After much discussion, Maine Legislature keeps paid family and medical leave mostly intact
Sen. Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland) and Rep. Kristen Cloutier (D-Lewiston) cheer supporters of paid family and medical leave who rallied at the Maine State House in May 2023. The bill was signed into law a month later. (Courtesy of Maine Paid Family Leave campaign)
Following the Senate earlier this week, the House on Wednesday passed LD 894, which proposes a series of amendments to the state's paid family and medical leave program to create certain enforcement mechanisms and penalties, as well as clarify intermittent leave.
But the vote was not without significant debate.
Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland) introduced the bill on behalf of the Labor Department to make specific refinements to the policy that were noticed during the rulemaking process.
However, during the House floor debate, Rep. Michael Soboleski (R-Phillips) called it 'legislation that threatens the very foundation of Maine's economic landscape.'
But underscoring the human rather than economic impacts, Rep. Valli Geiger (D-Rockland) said, 'We are not just a series of businesses. We are not just a series of workers.'
She went on to say that 'we thrive when there is a blend of work and life, and all of us age, all of us fall into illness, many of us have children, and when we do, it is part of our culture and a decent society to give us time to recover, to allow us to take care of our elderly, our frail, our beloved ones.'
Though it isn't expected to be available until May 2026, the paid family and medical leave program will allow eligible public and private sector workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for reasons such as illness, to care for a loved one or the birth of a new child.
Others supportive of the overall program argued that LD 894 does not do enough to ensure it will be effective. 'While LD 894 focuses on infrastructure, it leaves behind the operational reforms that matter most to the people on the ground,' said Rep. Tiffany Roberts (D-South Berwick).
Rep. Nathan Carlow (R-Buxton) attempted two floor amendments to the bill, which both failed.
One amendment sought to require an employee to be employed with an employer for a minimum of 120 days before being eligible for paid leave. Rep. Amy Roeder (D-Bangor) said the Department of Labor is opposed to any change that would delay the implementation of the program. Rep. Charles Skold (D-Portland) argued the amendment would prevent people from taking leave when they need it. A motion to indefinitely postpone the amendment narrowly prevailed, 72-70.
Carlow then presented another floor amendment that would allow workers and businesses who have contributed to the state fund but choose to adopt a qualifying private plan before the start of 2026 to be eligible for a refund from the Department of Labor. A motion to indefinitely postpone also narrowly prevailed 71-70.
The Senate had its own, albeit smaller, debate on paid family and medical leave Wednesday. Despite urging from Sen. Dick Bradstreet (R-Kennebec) to back LD 1712, which hopes to strike a better balance between employee and employer interests by modifying how much an employer is required to contribute, when an employee needs to apply for the benefit and how much is paid out.
He described it as 'a reasonable compromise and a responsible compromise,' the upper chamber voted against it 20-14. The House rejected the bill earlier this week, so it is now effectively killed.
That bill joined a series of other proposals to modify or repeal the program that were also rejected earlier this week, including LD 406, LD 1273, LD 1333, LD 952 and LD 1307.
Reporter AnnMarie Hilton contributed to this story.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal
I was driving while listening to the news Sunday when I heard House Speaker Mike Johnson justify President Trump's move to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles. 'We have to maintain the rule of law,' Johnson said. I almost swerved off the road. Maintain the rule of law? Trump pardoned the hooligans who ransacked the Capitol because he lost the 2020 presidential election. They clashed with police, destroyed property and threatened the lives of public officials, and to Trump, they're heroes. Maintain the rule of law? Trump is a 34-count felon who has defied judicial rulings, ignored laws that don't serve his interests, and turned his current presidency into an unprecedented adventure in self-dealing and graft. And now he's sending an invading army to Los Angeles, creating a crisis where there was none. Arresting undocumented immigrants with criminal records is one thing, but is that what this is about? Or is it about putting on a show, occupying commercial and residential neighborhoods and arresting people who are looking for — or on their way to — work. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that U.S. Marines were on high alert and ready to roll, and in the latest of who knows how many escalations, hundreds are headed our way. What next, the Air Force? I'm not going to defend the vandalism and violence — which plays into Trump's hands—that followed ICE arrests in Los Angeles. I can see him sitting in front of the tube, letting out a cheer every time another "migrant criminal" flings a rock or a scooter at a patrol car. But I am going to defend Los Angeles and the way things work here. For starters, undocumented immigration is not the threat to public safety or the economy that Trump like to bloviate about. It's just that he knows he can score points on border bluster and on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), so he's going full gasbag on both, and now he's threatening to lock up Gov. Gavin Newsom. Read more: Reopen Alcatraz as a prison? Yes, but Trump shouldn't stop there To hear the rhetoric, you'd think every other undocumented immigrant is a gang member and that trans athletes will soon dominate youth sports if someone doesn't stand up to them. I can already read the mail that hasn't yet arrived, so let me say in advance that I do indeed understand that breaking immigration law means breaking the law, and I believe that President Biden didn't do enough to control the border, although it was Republicans who killed a border security bill early last year. I also acknowledge the cost of supporting undocumented immigrants is substantial when you factor in public education and, in California, medical care, which is running billions of dollars beyond original estimates. But the economic contributions of immigrants — regardless of legal status — are undeniably numerous, affecting the price we pay for everything from groceries to healthcare to domestic services to construction to landscaping. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a surge in immigrants since 2021 — including refugees, asylum seekers and others, legal and illegal — had lifted the U.S. economy "by filling otherwise vacant jobs," as The Times reported, and "pumping millions of tax dollars into state, local and federal coffers." According to a seminal 2011 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, 'many illegal immigrants pay Social Security and other taxes but do not collect benefits, and they are not eligible for many government services." In addition, the report said: 'Political controversies aside, when illegal immigrants come, many U.S. employers are ready to hire them. The vast majority work. Estimates suggest that at least 75 percent of adult illegal immigrants are in the workforce.' Trump can rail against the lunatic radical left for the scourge of illegal immigration, but the statement that 'employers are ready to hire them' couldn't be more true. And those employers stand on both sides of the political aisle, as do lawmakers who for decades have allowed the steady flow of workers to industries that would suffer without them. Read more: What happened during three days of protests over immigration raids in downtown L.A. On Sunday, I had to pick up a couple of items at the Home Depot on San Fernando Road in Glendale, where dozens of day laborers often gather in search of work. But there were only a couple of men out there, given recent headlines. A shopper in the garden section said the report of federal troops marching on L.A. is "kind of ridiculous, right?" He said the characterization by Trump of "all these terrible people" and "gang members" on the loose was hard to square with the reality of day laborers all but begging for work. I found one of them in a far corner of the Home Depot lot, behind a fence. He told me he was from Honduras and was afraid to risk arrest by looking for work at a time when battalions of masked troops were on the move, but he's got a hungry family back home, including three kids. He said he was available for any kind of jobs, including painting, hauling and cleanup. Two men in a pickup truck told me they were undocumented too and available for construction jobs of any type. They said they were from Puebla, Mexico, but there wasn't enough work for them there. I've been to Puebla, a city known for its roughly 300 churches. I was passing through about 20 years ago on my way to a small nearby town where almost everyone on the street was female. Where were the men? I was told by a city official that the local economy was all about corn, but local growers couldn't compete with American farmers who had the benefit of federal subsidies. So the men had gone north for work. Another reason people head north is to escape the violence wrought by cartels armed with American-made weapons, competing to serve the huge American appetite for drugs. In these ways, and more, the flow of people across borders can be complicated. But generally speaking, it's simply about survival. People move to escape poverty or danger. They move in search of something better for themselves, or to be more accurate about it, for their children. The narratives of those journeys are woven into the fabric of Los Angeles. It's part of what's messy and splendid and complicated about this blended, imperfect corner of the world, where many of us know students or workers or families with temporary status, or none at all. That's why this overheated invasion looks so ugly and feels so personal. We're less suspicious of our neighbors and the people we encounter on our daily rounds than the hypocrites who would pardon insurrectionists, sow division and send an occupying army to haul away members of our community. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Illinois woman with terminal illness fights for legal right to die
The Brief Debra Robertson, a Lombard woman with terminal cancer, has been advocating for the right to die with dignity. The Illinois General Assembly failed to legalize medical aid in dying during its spring session. Supporters say the bill would provide terminal patients with end-of-life options, while skeptics argue it could allow doctors to violate their oath to "do no harm." LOMBARD, Ill. - Lombard resident Debra Robertson has been fighting for the right to die on her own terms for the last three years. She's been advocating for a bill that was considered but ultimately not passed by state lawmakers, to allow her the option to stop her suffering. The backstory Robertson said she understands why that might be controversial, but she has one request: don't call it suicide. "I get very upset when people talk about this being assisted suicide," Robertson told FOX 32 Chicago. "I'm already dying. I want to die with dignity and I wanna die the way I wanna die." Robertson was diagnosed with an aggressive rare form of cancer in 2022, called neuro-endocrine carcinoma. She was given six months to live. "I think I was just in denial for a while because I couldn't believe that's where I was at, because the doctor said I was gonna die," she said. Three years and four debilitating rounds of treatment later, Robertson said she's out of options and fears she will suffer if not given the option to die via medication. "I know that my death is going to be painful based on the type of cancer I have," she said. Robertson said she's already expressed her wishes to her two children and grandchildren, and they've come to accept her decision. "At first they struggled because they said, 'Granny are you gonna die now? Are you gonna die today?'" Robertson said. "And I said no and I explain to them about what medical aid in dying is and what it means to me and other people, and now they're very supportive of it. They have some sort of a peace." Big picture view Illinois would become the 11th state in the nation to legalize medical aid in dying if the legislation passes. Last month it stalled in the Senate, after some Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition. The sponsor, State Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston), said the debate was passionate, and lawmakers simply ran out of time. "These complex pieces of legislation need time to make sure we get them right," Gabel said. Under the bill, a patient would need to be diagnosed with a terminal illness and given six months or less to live. They must be evaluated for mental health concerns and get verbal and written approval from two physicians, five days apart. And doctors who prescribe would be immune from any prosecution, unless they coerce a patient, in which case, they would face felony charges. Gabel said the bill is simply about giving terminal patients end-of-life options. "Just because you ask for the medicine doesn't mean you have to take it – 38% don't take it. What they tell me is it gives them peace of mind knowing they can," Gabel said. Downstate Republican Rep. Bill Hauter is also a physician. He said the medical community is split, but believes the bill would allow doctors to violate their Hippocratic oaths that state "first do no harm." "Medicine is a field of healing, taking care of patients and comforting them and trying to solve their issues and not to partake in the act of suicide," Hauter said. Gabel said she believes lawmakers will have the votes to pass the bill next year. Robertson realizes she might not be around to see it, but said she hopes to pave the way for others that are suffering. "I'm dying and I don't have any control over it. The only thing I could have control over is how I die if this was passed," she said. A representative from the Illinois State Medical Association said the organization took an official position to support the bill, but that they "remain a house divided," with physicians advocating passionately on both sides of the issue.
