Recently, Maine’s legislative Labor Committee heard testimony on more than a dozen bills on Maine’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, most of which would have sought to undermine, weaken, or outright repeal the initiative before paying a single dollar in benefits to Maine workers.
A majority of legislators voted down these harmful proposals, but Republicans and a handful of Democrats are still pushing changes backed by business interests that would make the program harder to use and less effective for working Mainers. When this measure goes before the full legislature, lawmakers should stand firm to defeat it.
The provisions are included in a minority report as proposed amendments to LD 894, which as originally written contains some improvements to the program suggested by the Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). The bad additions include:
Changes to the definition of “undue hardship”
Maine’s PFML law is unusual because unlike most state laws, it includes the ability for an employer to reschedule or deny leave to an employee based on an assertion of “undue hardship.” MDOL has already drafted rules to help define hardship and allow for a process of negotiation between employer and employee to ensure leave is not unfairly denied. Republicans are proposing a change to the law that would bypass this process and make it much easier for a business to stop their employees taking leave.
These new provisions would automatically be considered undue hardship and not subject to MDOL review. They’re also very broad and include having fewer than 15 employees, being a seasonal business, or having other employees already out on leave. Depending on how these provisions are interpreted, this could effectively make leave impossible for almost 120,000 Mainers who work for businesses with fewer than 15 employees, plus thousands more who work for large seasonal businesses.
Prohibiting leave for new hires
The Republican amendment would prevent anyone from taking PFML until they have worked for an employer for 120 days. This fundamentally changes the nature of the program, which currently offers a portable benefit that follows a worker between jobs. Currently, Maine’s PFML law specifies that as long as you have paid into the program, you are able to take leave and claim that money you have paid in. The Republican amendment would lead to tens of thousands of Mainers each year being prevented from taking leave they’ve paid for. To reduce the pressure on small and seasonal employers, the law already specifies an employer does not have to hold a position open for a new hire who takes leave.
Taxability of benefits
Currently, Maine Revenue Services is following guidance from the Internal Revenue Service that PFML benefits are partially taxable. Under this framework, benefits for family leave are counted as income for tax purposes, while medical leave benefits are taxable as far as they are funded from employer contributions (50% in most cases). The Republican amendment would make benefits fully taxable under state law, even if they are not taxed federally. While there is a case for treating PFML benefits similarly to unemployment compensation and regular wages, the divergence between state and federal tax codes risks creating confusion for workers.
Administrative burdens
A number of other provisions in the Republican amendment would make it harder for workers to use earned leave. These include shorter application windows for taking leave and a provision that would remove an employee’s job protection if they fail to tell their employer that they are on leave, even in emergency situations where such reporting may be difficult.
Other bad ideas still in play
While the minority report for LD 894 contains the changes Republicans and business supporters would most like to see for the new law, there are also several other bad ideas included in minority reports for other bills.
The worst of these is a change to the benefit structure. Currently, wages are replaced on a sliding scale where the workers with the lowest income receive up to 90% of their wages as benefits. Under the proposed change, Mainers would only receive a flat 65% wage replacement as their benefit. This would lead to lower benefits for the lowest-paid 86% of Mainers, while increasing benefits for the remaining population. For the very lowest-paid Mainers, 65% of wages is simply too little to survive on, putting paid leave out of reach for those who need it most.
Conclusion
None of the ideas brought forward by opponents of Maine’s PFML law are worth adopting. Many would undermine the existing law so fundamentally it would be unusable for many workers. Others are unnecessary or make changes that would risk the program’s stability for little clear benefit. Lawmakers should stay the course and stick to the limited changes supported by MDOL in the original draft of LD 894. The program is popular and based on effective models from a dozen other states. There is no reason Maine needs to radically change or alter its program before it even begins.
