Scheuermann argued that with federal budget cuts on the horizon, “This is no time to start a brand-new program.”
Gov. Phil Scott’s office indicated in a statement Friday evening that he opposes the measure. It says, in part:
We all agree with a goal of providing more benefits and higher wages to workers, but today the House Committee tried to do that in a way that ultimately costs Vermonters more money and hinders economic growth – the exact opposite of their stated goals.Head said the bill is intended to help young families bond around the birth of a child, help Vermonters through illness or make it easier for them to care for elderly parents.… At a time when we are losing an average of six workers from our workforce per day, mandates from Montpelier that make Vermont less affordable are the wrong approach. The bottom line is working Vermonters cannot afford for state government to take more of what they earn.
Lindsay DesLauriers, director of Main Street Alliance of Vermont, which advocated for the bill, said she was happy to see it advance. Though she was disappointed that employers were removed from the bill, they would still have the option to contribute to the program, she said.
The bill goes next to the House Ways and Means Committee, but House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) indicated she doesn’t expect it to pass the full legislature this year. Bills introduced this year would still be in play next year.
“We weren’t necessarily looking to get it through all stages,” Johnson said Friday, calling the committee vote “ahead of schedule.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“At a time when we are losing an average of six workers from our workforce per day…”
This is terribly misleading. Census data shows that many older Vermonters are retiring and leaving the workforce. That has nothing to do with state policy. Moreover, not only are retirees’ jobs being filled, but many others created. We now have 16,000 more jobs than six years ago, including 14,700 in the private sector (VT Dept. of Labor, seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll). Facts matter.
Let’s face it, the Vermont democrats and their surrogates cherry pick facts as much as anyone. State Auditor Doug Hoffer will always engender appreciation from this Vermonter for all his office has done in the Brattleboro Retreat matter but the sad reality over the years I have been engaging folks in Montpelier is that those who hold statewide office have no business engaging in anything resembling partisan politics.
Mr. Hoffer feels that his 1st Amendment Rights are as important as anyone and I agree. The disconnect occurs when individuals hold statewide office as Mr. Hoffer does which is something you sign up to do 24/7 or 365 days a year. While Mr. Hoffer may be compensated for 8 hours a day by virtue of his job, that doesn’t mean the other 16 hours of the day he can be John Doe private citizen and critique those in the opposing party without the appearance of partisanship.
Democratic surrogate Lachlan Francis who got his big break being Governor Shumlin’s neighbor recently posted on Twitter quotes from “State Auditor Doug Hoffer” from the above post in an attempt to diminish the credibility of information Governor Phil Scott’s office had released. Considering the comments Mr. Francis quoted on Twitter originated in comments Mr. Hoffer posted on a Saturday morning evidence that even his democratic friends and surrogates including Mr. Francis recognize Doug Hoffer is not a private citizen on Saturdays but indeed, State Auditor Doug Hoffer seven days a week, 365 days a year which renders dabbling in fact checking on public forums problematic for him or any other individual holding statewide office.
So, as best as I can tell, the previous poster seems to believe that Republican Governor Scott is free to cite inaccurate data while serving as Governor (in support of his position on a piece of legislation)… but that if Auditor Doug Hoffer (or any other Democrat) speaks up to challenge that, it somehow is overstepping their role.
That is, quite simply, not how policy debates work. Public officials can – and should – enter the debate by citing facts in support of their argument. Expecting them to hold their tongue – lest they challenge the Governor;s “facts” – is a ridiculous misunderstanding of the role of those people we elect to office.
In reference to Comment by “terjeanderson”
Contrary to the inaccurate misrepresentation of my prior post, I wasn’t suggesting or defending anyone’s alleged accuracy of data only to point out that those on the Democratic side are often guilty of the same shortfalls Mr. Hoffer and Commenter terjeanderson cite as a basis for their positions. The reality is virtually all political parties engage in various forms of banter and often misrepresentation of their opponents records. That said, I know Governor Scott and after witnessing Vermont the past 6 years I support his vision for Vermont as opposed to the one which has led to so many problems for Vermont statewide which coincidentally has occurred with a predominantly democratically controlled legislature who are tone deaf to the citizens of Vermont who are tired of paying more and more to live in Vermont. Moreover, spending time on legislative initiatives that do not have the support of the Governor seem a waste of time knowing that a veto will await should it ever get to the Governor’s desk. The comments cited by ” terjeanderson” also lump all public officials into one large group. That is the crux of the commentator’s misrepresentation of my prior post as I was ONLY referring to individuals elected to statewide office, not state representatives or senators but the few Vermont office holders who have statewide responsibility: Governor, Lt. Governor, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Attorney General and Auditor of Accounts.
Auditor Hoffer,
We are not talking about U-3 employment. We’re talking about the labor force decline of ~360,000 to less than 345,000 that occurred under Shumlin’s governorship. I find that statistic you mentioned misleading as you’re referring to jobs under the U-3 employment definition, but might not meet U-6 criteria (under employed workers willing to work more hours but unable to find full-time employment).
Your comment is another illustration of progs and dems unwilling to acknowledge the poor economic results realized under their leadership, and continuing to revert to “job growth” talking points. Concern is not the number of low-wage foodservice jobs, but the decline in our state’s skilled labor force.
Regardless, this bill is nothing more than a disastrous insurance mandate. Without 0.93% payroll tax, Vermonters can actually afford to build up their own rainy-day fund and take leave in such situations.
Mr. DeFrancis – You are mistaken. I said nothing about unemployment. I was referring to the labor force. The decline is matched almost exactly by the number of Vermonters who have aged out (65+). All of those jobs have been filled and another 16,000 created. Don’t you just hate those “job growth talking points?” BTW – Although I am both a Dem and a Prog, the facts I present are non-partisan.
Finally, you said “Without 0.93% payroll tax, Vermonters can actually afford to build up their own rainy-day fund and take leave in such situations.” Really? If you earn $11 per hour and saved 0.93% of your gross wages for a year, you would have $213. How much of a leave would that cover?