Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable John W. Scibak, House Chair
The Honorable William N. Brownsberger, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Public Service
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Scibak, Chairman Brownsberger, and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association appreciates this opportunity to provide comment on H. 3980, An Act Disqualifying Certain Persons Subject to G.L. Ch. 32, Section 91(b) from Receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits, filed by Governor Patrick. A broad piece of legislation is critical to ensure public confidence in the Unemployment Insurance system. As such, the MMA offers its support for H. 3980, and urges the committee to broaden the measure into comprehensive reform legislation to address the full range of issues that must be addressed.
H. 3980 addresses workers who, while collecting a public pension, return to work for a public employer and then collect unemployment once that employment has ended. Under the Massachusetts General Laws, retirees collecting a pension cannot work more than 960 hours without a reduction in their pension. This legislation would prevent an individual who reaches the cap from then collecting unemployment. We support this legislation and applaud the Governor for his attention to this important matter and his speedy filing of this bill.
There are, however, additional concerns with the municipal unemployment insurance system that cities and towns would like to see addressed through a comprehensive piece of legislation. These additional issues fall into several categories, and are highlighted below.
Retired Employees
An issue that has been reported by cities and towns across the state is the current loophole in the pension and unemployment laws that allow public safety employees that reach their mandatory retirement age under state law to apply for and receive unemployment benefits. This is an inappropriate use of tax dollars. These are Group 4 employees who retire with a full defined-benefit pension underwritten with local property tax dollars. Allowing these retirees to also collect unemployment benefits forces local taxpayers to pay twice: once for the pension and a second time for unemployment benefits. Every public safety employee knows of the maximum retirement age when they first take the position, and state policy should not allow double compensation at retirement age. A possible solution to this would be to reduce pension payments by an amount that matches any unemployment benefit payments received.
School Employees
A number of issues relative to school employees and educators should be addressed in the legislation. The first concern is that part-time school employees, including cafeteria workers and school bus drivers, should not be entitled to collect unemployment on holidays and non-school days (school vacations and the summer months). Crossing guards who are hired through the public safety budget, but serve the schools, should also not be allowed to collect on non-school days. In each of these cases, employees fully understand the parameters of their employment, and the law should make it clear that such part-time employees are not eligible to collect unemployment benefits on non-school days.
Next, is the need to clarify the term “reasonable assurance,” especially as it relates to teachers. Although a teacher’s salary is earned during the school year, teachers are full-year salaried professionals. In some districts, teachers are paid over the 10 months of the school year. In other districts, checks are spread out over 12 months. And in some districts, teachers may elect the number of payments they receive. Regardless, the money is earned during the months that school is in session. Districts are contractually required to tell teachers in the spring if they may not return for employment in the fall (so called “pink-slipping”). If, however, the district can provide “reasonable assurance” that the teacher will be hired back in the fall, the teacher is not allowed to collect unemployment over the summer. If the teacher is not re-hired in the fall, the individual can begin to collect at that time. However, there are a number of communities where that is not the practice, and teachers are in fact collecting unemployment benefits over the summer, even though they in fact return to the school in the fall. We ask that state law be clarified so that teachers cannot collect unemployment benefits over the summer, unless they are definitively laid off or provided notice that their job has been discontinued. Even in those cases, eligibility for unemployment insurance should only commence at the beginning of the next contract year.
In addition, teachers who are brought back from retirement to a salaried position as a “critical needs” teacher (and still collecting their pension), then let go when the position is permanently filled by a non-retired employee should not be entitled to apply for and collect unemployment benefits; these individuals are already collecting a full, taxpayer-subsidized pension.
Other Issues
We ask that the legislation address several smaller loopholes in the system as well. For example, members of local boards, committees, and commissions who collect a stipend are currently allowed to file for unemployment if their board, committee or commission is dissolved or if their term is not renewed. Under this situation, cities and towns are penalized financially for having a special board or panel complete its work, or for not reappointing incumbents to multiple terms. These are not wise provisions. Another example is the need to clarify that employees who are discharged because they are unfit for the position or have acted in egregious manner should not be eligible for unemployment benefits.
The MMA recognizes that a number of issues are administrative in nature, including proper coding of on-call firefighters and of seasonal workers, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Patrick-Murray Administration and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to ensure that these loopholes and anti-taxpayer provisions do not remain in the unemployment insurance system. To that end, we applaud the fine work of Secretary Joanne Goldstein and her staff for reaching out to cities and towns to identify the issues involved and to investigate the various ways to close loopholes, ensure that benefits only go to those who should be eligible, and ramp up training and education measures to achieve the best possible administrative results. In particular, we appreciate the Department of Unemployment Assistance’s March 12 memo regarding On-Call Firefighters and Emergency Medical Technicians, as well as the department’s ongoing efforts and willingness to work with municipal officials.
Thank you for your interest in this very important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time if we can be of any additional assistance. We look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA