Question 4, if passed, will hurt Massachusetts small
businesses and our state’s economy, because this question – driven by a big
national labor union — would saddle Massachusetts with the most rigid mandate
in the country. Most employers already offer some type of paid leave for
full-time employees. Question 4 would eliminate any flexibility for small
business owners in determining their own paid leave policies, as well as
compensation and other benefits for workers.
Question 4 would apply to all workers including part time
and seasonal workers. The sixteen year old youth working in his first job at a Mom
& Pop restaurant, the college student working on campus, the seasonal state
employee with a summer job, and state contract employees would be given sick
leave funded by the taxpayers.
One size does not fit all. Many work settings are far
different from offices because operations in some businesses must be fully
staffed at all times to prevent disruptions in customer service or to meet
mandatory staffing levels. In those
cases, a replacement worker must be brought in, doubling the payroll for that
position. Question 4 would also allow
employees to take leave without any notice to the employer in as little as one
and two hour increments for their own illness or to care for sick family
members. This would be disruptive to the employer, to other workers and to
customers, as well as give employers a record-keeping nightmare.
Massachusetts residents and business owners are forced to
pay the highest health insurance premiums in the country, the highest
electricity rates in the country, and some of the highest taxes in the
country. Question 4 will only increase
costs for small business owners and taxpayers and lose jobs for the state.
Sick leave for workers is important but Question 4, as
written, will only lead to serious hidden and unintended consequences for our
state’s small business owners, workers and their families. Vote NO on Question
4.
To view the No on Question 4 website visit: http://www.votenoquestion4.org/
NFIB has also taken positions in support of Question One to
repeal the automatic annual increases in the gas tax and opposed to Question
Two to expand the state’s forced bottle deposit law to plastic fruit and water
containers of most sizes.
Tax Collections Not Able to Keep Pace with State Spending
Despite increased revenue,
MA taxpayers are struggling to pay enough to meet the $36.5 billion spending
plan passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Patrick. Massachusetts
taxpayers paid $2.467 billion to the Department of Revenue in September, or 2.2
percent more than they did in September 2013. But three months into a fiscal
year where lawmakers and Gov. Deval Patrick plan to spend $36.5 billion, tax
collections are running $43 million below the benchmark used to build the
annual spending plan. Receipts over the first three months of fiscal 2015 total
$5.69 billion, $150 million or 2.7 percent more than during the first three
months of fiscal 2014.
The state budget may be outgrowing the taxpayers’ ability to
keep pace. Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013, Massachusetts’s total
expenditures increased by approximately $11.6 billion, from $48.6 billion in
2009 to $60.3 billion in 2013. This represents a 24 percent increase, outpacing
the cumulative rate of inflation during the same period of 9.1 percent.
But the tax amnesty
program is working. About 20,000 taxpayers have signed up to pay overdue taxes
without incurring penalties. Amnesty collections total more than $13 million
with the program ending on October 31.
Massachusetts Acute Hospital Financial Performance Report
The MA Center for
Health Information and Analysis (CHIA) released its report on hospital
financial performance for FY 2014 ending March 31, 2014, for academic medical
centers, teaching hospitals, community hospitals and community hospitals that
treat a disproportionate share of lower income patients (DSH)..
The findings
included: profitability decreased in all hospitals except DSH where
profitability remained constant. Liquidity was stable with most hospital able
to meet liabilities. Solvency improved for most hospitals with community
hospital solvency remaining constant.
In short, medical
providers (and insurers too) are maintaining their economic standing while
health insurance premiums increase.
