01/26/2008
Healthcare
SB 6221 -- Healthcare Reform: A state-run health care program is set up that defines a set of benefits and contracts with insurance companies to provide the insurance. It is paid for by a tax assessed on each employee under age 65 between 2 and 4 percent of their social security wages; self-employed individuals under age 65 will be assessed between 9 and 10 percent of their social security wages; and employers will be assessed between 9 and 12 percent of aggregate social security wages. This is patterned after a proposal in Wisconsin that has not yet passed, so there is no experience with this type of health care system. You are encouraged to contact your legislators in opposition to SB 6221. SB 6221 has had a public hearing and is awaiting a vote as to whether it will proceed forward.
Small business position: Oppose SB 6221
HB 2640 -- Health Care Reform: Sets up a new Washington State health care program for all residents that provide both preventative care and insurance. The details will be developed by a new board established by the legislation. It also imposes the following new taxes: Employers shall pay 3 percent up to $500,000 of wages, 4 percent over $500,000 of wages up to $1,000,000 of wages; and 5 percent over $1,000,000 of wages. Employees shall pay a flat assessment equal to 1 percent of their wages subject to the Medicare tax.
You are encouraged to contact your legislators in opposition to HB 2460.
Small business position: Oppose HB 2460
HB 2560 -- Redefinition of Small Business for Group Health Insurance: Proposes to make major revisions to the state's definition of small businesses for the purposes of small business group insurance. The proposed definitions to be revised were enacted in 2005 when the small business group insurance market in Washington State was about to collapse because too many non-small business people were claiming to be small businesses and enrolling for coverage. The key to a successful small business group insurance market is to ensure that it is truly insuring real small business people, that 75 percent or more of the eligible employees participate to ensure a near normal selection of risk, and that others who may have pre-existing health conditions and are not small business people are not able to enroll. It would eliminate the requirement that employees must be full-time (30 hours or more per week) to be eligible for coverage. It would also eliminate the requirement that 75 percent of the employer's income come from the business. If enacted, it would likely destroy small business group insurance in Washington State. IBA and NFIB are opposing HB 2560.
Small business position: Oppose HB 2560
HB 2689 and SB 6365 -- Association Health Plan Study: Directs the Insurance Commissioner to routinely collect data as deemed necessary by the commissioner from insurance carriers on their enrollment in health plans purchased through an association or member-governed group, known as association health plans. Data includes but is not limited to information on the number of people receiving insurance coverage through associations; whether the rating for small groups included in the plan uses claims data or health factors; demographic information on those enrolled; etc. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee must review and analyze the data gathered by the OIC, and report to the Legislature by December 15, 2008 and 2009, on association health plans and any impact they may have on the small group insurance market. The Insurance Commissioner has clearly stated in the past that he does not like association health insurance plans. IBA and NFIB are opposing this legislation, as it appears it is intended to be used to eliminate association health insurance plans in the future.
Small business position: Oppose HB 2689 and SB 6365
HB 2537 -- Heath Insurance Partnership Revisions: In 2007 the Legislature passed the Health Insurance Partnership intended to provide health insurance to small businesses through a state contracted health insurance "connector" style program like that recently implemented in Massachusetts. IBA and NFIB expressed a number of significant concerns about this legislation in 2007 and indicated that they felt the proposal would not work. The board set up to implement the HIP discovered in late 2007 that they could not effectively implement the HIP plan as designed by the 2007 Legislature. HB 2537 will make changes to the HIP legislation passed in 2007 to exempt it from various insurance law requirements and provide a subsidy for start up funding. IBA and NFIB strongly believe the HIP program will only be able to offer higher than market cost health insurance to small businesses. Yet, the state is spending millions in the development and implementation of a solution not likely to benefit most small businesses. IBA and NFIB are not making any recommendation on HB 2537.
Small business position: No position on HB 2537
HB 2536 -- Health Care Study: The 2008 Legislature is proposing the establishment of a nine member work group appointed by the Governor in 2008 to examine options for improving access to quality, affordable health care. The work group is required to conduct meetings across the state to seek public input. The work group will contract for an independent economic analysis of four separate health care proposals to provide affordable health coverage: (1) allowing health carriers to offer a health plan with a limited scope of benefits; (2) expanding the Health Insurance Partnership to include individuals and large employer groups; (3) providing a guaranteed benefit plan for all Washingtonians; and (4) covering all Washingtonians. The work group is required to report its findings and recommendations by Dec. 1, 2008. IBA and NFIB are not making any recommendation on HB 2536.
Small business position: No position on HB 2536
Paid family leave
HB 2665/SB 6280: These bills implement some of the recommendations of the Paid Family Leave Insurance Task Force, including directing the Employment Security Department (ESD) to administer the new benefit, implementing several administrative efficiencies to reduce overhead costs of the new benefit, and setting up a state advisory committee on family leave insurance.
However, these bills are most notable for what they do not include. Specifically, the task force recommended that the new family leave benefit be funded out of the general fund for the first two biennia, but the bills are silent as to a funding source. The bill does not direct ESD to explore the possibility of privatizing this program, even though the Task Force spent considerable time discussing this possibility. The bills don't go far enough to clarify that taking leave under this new benefit but not returning to work is akin to a "voluntary quit," thus making the individual ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. In addition, the business community strongly supports allowing an exception to this program to employers who already offer equal or greater paid family leave benefits to their employees. Finally, there are already at least four (three state and one federal) employment leave laws on the books; this adds a fifth. All of these laws have different eligibility requirements and lengths of leave -- the Legislature needs to coordinate these benefit programs to help employers understand and comply with the confusing array of requirements.
Small business position: Oppose
Workers' compensation
HB 3139 and SB 6750 -- Benefits During Appeal: Currently, when there is a decision to end time-loss benefits and the worker appeals, the worker is not paid any additional time-loss benefits while the appeal is pending. However, in some cases, the Department of Labor & Industries can continue to pay "conditional" time-loss benefits while an appeal is pending and if the worker losses the appeal, the worker is supposed to pay back the "conditional" time-loss benefits they received. Under this legislation, an injured worker who appeals a decision to stop paying time-loss benefits would be paid time loss benefits during the appeal unless the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals orders that the benefits be stopped. The big concern for small business owners is that most workers who receive time-loss benefits while an appeal is pending and who lose the appeal will not be able to pay back the time-loss benefits they should not have received. In addition, the Department has the authority to waive the repayment of benefits in certain situations and that waiver is used quite often.
Small business position: Oppose HB 3139 and SB 6750
HB 2980 -- Ex-Parte Communication with Medical Provider after Appeal: Prohibits the employer or the Department from having communications with an injured worker's physician after an appeal of an industrial insurance claim is filed. This would limit ongoing claim management as well make the appeals process more challenging.
Small business position: Oppose HB 2980
HB 3139 -- Redefinition of Independent Contractors: The 2007 Legislature set up an underground economy task force for the construction industry. One of the issues identified by the task force was that there were a significant number of individuals in the construction industry being identified as "independent contractors" who are not. The task force found that there are effectively two different definitions of who is or is not an "independent contractor" in the state's industrial insurance and unemployment insurance laws. HB 3139 would "blend" these two definitions into one. For honest small business owners, people who falsely claim independent contractor status do not pay industrial insurance premiums which increase industrial insurance premiums on the honest employers.
Small business position: Position pending
Budget and taxes
HB 2687 and SB 6378 -- Supplemental State Budget: Gov. Gregoire has proposed an increase in state spending in the second year of the state's current two-year budget of $234 million, a 0.75 percent increase. The governor is proposing to keep a budget surplus, including the 1 percent put into the state's budget stabilization account, of $1.2 billion just in case the state's economy slows down.
Small business position: Minimize any increase in state spending
HB 2342 and SB 6387 - Citizen Budget Information Access: These proposals will make detailed budget information available on the Internet so citizens can see where their money is going.
Small business position: Support HB 2342 and SB 6387
HB 2380: Will provide additional tax credits to small businesses to assist them in complying with the new “streamlined sales and use tax” system adopted in 2007 (effective July 1, 2008). The original SST bill provided some relief, but it didn’t cover enough businesses to be effective.
Small business position: Support
HB 3126: Simply claims that local governments cannot use the new streamlined sales and use tax law to claim nexus and charge businesses with local B&O taxes and business license fees.
Small business position: Support
HB 2965: Calls for a feasibility study to consider the practicalities of turning over local B&O tax collection duties to the Department of Revenue. While there are concerns with giving additional responsibilities to the state, small businesses aren’t currently getting a fair deal from local governments when it comes to paying local B&O taxes.
Small business position: Support
Menu labeling
HB 3160/SB 6659: Adopts statewide reasonable menu labeling and nutrition disclosure standards for restaurant chains located in Washington State with over 25 locations throughout the United States. Pre-empts local boards of health or health districts from adopting their own rules regarding menu labeling and nutritional information disclosure requirements.
Small business position: Support
SB 6505: Adopts the same restrictive and expensive menu labeling requirements (addressing content and "chain" restaurant size) as King County, but on a statewide basis. Provides no pre-emption of local boards or health districts from adopting additional menu labeling requirements.
Small business position: Oppose
Climate change
HB 2797/SB 6580 – Climate Change & the GMA: Addressing the impacts of climate change through the growth management act. Early discussions with House Leadership indicate that any "big bill" like this with major reforms will not pass this session. However, expect this to be a big issue in 2009 after the elections.
Small business position: Oppose
HB 2844/SB 6469 -- Urban Trees: Requires local governments to develop and implement management plans and ordinances related to "urban forests." This bill would severely restrict responsible development and private property rights. Again, indications are that this bill will not go far this session, but we will see it again in 2009.
Small business position: Oppose
HB 2420 -- Carbon Tax: Establishes a new carbon tax on fossil fuels and sets up a new state agency that will use the proceeds to address climate change. Early estimates show that this tax would generate over $8.5 billion over the next ten years. Fiscal impacts and a short legislative session hurt the prospects of this bill, but expect this idea to return in force in 2009.
Small business position: Oppose
Employment regulations
HB 2421 and SB 6622 -- Workplace Bullying: Employers will be prohibited from engaging in or allowing any employees to engage in any workplace "bullying" which is defined as conduct "with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer's legitimate business interests" if proposed legislation becomes law. Examples of such acts would include but not be limited to "repeated infliction of verbal abuse such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating; or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person's work performance." An employer can be sued by any employee who believes the employer has failed to control and alleviate workplace bullying. You are encouraged to contact your legislators in opposition to HB 2421 and SB 6622.
Small business position: Oppose HB 2421 and SB 6622
HB 2383 and HB 2387 -- Employer Mandatory Communications: This proposes to stop employers from requiring employees to attend specific meetings or receive certain communications regarding politics, religion or union affiliation. It will impose very strong penalties on employers who violate these requirements. It is very interesting to note that the legislation specifically applies to employer meetings on whether employees should join a labor union. In fact, this is part of a broader national effort by the AFL-CIO to limit employers' rights in communicating to employees on whether to join a labor union or not. Employers communicating with employees regarding union membership are already well regulated under the National Labor Relations Act. You are encouraged to contact your legislators in opposition to HB 2383.
Small business position: Oppose HB 2383 and HB 2387
Brinks Court Decision Correction: In late 2007, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in a lawsuit involving Brinks Home Security that the time employees spent driving the company vehicle from home to their first business call, and the time they spend driving from their last business call to their home, was considered work time. This is a major decision and affects thousands of employers who allow workers to drive their company vehicle home. There is currently an effort to introduce and pass legislation to change state law to effectively overturn the Brinks court decision. Representatives of business and labor are meeting in an effort to develop agreed to legislation.
Small business position: Support Brinks Court Decision Correction legislation
HB 2717 -- Minimum Wage Exemptions: Several federal law exemptions to overtime compensation related to individuals employed in agriculture are added to Washington State law. They include but are not limited to: transporting or preparing for transportation, fruits and vegetables in their natural state; transporting or preparing for transportation fruits and vegetables between the farm and any point within the state, working on a farm in connection with dairying, etc.
Small business position: Support HB 2717
Regulating HVAC contractors and workers
HB 2966 and SB 5831 -- Regulating the HVAC Industry: A coalition made up primarily of labor unions and union contractors in the heating, ventilating and air conditioning industry are pushing legislation to require workers in the HVAC industry to be certified and contractors to be registered. Workers would have to complete up to four years of on-the-job training under the supervision of a certified HVAC worker. Many in the industry believe it will cost more than $100,000 to certify a worker keys in many cases, for the trainee to obtain the hours of on-the-job training needed, the HVAC contractor will have to send out a certified technician with a trainee so the trainee can get the required on-the-job training hours. These costs will be passed on to consumers. Consumer groups are not asking for this costly new regulation. Higher HVAC industry costs will mean higher housing costs and higher business operating costs. According to the Western Washington Better Business Bureau, HVAC contractors are not a significant area of consumer complaints, but plumbers are, and plumbers are already certified under state law.
Small business position: Oppose HB 2966 and SB 5831
