Maine’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) Program was the center of sustained attention Wednesday afternoon in Augusta as the legislature’s Labor Committee held a massive public hearing on a protracted series of bills seeking to either amend or repeal the program.
The PFML program, enacted last year as part of a spending bill, has imposed a one percent payroll tax on most working Mainers and their employers to fund paid leave for all employees statewide, with benefits not scheduled to begin until May of 2026.
Mainers began contributing to the program on January 1 of this year, sixteen months ahead of when benefits are first scheduled to become available.
[RELATED: Maine’s New Paid Leave Rules — Here’s What Businesses and Workers Should Expect]
Although businesses are allowed to substitute a qualifying private plan, at least several months worth of non-refundable contributions must be submitted before their applications may be submitted and approved.
This policy has sparked push back from the Maine State Chamber of Commerce and Bath Iron Works, prompting them to file a joint lawsuit earlier this year.
[REALTED: Bath Iron Works, Maine Chamber Sue State Over Paid Leave Rules]
While two bills look to strengthen the program, the vast majority of the thirteen proposals on the table Wednesday looked to either amend the program or repeal it entirely.
Rep. Joshua Morris (R-Turner) was the first to sponsor legislation seeking to repeal this program, having announced his intention to do so back in December.
“I believe that this new tax should be repealed because it’s time to lower Mainers’ cost of living as much as possible as quickly as possible,” Rep. Morris said in a statement at the time.
“Mainers are still dealing with the effects of high inflation, high gas, grocery, healthcare, and energy costs caused by Democrats’ out of touch big government policies, Republicans must fight harder than we ever have against these costly, bad ideas and on behalf of Maine’s workforce,” said Morris.
[RELATED: Republican Lawmaker Seeks to Repeal Impending Payroll Tax for New Paid Leave Program]
Morris echoed and expanded upon these sentiments in his testimony before the Labor Committee Wednesday as he introduced LD 406, explaining that his bill would “put money back in people’s pockets immediately.”
Also highlighted Wednesday were a number of other concerns regarding the program, including technical difficulties that employers have had with the online portal, as well as the cost of making non-refundable payments into a program from which many intend to seek an exemption.
[RELATED: Maine Lawmakers Propose Repeal of Employer Protections in Brand New Paid Leave Program]
Sponsoring a seemingly identical bill to Morris’ is Rep. Shelley Rudnicki (R-Fairfield), who used her testimony introducing LD 539 to highlight the financial burden that an extra half-percent payroll tax places on low income Mainers.
Based on her calculations, a person working full time for $18 per hour would pay $187.20 into the program annually, which she explains could pay for at least a months worth of electricity or four boxes of diapers.
“You might not think this is much money in the grand scheme of things, but for low income individuals, this is a significant amount,” Rep. Rudnicki said.
[RELATED: GOP Lawmakers Look to Repeal Maine’s New Mandatory Paid Leave Program]
Sponsored by House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor), LD 1273 would make the paid leave program voluntary.
To accomplish this, the bill would repeal the existing program and replace it with entirely new legislation establishing an optional paid leave program for businesses with fifty or more employees.
Individual workers would also have the ability to opt into this program if their employer does not choose to offer it.
In introducing his bill to the Labor Committee, Rep. Faulkingham argued that his bill would “balance of universal coverage versus flexibility,” suggesting that the state should not have taken a “a one-size-fits-all approach” when developing this program.
By making the program voluntary, Faulkingham suggested that it would give both employers and employees with a greater degree of freedom to choose the coverage option that makes the most sense for them.
[RELATED: GOP Lawmakers Hope to Make Maine’s Paid Leave Program Voluntary for Businesses and Employees]
Faulkingham also presented another piece of legislation that sought to delay the implementation of the program by more than a year.
Under LD 1249, the program would be made effective on July 1, 2027, eighteen months after it was originally scheduled to be established.
Benefits would begin to be processed on November 1, 2027, instead of on May 1, 2026.
Suggesting that this was one of the “least invasive” proposals on the table Wednesday, Faulkingham said that delaying the implementation of the program would “provide the incoming governor the flexibility to review” the paid leave program and provide any recommendations.
“[The state could use the] extra time to ensure that the administration of the program is smooth and that the infrastructure needed to support it is in place,” said Faulkingham.
He also highlighted potential benefits for businesses, suggesting that it “would allow businesses to better plan and potentially avoid redundant costs.”
Two of the bills introduced Wednesday sought to exempt particular industries from the requirements of the Paid Family and Medical Leave Program.
LD 952, sponsored by Sen. Russell Black (R-Franklin), would exempt the agricultural industry from the program. Sen. Black outlined in his brief testimony that agriculture “operates very differently” from other industries and faces “unique challenges.”
He went on to explain that agricultural employers face “tight margins and seasonal work,” making it difficult to navigate policies designed with other industries in mind.
Rep. Nathan M. Carlow’s (R-Buxton) bill, LD 1400, would allow certain public school districts to opt out of the paid leave program.
According to Rep. Carlow, many public school districts already offer programs that are largely equivalent to the state-run leave program but are still being required to participate.
Although he said he “strongly support[s] the fundamental aspirations of the Paid Family and Medical Leave Program,” he believes this amendment “balances statewide standards with local realities and needs.”
“[This bill] does not seek to weaken or upend the Paid Family and Medical Leave Program,” Carlow said. “That is not my intent. Rather it seeks to uphold the spirit of the program while addressing and unintended inequity that has arisen.”
A music teacher from MSAD 11 later offered testimony in opposition to this bill, pushing back strongly on the assertion that such equivalent benefits are being offered. He suggested that the representative may have been referring to “sick leave banks” but explained that these are vastly different.
“With all due respect to the sponsor, I would love to know where all these districts offering paid leave are located. He didn’t name any and I guarantee my colleagues would be trumpeting such a thing if they had it,” the teacher said. “He might mean sick leave banks, but they are not in any way equivalent to Paid Family and Medical Leave. I need you to understand that.”
Sick leave banks allow public school employees to donate their accrued sick days to a collective pool that others may draw upon when facing a health emergency or other crisis that requires them to take time off from work.
LD 1221, sponsored by Rep. Gary A. Drinkwater (R-Milford), proposes an amendment to the state’s constitution that would explicitly outline that any revenue collected in connection with this program could only be spent on the program and its administration.
“Let’s protect this money so we can’t raid that fund,” Rep. Drinkwater urged during his brief testimony to the Committee.
Sen. Dick Bradstreet (R-Kennebec) introduced LD 1307, a bill that seeks to immediately suspend payment obligations until January 1, 2026.
Employers who wish to participate in the program would have the option to continue paying into it, but others would not be required to do so until the beginning of next year. It also directs MDOL to update the rules to allow employers that apply for a private plan exemption to immediately discontinue payments into the program.
According to Sen. Bradstreet, this proposal “restore[s] the legislative intent” to not punish those already covered by private plans, suggesting that the current rules are “contrary to what the law says.”
LD 1169 would refund any contributions submitted by an employer that had an approved private plan in place on or before January 1, 2025.
“[This is a] step toward building stronger partnerships between the state and employers while ensuring that Maine remains a great place to live and work,” said Rep. Michael Soboleski (R-Phillips), the bill’s sponsor.
Although the bill’s current language does not explicitly say that employees would also receive a refund for the contributions they have submitted, Rep. Soboleski explained that this was an oversight and could be corrected with an amendment.
Another two bills up for consideration Wednesday each sought to make a wide range of amendments and reforms to the program, one of which was cosponsored by a bipartisan and bicameral group of legislators.
The first of these bills, LD 1333, contains a long list of amendments to the program, some of which were technical, while others represent more substantial policy changes.
For example, the bill looks to reduce the retroactive filing period from 90 days to 30 days, as well as place limits on the fees that may be imposed with respect to private plan substitutions.
This bill would also relieve employers with bargaining agreements of their obligation to bargain over employee share of the one percent premium.
The bipartisan and bicameral bill, LD 1712, seeks to make several key amendments to the program, including by addressing the ambiguities surrounding the program’s undue hardship provision.
The law and related rules underlying this program currently require that employees’ leave must be scheduled in such a way that it does not create “undue hardship” for their employers.
LD 1712 outlines four clear conditions that may be understood to constitute undue hardship, offering clarity to employers regarding when this exception may be applicable to their situation.
As it is currently written, this bill states that undue hardship may arise from having fewer than 15 employees, experiencing a staffing shortage during the summer, generating at least 60 percent of their revenue during a five month period, or already having at least a quarter of their workforce out on leave.
It goes on to say that determinations of undue hardship under these conditions are not reviewable by the MDOL.
Rep. Tiffany Roberts (D-South Berwick), the primary sponsor of this bill, explained that while she “believe[s] deeply in strong social programs,” she also feels that “supporting working families and small businesses in Maine are not mutually exclusive.”
According to Rep. Roberts, this bill “seeks to preserve the core intent of the program” while making it work for everyone involved, including by “giv[ing] employers reasonable clarity” with respect to undue hardship.
“[Under this bill], the right to take leave is not erased, but the process to coordinate that leave becomes more transparent, less arbitrary, and more functional,” Roberts explained.
“A benefit that can’t be accessed because of a legal grey area is not a benefit at all,” she added.
In reference to the bill as a whole, which contains a number of other reforms to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Program, Roberts explained that the proposal “preserves the program by strengthening the structure underneath it.”
Jake Lachance of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce testified in support of this bill, saying that it looks to “operationalize” the existing undue hardship provision.
He went on to explain that the purpose of the bullet points included in the bill are to give employers a simple method of understanding what qualifies as an undue hardship, as this is currently left undefined in both the law and the rules.
LD 575, sponsored by Sen. Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot), takes a markedly different view of the undue hardship provision, seeking to repeal it entirely from the law establishing the paid leave program.
In his testimony to the Labor Committee, Sen. Tipping explained that this clause was a “compromise that worried [him] at the time” as the program was being developed.
“I have some concerns that the rule making on this provision so far has interpreted this too broadly,” he said.
[RELATED: Maine Lawmakers Propose Repeal of Employer Protections in Brand New Paid Leave Program]
The lawmaker who sponsored the original legislation behind the Paid Family and Medical Leave Program also brought forward a bill Wednesday that seeks to make a handful of “necessary targeted refinements” recommended by the MDOL and others working on the program.
Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland) explained in her testimony introducing LD 894 that she hopes to see lawmakers “support the successful launch” of this program next spring, not undermine it, suggesting that it needs the “time and space it needs to launch effectively” before any substantial changes are made to its form or function.
She also noted in her testimony that she would be “offering strong testimony in opposition to all the other bills” before the Committee Wednesday.
Rep. Kristen Cloutier (D-Lewiston) also testified in support of this bill, arguing that all the other proposals on the table Wednesday “disregard the years of hard work” put into crafting the program.
A representative of MDOL explained that this bill looks to address “gaps the department identified” but that “could not [be] address[ed] through rule making.”
[RELATED: Maine Employers May Soon Be Subject to New Penalties for Noncompliance with Paid Leave Program]
Around 5pm Wednesday night, members of the public were given the opportunity to offer testimony on the thirteen bills up for consideration. Because so many Mainers turned out to share their thoughts on these proposals, testimony stretched late into the night.
Parents and caregivers offered testimony in opposition to the majority of the proposed reforms, expressing concern that they would weaken or eliminate a program that would be substantially beneficial to those who find themselves in a similar position.
Also testifying in opposition to the bills reforming or repealing the program were those who have needed to take time off from work for personal health concerns or conditions.
A representative of AARP testified that the paid leave program “provide[s] a critical lifeline to these family caregivers,” suggesting that the proposed reforms are “threatening access [to the program] for Maine’s workers.”
“Caring for a loved one shouldn’t mean losing your pay or even your job,” said the AARP representative.
A number of other organizational representatives offered testimony in opposition to a wide swath of the bills introduced Wednesday seeking to reform or eliminate the program, while simultaneously expressing support either for Cloutier’s bill based on MDOL’s recommendations, Tipping’s bill to repeal the undue hardship provision, or both.
Several of those testifying suggested that individuals are more willing to participate in the workforce when there are guarantees in place that leave may be taken if it is needed.
A representative of the Maine Paid Leave coalition claimed that much of the opposition to this program is “rooted in fear of shortages and misinformation about employee abuse,” contending that many of the reforms on the table Wednesday would create “unnecessary barriers” to accessing the program.
Also testifying, however, were business owners and representatives of business-focused interest groups that spoke in support of various combinations of proposals introduced Wednesday.
“Small employers work hard to get employees, they’re not going to try to alienate the employee at the drop of a hat,” said a representative of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).
Similarly, someone from the Maine Jobs Council argued in support of “practical reforms” for the program, suggesting that the initiative “needs to be viewed in the context of Maine’s competitive standing and its ability to attract jobs and investment, particularly when combined with all of Maine’s other costs and challenges.”
Many used their testimony to express support for the undue hardship provision, opposing the effort to repeal it and backing the bill that would bring additional clarity to that aspect of the program.
For example, Deborah Delp of Yankee Marina and Boatyard testified in opposition to the bill seeking to repeal the undue hardship provision, detailing all the ways that she and her family have taken steps to protect and care for their employees.
“Aren’t we an important part of this equation? And shouldn’t’ our challenges be considered as well? Because ultimately this is all in fragile balance,” said Delp.
“It appears as though we as business owners are seen as the bad guys,” she said. “And we absolutely are not.”
“We don’t sit on bags of gold in our offices,” Delp added.”We don’t think up ways of taking advantage of our employees.”
All thirteen of these bills will now continue to be considered by members of the Labor Committee, including during the expected upcoming work sessions, before they issue their recommendations to the full Legislature.
Let’s just be blunt here, every taxpayer in the State of Maine knows this 1% new tax is just the starting point, it is absolutely guaranteed to go up, thus taking even MORE money out of the pocket of Mainers. And Democrats are so full of it, they don’t give a crap about the Maine taxpayer, otherwise they wouldn’t keep increasing taxes at every turn. It is pretty clear they do not want anyone owning their own home or earning a high income. They want to punish the producers in society. They want the average Maine citizen to be poor, live in a small crowded apartment, and be reliant on state and federal programs to survive. They do not want Mainers to be independent or prosperous. And mark my words, they absolutely want to abolish your right to own a firearm. They will tax it, regulate it, make ammunition so expense it is difficult to access, until owning a firearm is no longer possible. The left has lost any filter….tampons in boys bathrooms? Insanity. Men and boys in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms? Further insanity. Bastardizing the language to the point that anything can be characterized as racist, sexist, or misogynistic. Utter ridiculousness. Democrats today are lacking in common sense to a degree never seen before in history. The Democratic Party has absolutely lost me for a lifetime.
Maine is a far left outlier for PFAML, most states require employers to use approved private or self insurance plans, keeping their state’s hands out of the cookie jar, and fatty Mattie is still a beach.
Imagine a world where women and girls were raised and praised for their Devine contribution to our planet as the family caregivers and the men and boys were supported and taught to be the providers and the protectors.
Maine people will get nothing. Maine lawmakers get everything. Just the way it works.
So glad I left that communist hell hole never to return. I knew it was the toilet state. Didn’t think it would get this bad. Makes me sick to see what these hypocrite lunatics have done to the people. Question now is, when will they build the walls to keep people from fleeing? With stolen taxpayer money of coarse. Best decision of my life was leaving for good. Only regret is not leaving 30 years earlier. The grief it would have saved me. As the saying goes… Better late than never. Remember, they use the state fusion center to monitor bank account balances and who buys plane tickets. They hate loosing cash cows. Maine has alot invested in making them a lifelong victim. I recommend everyone leave the state and let them figure out how to victimize each other. As long as you stay there, your a product & a victim of Maine.
How about the state employees and state contributing to the plan that they will get to use? It is getting harder and harder to have a small business in any state controlled by the left.