The Maine House of Representatives considered an additional series of bills during Monday’s session pertaining to the state’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) Program later on Monday after voting down a bid to repeal the program and another to make it voluntary earlier in the day.
[RELATED: Democrats Stifle Efforts to Repeal or Amend Maine’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Program]
All legislation aimed at repealing or amending the program was rejected by the chamber’s Democratic majority in a day characterized by thumbing down any changes to the new, mandatory program.
One resolve directing the Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) to study ways to protect program funds for being utilized for any other purpose was passed unanimously without a roll call vote.
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 were required to be paid 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.
[RELATED: Bath Iron Works, Maine Chamber Sue State Over Paid Leave Rules]
LD 1333, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer L. Poirier (R-Skowhegan), contained 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.
Employees would also need to have worked at their current employer for at least 120 days before taking leave. It also requires that leave under the program be taken simultaneously with federal leave benefits.
Rep. Poirier, as the bill’s sponsor, argued on the floor of the House that this bill would make “clear, sensible changes that promote fairness and the sustainability of the program.”
She went on to add that these amendments “will help ensure there are proper guardrails on this program.”
Rep. Amy Roeder (D-Bangor) explained that she “still [has] some concerns” about the changes introduced in this bill, especially with respect to “expanding” the undue hardship provision, as well as eliminating employees’ ability to appeal these rulings.
Under the MDOL’s final rules for the program, employers are given the opportunity to assert that the timing or duration of an employee’s requested leave creates an undue hardship that cannot be overcome.
Despite this, employees still retain “the ability to take leave within a reasonable time frame relative to the proposed schedule,” and “a good faith attempt” must be made to work out a schedule that would not be disruptive of the employer’s operation.
If medical leave is requested, the final schedule agreed upon by the employer and the employee must “be sufficient to accommodate the healthcare needs of the employee” as determined by the employee’s healthcare provider.
[RELATED: Maine’s New Paid Leave Rules — Here’s What Businesses and Workers Should Expect]
Rep. Roeder also criticized the 120 day minimum employment threshold, arguing that the paid leave benefit ought to be “portable with the individual.”
Rep. Valli D. Geiger (D-Rockland) suggested that we are “optimistic” as a “species” and want to believe that this won’t apply to us, but went on to say that “most of us will age, most of us will have moments of sickness, and most of us will be grateful when loved ones can take time off to care for us.”
Rep. Michael Soboleski (R-Phillips) then advocated in favor of LD 1333, arguing that it would make the program “sustainable, equitable, and responsive to needs of both workers and employers,” as it makes “critical reforms” that address a number of key concerns.
According to Rep. Soboleski, the PFML program is an “essential benefit” that must be structured in such a way so as to not “overburden” employers or “create unintended economic consequences.”
He also referenced statics originally mentioned earlier in the session by a Democratic representative concerning the shockingly low participation rates for voluntary paid leave programs in other states.
“That pretty much says what making this program mandatory is all about,” said Soboleski. “They didn’t want it. The employees and employers didn’t want this collectively, yet we’re forcing it on our businesses and our people.”
LD 1333 was rejected in a strict, party line roll call vote of 75-63.
[RELATED: GOP Lawmakers Look to Repeal Maine’s New Mandatory Paid Leave Program]
LD 1221, sponsored by Rep. Gary A. Drinkwater (R-Milford), directs the MDOL to study how best to protect the funds collected for the PFML Program from being used for any other purpose.
Although this bill originally proposed 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, it was amended during the committee process.
House lawmakers approved this bill Monday without taking a roll call vote, and the Senate quickly followed suit.
Much like LD 1333, bipartisan and bicameral LD 1712 sponsored by Rep. Tiffany Roberts (D-South Berwick) also sought to make a laundry list of changes to the PFML 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.
Without any discussion on the chamber floor, LD 1712 was rejected Monday in a nearly partisan roll call vote of 72-64.
Breaking with the Republicans to vote against this bill was Soboleski.
Joining the Republicans in support of this bill were Rep. W. Edward Crockett (D-Portland), Rep. Anne-Marie Mastraccio (D-Sanford), and Roberts, the bill’s sponsor.
All of these rejected bills will now be sent to the Senate where it is expected that lawmakers will follow suit, at which point they would be considered to be dead legislation.
