Lawmakers reject proposals that would roll back new paid family and medical leave program
The House of Representatives voted 75-65 to reject a bill repealing the program and 74-65 to reject a bill that would make it voluntary for employers and employees to participate. The Senate voted 20-14 against a bill to exempt agricultural employers and employees from the program.
The bills face further votes in both chambers, but the action Monday indicates the program approved in 2023 likely won't be significantly changed by lawmakers despite Republican-led efforts to either repeal the program entirely or change aspects of it.
Democrats in the House defended the fledgling program Monday, saying that while the state has only just begun collecting the new payroll tax to fund the program and benefits won't be available until next year, it promises to improve the lives of families.
"It's a popular program, even before it was in law or before it pays out a single benefit," said Rep. Amy Roeder, D-Bangor. Roeder said there has been speculation that the costs of the program will "spiral out of control," but said experiences in other states have shown otherwise.
"Paid family programs across the country have remained stable over time, with most states avoiding major rate increases and no premium over 1.2%," Roeder said.
As of August 2024, Maine and 12 other states had adopted mandatory paid family and medical leave programs, while eight states have voluntary paid leave options that employers can purchase through private insurers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Maine program is funded with a 1% payroll tax split evenly between employers and employees.
When benefits become available on May 1, 2026, the program will pay up to 90% of regular wages for up to 12 weeks for workers who are ill or need to take care of newborns or other family members, among other reasons. Employers with fewer than 15 workers are exempt from paying into the program, but workers at small businesses still pay a 0.5% payroll tax and will be eligible for benefits.
Republicans in the House pushed for repeal of the program, saying it's been difficult for businesses to implement and a burden for taxpayers, particularly those who pay into the program but may never use it.
"Maine citizens currently shoulder one of the highest tax burdens in the nation," said Rep. Joshua Morris, R-Turner, the sponsor of LD 406, which would repeal laws related to the paid family and medical leave program. "As of Jan. 1, with the implementation of this new payroll tax, that burden has only gotten higher."
LD 406 was rejected 75-65 along party lines in an initial House vote Monday and now heads to the Senate.
Other changes to the program were also rejected in initial votes Monday.
LD 1333, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Poirier, R-Skowhegan, would require employees to be employed with their employer for 120 days before they're eligible for leave and would prohibit employees from taking paid leave unless they have simultaneously taken any available unpaid leave, among other changes.
Poirier said the bill would add fairness and sustainability to the program. "This bill will help ensure there are proper guardrails on the program," she said.
The bill was defeated 75-63 and heads to the Senate. In a House debate, Roeder addressed the requirement for an employee to be with their employer for 120 days, saying that an employee's payment into the program should follow them from job to job.
"If I worked at a company for 20 years and I quit and go to another company, I should be able to use the paid leave I earned over that 20 years," she said.
The House on Monday also rejected a bipartisan proposal, LD 1712, from Rep. Tiffany Roberts, D-South Berwick, for changes to the program.
In the Senate, lawmakers rejected bills Monday that would exempt agricultural employees and employers from the program and that would allow for reimbursements of payroll taxes collected from businesses who offer equivalent or superior private plans. Both bills were rejected 20-14.
The Senate also approved LD 894, a Department of Labor bill providing clarifying and technical changes to the current law.
Both chambers gave initial approval Monday to LD 1221, which directs the department to study ways to protect the program's funds from being expended for any purposes other than paid family and medical leave benefits.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere charged with computer tampering
Will County Board member Jacqueline Traynere faces three counts of computer tampering, according to a complaint filed this week in Will County Circuit Court. Traynere, a Bolingbrook Democrat, allegedly accessed the email account of board member Judy Ogalla, a Monee Republican, in March 2024 without Ogalla's authorization, according to the charges. The misdemeanor charges filed by special prosecutor William Elward state Traynere forwarded emails from Ogalla's account to herself and others. Ogalla, who was the Will County Board chairman at the time, said that Traynere knowingly accessed her email and knew it was unethical. Ogalla questioned whether Traynere had opened her email more than once. She said she doesn't know what all Traynere saw. 'Was she in my email other times and I just didn't know?' Ogalla said. 'She shouldn't have done it.' An email exchanged between board member Steve Balich, a Homer Glen Republican, and Ogalla regarding the controversial 143rd Street road widening project had been forwarded to the county executive, who replied to the email, Balich said during a July 2024 news conference with other County Board Republicans. Reached Wednesday, Traynere said she was unaware of the charges. Traynere said she had been testing out a rumor that all County Board members were given the same password when they were issued new devices. At the time the incident occurred, Traynere said she contacted Ogalla to explain what happened and believed it amounted to nothing. She said it was a simple mistake to see if it were true that all board members had the same password and she was exposing a problem with the system. A summons was issued for Traynere to appear in court Sept. 9. Traynere said Wednesday she believes the charges are political. Traynere has been on the Will County Board since 2008 and is the past Democratic Leader. She chairs the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Her term expires in 2026. Already, Sheldon Watts and Tyler Giacalone have announced they are running for the two seats that are up for election next year to represent District 11. Earlier this year, Traynere was issued a traffic citation stemming from an accident with a minor on a bicycle. That case was dismissed May 15, according to her lawyer and Will County Court documents.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Klobuchar weighs in on deepfake video of her talking about Sydney Sweeney
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) addressed the deepfake video that went viral last month of the senator's likeness offering a 'vulgar and absurd critique' of actress Sydney Sweeney's 'great jeans' ad campaign. In a New York Times op-ed, the moderate Democrat called on Congress to pass legislation to protect Americans from the harms of deepfakes, saying the issue requires urgent action amid the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. 'I learned that lesson in a visceral way over the last month when a fake video of me — opining on, of all things, the actress Sydney Sweeney's jeans — went viral,' she wrote in the op-ed. Klobuchar said after she co-led a hearing on data privacy last month, she noticed 'a clip of me from that hearing circulating widely on X, to the tune of more than a million views,' which the senator then clicked on to watch. 'That's when I heard my voice — but certainly not me — spewing a vulgar and absurd critique of an ad campaign for jeans featuring Sydney Sweeney,' she said, referring to the controversial American Eagle advertisement that touted the actress's 'great jeans.' Klobuchar explained the AI deepfake featured her using derogatory phrases and 'lamenting that Democrats were 'too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside.'' 'Though I could immediately tell that someone used footage from the hearing to make a deepfake, there was no getting around the fact that it looked and sounded very real,' she said. Klobuchar said when the clip spread to other platforms, TikTok took it down, and Meta labeled the video as artificial intelligence. But she said the social platform X 'refused to take it down or label it.' 'X's response was that I should try to get a 'Community Note' to say it was a fake, something the company would not help add,' she added. The Hill has reached out to X for comment. Klobuchar noted that her experience 'does not in any way represent the gravest threat posed by deepfakes' and pointed to other recent examples, including when someone used AI to pretend to be Secretary of State Marco Rubio and contacted various high-level government officials. President Trump in May signed into law a bill that Klobuchar pushed for, cracking down on so-called deepfake revenge porn — or sexually explicit AI images and videos that are posted without the victim's consent. Klobuchar is calling now for Congress to pass her bipartisan 'No Fakes Act,' which 'would give people the right to demand that social media companies remove deepfakes of their voice and likeness, while making exceptions for speech protected by the First Amendment,' she said. 'In the United States, and within the bounds of our Constitution, we must put in place common-sense safeguards for artificial intelligence. They must at least include labeling requirements for content that is substantially generated by A.I.,' she wrote in the op-ed. She warned that the country is 'at just the tip of the iceberg,' noting, 'The internet has an endless appetite for flashy, controversial content that stokes anger. The people who create these videos aren't going to stop at Sydney Sweeney's jeans.' 'We can love the technology and we can use the technology, but we can't cede all the power over our own images and our privacy,' she wrote. 'It is time for members of Congress to stand up for their constituents, stop currying favor with the tech companies and set the record straight. In a democracy, we do that by enacting laws. And it is long past time to pass one.'
