Legislative Report 2/8/2018 - Vision Reflects Values

The President's State of the Union address is a tradition of our democracy that allows the head of the executive branch of the government to express his vision for America. It usually addresses a broad range of issues at a high level and is short on detail. Whether or not you agree with what is said, at least you get a pretty good idea of where the speaker is coming from. This got me thinking about my own communications, so I thought I'd try to deliver my own vision of what I try to accomplish as I serve as your Representative in Montpelier.

Let me start by saying that, as wonderful as Vermont is, we all want to help make our state a better place to live, work and play. We want Vermont to be affordable, not just for those at the top of the income bracket, but for everyone. Every family should have the opportunity to thrive, to be able to earn a living wage. While our minimum wage is above average, I believe that it should continue to rise gradually over time until it becomes a livable wage. Likewise, no employee should have to worry about losing their pay or even their job if they have to take time off to care for a sick child or elderly parent. That is why I voted for paid family leave last year, a bill that is awaiting action in the Senate. For those who are stuck in low wage jobs, we need to continue to increase access to training, career and technical education so that every Vermonter has a fair shot at success.

We have a great education system, but the cost of education continues to place a heavy burden on property taxes. With the additional demands placed on our schools from addiction, mental illness, and poverty, great public schools in all our communities are more important than ever in giving all children a bright future. During this session we are proposing a system of education funding that is simpler, still progressive, still subject to local control, and that will significantly reduce property tax burdens. Nor can we forget about the need to support pre-K and post high school educational opportunities.

Another core value is healthy families in healthy communities. The cost of health insurance and housing are the biggest challenges faced by many Vermonters. While Republicans in Washington are dismantling the Affordable Care Act and cutting funding for Medicare and Medicaid we need to make health insurance more affordable and ensure that Vermonters have access to treatment without barriers for drug addiction and mental health. A key to maintaining individual health is affordable housing, We need to support affordable housing development in downtowns and in village centers that also provides access to jobs, shopping and public transportation.

Finally, we need a healthy environment. We can't put off efforts to clean our lakes and streams. We have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels which has become a major contributor to climate change. Extreme weather events as well as adverse health effects. Lyme disease, algae blooms, heat waves, and extreme cold are the result. We can't afford to do nothing,

These are some of the values that frame my work in the legislature. I hope that my work will lead to a better Vermont for us and for our children and grandchildren.

I'll end by reminding you that I will be hosting an informational forum on the topic of Pricing Carbon Pollution at the Charlotte Senior Center on Monday. February 12, at 7:00 p.m. I hope to see you there.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

House Adjournment Recap 5/19/2017

The gavel came down shortly after midnight ending the 2017 session of the Vermont House pending a veto session in June and a possible callback in October.  The October date was set aside in case the passage of the federal budget later this year deals some major impacts to Vermont.  The last day was not without its hopes and tensions.  Thursday morning Speaker Mitzi Johnson and Senate Pro Tem received word that the Governor wanted to meet over the stalled teacher health insurance issue. 

The legislators presented the agreed upon language that they would vote on which included:
1) setting up a commission to study the implications and feasibility of having a statewide teachers health insurance program;
2) setting a statewide termination of teachers health insurance contracts that have not yet been negotiated to December 31, 2018;
3) exempting from that termination any contracts negotiated prior to July 1, 2017; 
4) exempting those negotiated afterward that fit the Governor's proposed 80%-20% premium split with a $400 deductible; and
5) passing legislation in 2018 that would reflect the results of the commission's study.

This proposal would honor the dozen contracts that have already been negotiated, encourage the adoption of the terms that the Governor says will achieve the $26M savings ($13M in FY18), and allow the legislature to properly examine, with everyone's input, over the course of a regular session the pros and cons of a standard statewide health insurance program for teachers. No agreement was reached.

In the afternoon, the three parties were joined by the Dean of the House, Alice Emmons, and the Dean of the Senate, Dick Mazza, the longest serving members of each body.  After hours of discussion focusing on the points everyone agreed on, the talks once again reached an impasse as the Governor insisted that the contracts had to be negotiated at the statewide level instead of between local teachers and boards.

At around 9:30PM the House received word that the House-Senate Conference Committee agreed on language for H.509, which was passed by the Senate 20-8. The House was now ready to vote on the language described above except for points 4 and 5. H.509 also set the education tax yields for FY18, which was the original purpose of the bill. The yields, how much $1 of the property tax will raise per student based on the statewide grandlist, determine the local education tax rates.  The higher the yield, the lower the tax rate needs to be.  For residential property tax payers not income sensitized, the yield will be $10,160.  For those eligible for a property tax adjustment, the yield is $11,990.  These yields result in an average homestead property tax rate of $1.505.  The nonresidential rate will be $1.555, down from $1.59. This measure passed on a vote of 84-54.

In his remarks to the House in closing the session, Governor Scott told us he would veto the budget because we did not agree to statewide teacher negotiations. So, we will be returning on June 21 to consider overriding his veto.  What will change between now and then, I don't know. As I stated in my vote explanation after voting for H.509,  "The right of employees to enter into collective bargaining with their employer is a right that was hard-fought and won over the last century and a half. It is a right that we should not throw away. My yes vote underscores my support for this sacred principle.”

At the same time the teachers' unions would do well to ensure that their demands are reasonable when they enter negotiations so as to avoid alienating the property taxpayers whose support they need in times like this. 

Impasse on Teachers' Health Insurance Plans

The Legislature reached an impasse in negotiations with Governor Scott on his plan to use $26 M in potential savings from the new VEHI health insurance plans for teachers.  After 12 days of negotiations with the Governor and his staff, the Governor was unwilling to compromise according to House Speaker Mitzi Johnson and Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe who held a joint news conference on /Wednesday, May 17th. The goalposts kept moving from one meeting to the next, according to Johnson. The Governor would not move from his position to short-circuit the collective bargaining process, so there was no point in continuing to negotiate.  The legislature will now convene a Committee of Conference between the House and Senate to come up with a joint proposal that will address the potential savings in a way that will preserve the bargaining process and allow the savings to reduce property taxes.  The collective bargaining process is a hard-fought and won right of workers to negotiate directly with their employer.  We should not allow Vermont to become a state which devalues this right.  I recommend reading the editorial by David Moats, editor of the Times Argus newspaper, which can be found at this website: 

http://www.timesargus.com/articles/budget-impasse/.

Who wouldn't want to save $26 million? (Front Porch Forum Issue No. 2767 May 10, 2017 )

I submitted a commentary on this topic that will be published in The Citizen this week and on my website (www.MikeYantachka.com).  However, I would like to add a few more thoughts here for your consideration since I have received many emails on the subject.

Sound bites are very simplistic. "Save the taxpayers $26M!"  Very easy to say, but another saying that applies is that "the devil is in the details."  The Governor's proposal relates to a change happening to teacher health plans throughout the State. This change is not dependent upon, nor due to the Governor in any way. It is the result of a redesign of the teachers' health plans by VEHI that offerss two high deductible and two regular plans that teachers may choose from, and that have lower premiums than the current plans.

The new plans are cheaper because they are less generous plans. The statewide savings estimate is $75 million. Of that, $48 million is anticipated to be needed to pay for the increased copay and deductible costs in the new plan. The remainder, if you believe the estimates, would be the $26 million which the Governor keeps talking about.

The Governor's plan, as embodied in the Beck amendment to H.509, was to return $8 million of the $26 million to property tax payers and to use the other 70% for other purposes, namely the General Fund and to cover the transfer of the liability for the state portion of current teacher retirement obligations to the Education Fund.  This transfer would lead to higher property taxes in the long run.
The issue of statewide bargaining has no impact on whether the savings occur.

What the House passed instead, the Webb amendment, was a provision that makes no change in bargaining, but directs 100% of the savings that actually occur in teacher healthcare to be returned directly to local communities in the form of reduced property taxes.  The money saved would be returned to a local school district only after a budget was voted upon and approved. It can go to only one place, and that is to directly reduce property taxes. All of the savings, rather than just the 30% in the Governor’s plan would come back to your property taxes. This is what property taxpayers want, and why I voted against the Beck amendment and for the Webb amendment.

Legislative Report 4/19/2017 - Three Executive Orders, Three Results

Our new President's use of executive orders to try to fulfill some of his campaign promises, particularly regarding immigration, quickly ran into trouble. Executive orders are a way to bypass Congress to establish rules and policies by edict. The President can usually make the order stick if Congress does not have a veto-proof majority, as was the case for President Obama. But if the order is made late in the President's term, a new administration can more easily reverse the order than it can for those made years before. This is why President Trump has been able to reverse several of President Obama's orders issued within the last year.

In Vermont the Governor can also issue executive orders An order will take effect unless the legislature disapproves it within 90 days of issuance. Disapproval by either body of the legislature, either the House or the Senate, will invalidate an executive order. Governor Scott issued three executive orders in January to expedite a reorganization of the executive branch of government. One would move the Department of Labor (DoL) into the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD). A second order would merge the Department of Liquor Control and the Lottery Commission. A third order would create a new Agency of Digital Services which would have responsibility for all IT services in the executive branch.

The Senate took action to disapprove the first order several weeks ago based on the different missions of the two organizations and the possibility of conflicts of interest that might arise if the order took effect. The ACCD is a business-oriented agency that promotes commerce and business interests. It focuses on broad economic development issues. The DoL on the other hand uses a case management system focusing on individuals and provides job search and job training opportunities for employees, administers Vermont OSHA rules, and advocates employee claims against unfair labor practices. The latter two responsibilities can be in conflict with the mission of ACCD since the final appeal of cases would transfer from the Commissioner of Labor to the Secretary of ACCD.

The second executive order merging liquor and lottery was considered by the House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs. The committee was unable to adequately assess the consequences of such a merger because the Scott Administration failed to demonstrate how the merger would result in significant savings or improvement in customer service. The committee found the order to be vague and broad and had questions about how it would affect jobs and revenue. Because the committee was unable to get adequate testimony from the Administration, it felt required to reject the order and instead has introduced a bill, H.525, that would establish a working group to fully explore the advantages of merging these departments. The resolution passed after considerable debate and over the objections of the Governor, and the order will not take effect.

Finally, the third order creating the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) was assigned to the House Energy and Technology Committee. During our consideration of the order, we were able to work collaboratively with the Administration as both entities reviewed past successes and failures in the creation and administration of the state's IT resources and services. Since most of the IT is currently distributed throughout the various agencies of government, an inventory is being taken of all of the state's technology programs, personnel, and equipment. To avoid disruption of the current work environment and maintain continuity of service, the personnel will report to ADS while remaining embedded within the agencies they support. Our committee has asked the Administration to provide a timeline of the fiscal impact, when and how savings will occur, and to be kept updated regularly on progress throughout the year. The members of our committee were unanimously satisfied that the Administration is on the right track with this plan and believe that it will lead to improved cross-agency collaboration and more efficient, effective and successful administration of the state's IT resources. By not taking action, we have allowed this executive order to go into effect as of April 17, 2017.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 2/22/2016 - Paid Sick Leave

Last year the Vermont House passed a bill, H.187, to require Vermont employers to provide a minimum number of paid sick days to their employees. However, the Senate did not act on the bill before the session ended in May. As this year began, the Senate took up the bill and made several changes after hearing testimony from business leaders, labor representatives, and many employees who do not currently have this benefit. The subsequent changes made it easier on small businesses to comply with the requirements of the bill. Last week I joined with the majority of my House colleagues to concur with the Senate's changes and pass the amended bill, which Governor Shumlin has indicated he will sign into law.

Why is this bill needed? While about half of Vermont's private sector employers offer some form of paid sick leave, less than half of employees working for companies with less than 20 employees have any paid sick leave. Around 60,000 workers have to take unpaid time off if they or their child or other family member gets sick. Since most of these workers are in minimum or low wage jobs, they can hardly afford to do so. In many cases they go to work sick or send their child to school sick. So this is a public health and safety matter as well as a labor issue.

Gov. Peter Shumlin signs the Paid Sick Leave bill into law

in the Vermont House chamber on March 10, 2016.

Beginning January 1, 2017, the bill requires employers to provide every employee at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 52 hours worked. Up to 24 hours can be accrued annually during the first two years of implementation. Beginning January 1, 2019, up to 40 hours can be accrued in a 12 month period. So, if an employee only worked 20 hours per week, they would accumulate 20 hours over the course of the year. An employer with a paid time-off program such as vacation or combined time off (CTO) that is at least as generous and can be taken for the same reasons as sick leave already satisfies the requirements.

Other provisions give employers flexibility in scheduling if an employee can give sufficient notice for their absence or can switch with other co-workers. Furthermore, an employer can require newly hired employees to wait one year before they can use the accrued sick leave. While the unused accumulated sick leave is to be rolled over into the next 12 month period, the employer can limit time off to the minimum required by law for that 12 month period. Employers can be more generous if they prefer.

In recognition of situations faced by many small businesses, several categories of employees do not fall under the provisions of the bill. Employers are not required to provide paid sick leave to employees who annually work less than 18 hours per week on average, work 20 weeks or less in a 12 month period, work on a per diem basis with no expectation of regular employment, or who are less than 18 years old. Substitute teachers, sole proprietors or business partners, and exempt state employees are also not covered by the bill. There is also a new employer exemption, which exempts a new business from complying with the law for a period of one year after the employer hires its first employee. In addition, the bill requires the Agency of Commerce and Community Development and the Department of Labor to develop a program that will assist employers with five or fewer employees with implementing a paid time off policy.

We recognize that there is a cost to our employers for this benefit, but we need to also consider the costs to workers, especially those at the low end of the pay scale, for not having this benefit. Costs are part of doing business. A business routinely invests in equipment that improves its operations. So too, businesses should be willing to invest in their employees who are a benefit to their business as well.

I will be available at Town Meeting on March 1 if there is anything you would like to talk about with me. I always welcome your thoughts and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

The Word in the House 4/29/2015 - Promoting Healthy Workplaces

A couple sits down in a restaurant. A waitress comes over to take their order. They notice that she is all stuffed up, and as she recites the specials she turns away to cough. Who can blame them if they are more than a bit uncomfortable when she delivers their food? A meeting at the office is punctuated by sneezing and nose-blowing by a co-worker around the table. A week later several people have called in sick or are spreading their own cold germs around the office. A mother wakes up her 9-year old one morning and discovers that he has a 101 deg-F temperature. If she calls in to work to stay home and care for her son, she'll lose $80 from her next paycheck. She's already behind in her bills and can't afford to lose that money. But she has to stay home for her child's sake. You get the picture.

There are about 60,000 working Vermonters who do not get paid time off if they or a member of their family are ill. They face a choice of losing critical wages or, in some cases, losing their job, or putting others at risk of getting sick. Last year a similar bill had been introduced but failed to gain enough support to make it out of committee. Over the summer legislators, businesses, worker representatives and advocates got together and reworked the proposal to make it more acceptable to employers while providing a modest but needed benefit to employees. As a result, this past week the Vermont House of Representatives passed the Healthy Workplaces bill, H.187, to address this situation. Passage of the bill did not come without a great deal of controversy and floor debate. When the final vote was taken, the bill passed 72 to 63.

So, what does the bill actually do? H.187 guarantees that working Vermonters will be able to accrue up to three paid sick days each year. For every 40 hours worked, employees earn one hour of earned sick time. Eligibility includes all permanent workers, whether full time or part time. These hours can be used for personal illness, the illness of a family member, or seeking protection from domestic and sexual violence. While the accrual of time begins in 2016, employees would have to wait until they have worked 1400 hours or one year - whichever comes first - before they could access this benefit. Working full time, the 1400 hours would be equivalent to eight months of work. Starting in 2018 the amount of annual paid time that employees can earn would increase to five days. Certain workers are exempt from this rule. Seasonal workers, such as gardeners, ski area temps, and students who work during the summer or vacations are not covered. Nor are persons with guest worker visas, nor proprietors, partner-owners, managers or executives of a business. If the sick days are not used, they can be carried over, but an employer does not have to pay an employee for time not taken.

Opponents have suggested that this legislation will result in drastic increases in payroll costs. However, calculations suggest a one-time 1% increase in payroll in 2016 for employers currently providing no paid time off to any employees, followed in 2018 by a one-time 0.5% increase. Employers who currently offer any type of paid leave will be minimally affected as long as this time off can be used for unscheduled illness or safety concerns for themselves or their family. For example, if an employer offers five days of vacation time, reclassifying it to five days of combined time off (CTO) will put them in compliance. A separate sick time policy is not required. The bill is a minimum standard and employers are free to offer additional paid time off as part of their existing benefit package. This bill will positively affect thousands of working Vermonters, and businesses will gain by the improved loyalty and health of their employees.

I continue to welcome your feedback on this and other issues. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Happy Labor Day!

Celebrating Labor Day this year carries mixed emotions as we see the continuing effects of hurricane Irene in central and southern Vermont.  Amidst the emotional and physical turmoil, though, we can see the truly important values being played out in the willingness of both neighbors and strangers to help those that have lost homes, possessions, businesses and crops.  The people of Vermont retain their positive attitude and dignity regardless of the situation.

Another very important value we hold is the dignity of the American worker.  Today we celebrate Labor Day in honor of all the men and women who have contributed to our great country's prosperity through their combined efforts.  I would like to share with you some thoughts from Jake Perkinson, the acting Chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, because I couldn't have said it better than this:


Sen. Bernie Sanders' Labor Day Rally



"For more than a century, the labor movement has fought for landmark worker protections and benefits.  Many of the values we champion as Democrats were born in the labor movement and we continue to be grateful for their activism and leadership on behalf of working Americans.  At a time when the Republican Party seems dedicated to dismantling not only these protections but the labor movement itself, we cannot let this gratitude go unexpressed.

Organized labor, like the Democratic Party, has fought on behalf of American workers for the minimum wage, fair hours, just overtime compensation, and paid vacation leave, so that we all have the opportunity to earn a living and have time to spend with our families.   The labor movement championed equal pay for women and child labor laws, protecting women and children from exploitation.  They fought for healthcare benefits, paid sick leave, workplace health and safety regulations, and workers’ compensation, so that American workers can take care of themselves, do their jobs safely and are protected against loss of earnings if they are injured at work.  With our economy still recovering, we cannot forget that it was the labor movement that pushed for unemployment benefits and pensions to protect American families in times of economic uncertainty and allow American workers to retire. We must not take their hard work for granted!"



Sen. Sanders' Labor Day Rally

In many ways the economic situation we face today in America is similar to that a hundred years ago.  Wealth is being concentrated more and more at the top while those at the bottom of the economic spectrum continue to struggle.  What was once a robust middle class has been decimated  by lost jobs, forclosures, discrimination based on age, race and even unemployment status!  There are those who blame unions and government for the economic downturn, when the real causes have been the export not of products but of production itself from this country; when workers have been squeezed more and more by loss of benefits when they are "lucky" enough to have a job; when the very cuts that are being called for prevent government from exercising its role  as a protector of our clean environment, our food and drug safety, and the security of our financial institutions.


This Labor Day we should all unite to support the right of Americans to work and demand that government at all levels take the steps to break the economic stagnation we find ourselves in.  The opportunities abound to rebuild our infrastructure, encourage research and development and bring jobs  back to the United States!

Let's make this Labor Day the beginning of a new day for America!