Senate OKs workplace disfigurement, wage violation bills
The scope of workplace disfigurement injuries covered under workers' compensation policies would be expanded to injuries anywhere on a person's body, and the amount of compensation workers could receive would also be increased under a bill that cleared the Senate Thursday on a 36-1 vote.
By a narrower margin, 27-11, the Senate approved a bill supporters said would strengthen the attorney general's efforts to enforce wage and hour violations by allowing her office to file a civil action for injunctive relief. Employees have the private right to sue and the bill gives the attorney general the same right, bill supporters said.
The disfigurement bill was approved after warnings from Sen. Michael Rodrigues, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Vinny deMacedo that the Senate may be pressing forward too aggressively with proposals that add to the already high cost of doing business in Massachusetts.
Sen. Sal DiDomenico, vice chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committtee, led the push for the disfigurement bill, saying the current $15,000 cap on benefits was not fair to workers. Limiting compensation only to scars on a person's neck, face or hands is also not fair, DiDomenico argued.
In addition to expanding the scope of covered disfigurement injuries to those occurring anywhere on a person's body, the bill states that compensation will equal 22.5 percent of the average weekly salary, rather than the current flat $15,000.
DiDomenico said the state should not be "picking and choosing" which disfigurement injuries are worthy of coverage, describing the pain and suffering from injuries as "all the same."
On a 9-27 vote, the Senate rejected Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr's attempt to delay the law's implementation until a commission spends six months assessing the costs of the change in law. He agreed that the eligibility change is needed, but said the rate of compensation deserved some study, noting that employers will bear the costs of the change.
DiDomenico cited Department of Industrial Accidents figures in saying 1,936 workers were awarded disfigurement benefits last fiscal year and $300,000 was paid. The bill would lead to no more than $500,000 in new costs, he said, noting the benefit had not been adjusted in 24 years.
Rodrigues voted for the bill, but openly worried about a potential "pattern" of the Senate embracing bills that add to the cost of doing business in Massachusetts. Rodrigues said he hoped the Senate would be as "zealous" in adopting bills to make it easier for employers to operate here.
deMacedo voted against the bill and told his colleagues he was worried that "little by little, piece by piece, slice by slice" the Senate was making it more challenging to do business in Massachusetts.
"For those who totally disagree, I'm sorry," deMacedo said, mentioning health insurance mandates and an increasing minimum wage. "This is one of the more expensive places to do business in the country."
The concern about the cost of doing business was also a prevailing theme throughout debate on the enhanced enforcement of civil penalties bill.
Opponents said the bill, which would give the attorney general the power to file a civil action on behalf of a worker for violation of wage and hour laws, imposes additional hurdles for businesses and could have a chilling effect on businesses considering moving to Massachusetts.
"We unfortunately do sometimes ‘enjoy’ a reputation of not being the most business-friendly state in the nation. I'm concerned when we look to expend the authority of a juggernaut agency of the state to potentially go against a taxpayer," Sen. Donald Humason said. "The bigger concern to me is that we have a reputation that is only enhanced when we take action like this."
Attorney General Maura Healey backs the bill, which an official in her office said "clarifies" the top prosecutor’s ability to enforce wage and hour violations. With some exceptions, the attorney general is currently restricted to filing a criminal complaint or a civil citation on matters of alleged wage violations, according to Healey's office.
"Clarifying that our office has the same, specific authority to file enforcement cases directly in court would enhance our ability to stop serious, ongoing wage and hour violations and prevent further financial harm to employees," Jonathan Miller, the AG's Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau chief, wrote in an August letter to the chairwoman of Senate Ways and Means.
"Moreover, we believe that the potential for business interruption caused by the issuance of a Superior Court injunction may cause employers to come into compliance more quickly when they become aware of a complaint."
Sen. Kenneth Donnelly spoke about a friend who works at Home Depot and routinely sees contractors pick up day laborers at the end of the store's driveway. It's many of those workers, Donnelly said, who will be protected under the bill.
"Poor people that are trying to work on a daily basis, living from paycheck to paycheck at best, are getting cheated every day in their wages," Donnelly said. "There has to be a division that can step in and at least make sure that these people trying to make a living don't get cheated out of their wages, don't have to go out and get a private attorney, and don't have to wait four to five years to get a paycheck."
The bill also provides for triple damages for the individual and attorneys' fees for the attorney general if the action is successful, a provision that prompted Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to seek two amendments to the bill.
Tarr's amendments would have excluded employers from paying triple damages if they could show the court "clear and convincing evidence" that the act prompting the action was in "good faith" and was not a deliberate violation, which Tarr said would "put us back at a level playing field."
The Senate rejected both of Tarr's amendments before passing the bill by a 27-11 vote. Joining the Senate's six Republicans in dissent were Sens. Rodrigues, William Brownsberger, Eileen Donoghue, Joan Lovely and Michael Moore.
The Senate also adopted a bill that would replace the existing Workforce Investment Board with the state Workforce Development Board, designed to prevent the possible loss of workforce development funding by bringing the state into line with requirements of the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014.
Filed by Gov. Charlie Baker and already passed by the House, the Senate made a few changes to the bill sponsored by Sens. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Sen. Harriette Chandler that would encourage officials to put on the board women, people with disabilities and those representing the manufacturing trades that are vital to certain areas of the state.
Instead of the current board's 65 members, the new one would have 33, with a majority representing the interests of businesses and employers.
The Senate also followed the House's vote on Wednesday with its own vote to override the governor's veto of a section of the annual state budget that will require the administration to report to the Legislature annually on whether it has developed regulations required under laws approved by the Legislature.
Chandler said too often laws are not implemented on a timely basis as required. Baker vetoed the section, saying it "duplicates existing requirements," but only Senate Republicans sided with his position.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments