With the First Regular Session of the 122^nd Maine Legislature now in full swing, there is no shortage of bills relating to labor and employment.  Some of the more intriguing proposals include the following five bills:   

L.D. 257, An Act to Require Advanced Notice for Decreases in Wage or Salary Levels (Rep. Tuttle – Sanford). As originally proposed, this bill sought to require employers to give employees at least one pay period of notice before decreasing employees’ pay.  Following a hearing and work session, the Labor Committee voted 11-1 in favor of amending the bill to give workers only one day of notice before a wage or salary reduction.  

L.D. 309, An Act to Remove the Sunset on Part-Time Unemployment Insurance Benefits (Rep. Smith – Van Buren).  This bill sought to make permanent the expansion of unemployment benefit eligibility to workers who have a history of primarily part-time work, who are laid off, and who are able and available for part-time work.  This provision was originally enacted in 2004, but is scheduled to sunset in Sept. 2005.  Following a lengthy and often contentious public hearing, the Labor Committee voted along party lines, 8-5, in favor of the bill.  A floor fight is expected.    

L.D. 435, An Act to Conform Maine to Federal Overtime Standards (Rep. McKane -- Edgecomb).  As its title indicates, this bill sought to conform Maine to the same standards of overtime regulation to which the federal government and other states do.  The bill was presented in response to rules recently promulgated by the Maine Department of Labor providing, among other things, that “any employee in a position that had or should have had the right to overtime” prior to the adoption of new federal overtime standards earlier in 2004 “will maintain that right.”  At the public hearing, proponents of the legislation argued that the inconsistencies between Maine’s and the federal overtime standards create confusion and further enhance Maine’s reputation as a “business-unfriendly” state.  Opponents of the bill, including the State Department of Labor, replied that over 20 states have overtime laws that differ from the federal standards, and that in resolving differences between state and federal law in any particular case, an employer need only look to whichever law provides more protection for the workers.  After the hearing, the Labor Committee voted 6-5 against the bill, with two Committee members absent.  As with L.D. 309, a heated floor debate on this bill is expected.

L.D. 1044, An Act to Care for Families (Sen. Edmonds – Cumberland).  A less ambitious version of a proposal raised last session, this bill would require employers who provide paid leave to employees to permit, as a permissible ground for taking leave, to care for a family member.  Last session’s proposal, in contrast, sought to require all employers to provide paid family-care leave benefits to employees, even those who work only on a part-time basis.  That proposal was roundly criticized and was never formally presented to the full Legislature.  A public hearing has not yet been scheduled.