I’ll do a bigger recap when we get close to the end of the session but if you have any interest in the bills (and, if you’re an employer, you should), you should contact your local representative as soon as possible.
- House Bill 5261 is an interesting one and comes in response to a crackdown by the CTDOL on the employment relationship local sports leagues have with coaches and referees — namely, by saying that such leagues are responsible for unemployment compensation. This bill exempts coaches and referees who work for private or public athletic programs, other than public school districts, from employer-employee rules for purposes of unemployment taxes and compensation.
Under the bill, according to the Office of Legislative Research, “as of October 1, 2016 no employer-employee relationship is deemed to exist between certain operators of organized athletic activities and certain individuals employed as coaches or referees of those organized athletic activities, except such operators and individuals can mutually agree, in writing, to enter into an employer-employee relationship.”
The bill has made it out of the Labor Committee and is still awaiting a vote out of the Finance Committee. For more on the bill, see this recap from the CBIA.
- Senate Bill 40 would limit the circumstances in which most employers can check the credit of job applicants and employees. But it also broadens the circumstances in which employers can require checks of people applying for or working in positions that would give them access to museum and library collections or prescription drugs and other pharmaceuticals. The bill was voted out of the General Law Committee on April 5th and should be watched carefully.
- Senate Bill 211 is one of those bills we’ve seen before; this would allow employers to pay employees by payroll cards, instead of by check, which could help reduce the use of predatory “paycheck loans” out there. It too has made it out of committee and is awaiting a vote on the floor.
- Senate Bill 221 would implement a paid family and medical leave program in the state. It’s a complex bill but considering the publicity of such efforts in other states, this is worth a close follow. But beyond that, this bill goes much further than has been previously reported as it would expand the existing FMLA law to cover all employers of two or more employees (down from 75) and would prohibit employers from requiring employees to use any paid time off as part of their FMLA leave. Not surprisingly, business groups like the CBIA oppose the measure while other interest groups have showed strong support.
What else is going on? I’ll have more in an upcoming post.