Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Hon. Brian Dempsey, House Chair
The Hon. Thomas Conroy
The Hon. George Peterson
The Hon. Stephen Brewer, Senate Chair
The Hon. Daniel Wolf
The Hon. Donald Humason
Committee of Conference on An Act Relative to Workforce Reform (H. 4026 and S. 2123)
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Dempsey, Chairman Brewer, Representative Conroy, Representative Peterson, Senator Wolf, and Senator Humason:
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association wishes to offer strong support for the four municipal unemployment insurance provisions contained in H. 4026, the House-passed version of An Act Relative to Workforce Reform. These municipal unemployment reform proposals are necessary to protect local taxpayers and ensure fairness in the system, and we respectfully and strongly urge their inclusion in the passage of the final Conference Committee bill. This legislation is a high priority for municipal officials.
There are four key issues relative to municipal unemployment insurance that must be addressed. Three of these issues are only included in the House bill. The fourth issue is addressed in both the House and Senate legislation.
First, H. 4026 addresses the issue of a retiree collecting both unemployment benefits and a defined pension from the same public or private employer. Under current retirement laws, there is a 960-hour limit on the hours worked after retiring and then returning to work for the same employer. The problem is that after the 960-hour employment cap is reached, technically the retiree can file an unemployment claim, even though the law is clear and working more hours is not allowed. The result of this loophole is that taxpayers then must pay unemployment benefits to an individual who is also receiving a retirement pension – and is not even eligible to be paid to work additional hours beyond the cap. Section 56 of H. 4026 contains the language that would correct this major flaw in the system by reducing unemployment benefits received by individuals who are also receiving a defined benefit pension from their post-retirement employer by an amount equal to 65 percent of their weekly pension. A retiree’s access to unemployment insurance would not be prohibited under this change (due to technical issues with state and federal law, a prohibition is not allowed, which is what created this loophole in the first place), yet this language addresses the issue effectively because the net cost to taxpayers and employers would be significantly reduced. In most cases, this change would eliminate the financial incentive to apply for these windfall UI benefits.
Second, Section 44A of H. 4026 would prohibit election-day workers earning less than $1,000 in a calendar year from collecting unemployment benefits from the city or town. This change may only impact a small number of people, but it is critical to upholding fairness and equity in the unemployment insurance system, as intermittent work on election days should not be categorized as employment that then triggers a further burden on taxpayers to pay unemployment benefits.
Third, the provision that corrects perhaps the most costly loophole for taxpayers and employers is Section 54 of H. 4026, dealing with school-based employees. This provision would correct a flaw that currently allows certain school-based employees – those who are paid by the municipality and not the school department – to collect unemployment benefits during school vacations and the summer break. The problem now is that bus drivers, crossing guards and others who are funded by the municipal budget can technically collect unemployment benefits when school is not in session, even though there is absolutely no expectation of work during those weeks. This flaw in the law would be corrected by clarifying that school-based employees who are not paid directly by the school department would be ineligible to collect unemployment benefits during vacations and the summer, by including them in “reasonable assurance” exceptions applied to all other school-based employees. In other words, these school employees could not collect unemployment benefits if they have a reasonable assurance of returning to their jobs after a week of school vacation or the two-month summer break.
Finally, in those instances where unemployment insurance benefits have been wrongfully issued, both the House (Sections 25, 41, 52, 53, 58 and 59) and Senate (Sections 22, 23 and 34) bills include provisions to allow for the collection of the amounts due via federal tax refund payments through the Treasury Offset Program. Currently, the Department of Unemployment Assistance can only collect these repayments through state tax refunds. In the respective bills, House Sections 52, 53 and 59 correspond with Senate Sections 22, 23 and 34. To ensure complete clarity in the administration of this enforcement power, we ask that House Sections 25, 41 and 58 be included along with the three shared sections of the bill.
Again, we strongly urge you to support these key municipal unemployment insurance reform provisions in your final Conference Committee bill. Without your support, this vitally needed legislation to protect taxpayers will languish, and high-profile, costly and unfortunate abuses will continue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me or MMA Legislative Analyst Katie McCue at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA
cc: The Honorable Therese Murray, Senate President
The Honorable Robert DeLeo, Speaker of the House