Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, it is. Oh, gorgeous. No. Not the agenda, but something else. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs. Good to have you back. Today is Thursday, so we're pivoting to labor. And then labor later this morning, we're gonna pivot to workforce and hear from a combination of workforce and economic development in our outdoor recreation space. That's later this morning. But right now, we are going to turn to two bills, which seem to be the bills that we're gonna coalesce our work our labor work around for this first part of the session. And, unfortunately, Perry Brown, who was gonna really give us an in-depth update on the flexible work world, is unable to join us this morning. Carrie, we hope everything is well. And so, actually, in a surprise move, we're gonna begin with Megan Sullivan. Surprise for everyone involved. And if that is too much, we can fall we are so flexible in this in this room. We are also happy to pivot. Oh, she is ready for the moment. Great. Welcome. Thank you.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: For the record, Megan Sullivan, vice president of government.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. And just gonna start with two s 02:30, which is the flexible

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: only prepared to talk about.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. That's right. And I just wanna update the committee on +1 73. The house is actually Sorry.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I don't hear the numbers.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That is the work workers' comp and labor relations board. The house is actually moving on the labor relations board work, and so we're gonna strip that out of our one seventy three and just do the workers' comp phase because they're moving a bill. So, Megan, welcome, and we are gonna talk about flexible work. Carrie is so Okay.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: And happy outdoor recreation. Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And happy outdoor. Yep. And we're joining them for a piece, and they're gonna testify specifically on this stuff that's in our bill.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: This afternoon, the legislature applied to take the afternoon off, we can have a cross country ski. And do any outdoor recreation, so I'd be

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: totally over That the doesn't affect this chair. Yeah. Alright. I've learned how well that's quite gutty's king. Are you kidding? Alright. Did you bring us skis and snow pants and all the rest of it?

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Maybe the after I posted it. Oh, good.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome and let's talk about

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: this Appreciate the opportunity to testify on SA 20 and the committee continued focus on workforce issues and the role workforce flexibility can play in employee retention and job quality. Employee retention, employee recruitment is obviously something that we and our members are incredibly focused on given the challenges to our demographics and even the most latest news that we've lost 1,800 more people than our population in the state. We do have concerns after we've reviewed as to 20 as drafted. Two two thirty. Concerns are not ideological. They're grounded in how the current law already operates, what the enforcement data shows, and whether the proposed expansion is proportional to any demonstrator problem. Vermont's law is already extensive. We have one of the most comprehensive flexible working arrangement statutes in the country under 21 BFA State Factual three zero nine. Employees have the right to request intermediate or long term changes to hours, schedules, or work location, and employees are required to consider those requests at least twice per calendar year. Engage in good faith discussion with the employee. Evaluate whether a request can be accommodated without being inconsistent to business operations or contractual obligations, provide a written response when requests are made in writing, and refrain from retaliation. The statute also explicitly identifies legitimate business reasons that may justify denial, including costs, staffing constraints, service delivery impacts, morale, performance, or the inability to reorganize work. What the current law intentionally does not require is an employer to grant requests regardless of operation realities. It guarantees process, transparency, and protection from retaliation while preserving flexibility for businesses operating in very different environments. Enforcement data does not show a systematic problem. When evaluating legislation, this committee routinely and appropriately asks, what is the problem it still is trying to solve and where is the data? That question is important here. The Attorney General Civil Rights Unit, who I connected with about what they were hearing in terms of complaints where the laws exist, said that the complaints alleging violations to state statute three zero nine have been exceedingly rare since the law took effect in 2014. Over the past twelve years, the civil rights unit estimates that it has received roughly a dozen complaints that included an alleged state statute three zero nine budget violation. And it should be clear that those were not stand alone complaints.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They were part of broader claims. And and may I just ask, I will maybe get the AG in on this. Do you know how many were acting on? Approximately

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: half were resolved without formal investigation. The remaining matters proceeded into investigation only because they involve separate and independent claims under other employment laws such as disability determination or family medical leave violations. The attorney general's office could not identify any formal investigation focused solely on state statute three zero nine, and the state has never pursued a court action alleging a violation of the flexible working arrangement statute. For context, during the same period, the civil rights unit has handled hundreds of investigation, hundreds more complaints involving other employment statutes. If this were a widespread or systematic problem with employers ignoring or abusing flexible work requests, we would expect to see that reflected in complaints or enforcement activity. The available data does not support that conclusion. This is a significant policy shift without evidence of need. S two thirty would materially change the structure of Vermont's flexible work arrangements law. Under current statute, employers are required to consider requests engaging good faith discussion and response. Employers must show they follow the process, but they retain discretion to deny requests for legitimate operational reasons. S-two 30 would convert that framework into presumption of approval. Employers would be the ones required to grant the request of grant a requested flexible working arrangement unless they could affirmatively demonstrate that doing so is inconsistent with business operations. This shift has practical consequences. First, it changes the burden of proof. Under current law, employers must show they considered a request. Under S two thirty, employers would need to justify and defend denials, increasing the need for documentation, internal analysis, and legal review, particularly where operational impacts are nuanced rather than absolute. Second, it meaningfully increases administrative workload. Employers would need to evaluate each request against statutory criteria, document operational impacts in anticipation of potential challenge, and ensure consistency across employees and departments who avoid disparate treatment claims and potentially receive prior approvals as business conditions change. For a mid sized employer, that could translate into hundreds of individualized terminations each year, each bearing greater compliance and legal risk rather than what's under current law, even when no enforcement or complaint action has occurred. The time spent reviewing, documenting, and managing these requests is real. For small employers, the potential increase uncertainty and risk where there is likely in house HR or legal staff. Many operational concerns such as team coverage, customer service continuity, supervision or workflow do not lend themselves to bright line roles. Requiring employers to defend those judgment as a legal standard rather than as a management decision creates ambiguity well beyond the current statute. Absent evidence that the existing framework is failing employees in a systematic way, expanding employer obligations obligations in this manner raises concerns about proportionality and unintended consequences. Vermont is already a national outlier. Only two states, Vermont and New Hampshire, have broad statewide statutes requiring private employers formally consider flexible work arrangement requests. Most states don't have this requirement, and there's no federal private sector right to request flexible work. Vermont already stands apart nationally. S two thirty would move the state even further from the mainstream by converting a right to oppressed framework into something approaching a right to receive without evidence that such a shift is necessary.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's an interesting question. I think context

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: also matters. This proposal appears at least in part to be responding to recent disagreements between state employees and the administration over return to work policies. Vermont already has clear and established mechanisms for resolving those disparities in selective bargaining. Current law explicitly recognized legal and contractual obligations. It does not override union agreements and scheduling, work location, flexibility, and unionized workplaces that are appropriately addressed through negotiations. If the underlying concern has been brought up because of a specific public sector labor dispute, it raises a policy question about whether it is appropriate to impose new statewide mandates on private employees, particularly when no similar pattern of conflict or non compliance has been documented in the private

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: sector. This

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: committee can consistently and appropriately ask for data, outcomes, and evidence of need when evaluating proposals, and we looked into those standards when evaluating this proposal. Applying that lens here, Vermont already has one of the most extensive flexible work arrangement laws in the country. Complaint and enforcement data does not show systemic problem, yet S230 would add new substantive obligations on employers. As the committee considers whether to impose additional regulatory requirements, it's also important to keep Vermont's broader competitiveness context in mind. The Vermont Futures Project Competitiveness Dashboard shows that Vermont ranks 30 40 out of 50 on a regulatory freedom index in the nation, with the dashboard noting that Vermont's fiscal and regulatory policies are among the most restrictive in the nation. When the state is already operating in a highly restrictive regulatory environment, new mandates should be grounded in clear evidence of need and demonstrable return. In this case, we have not seen evidence that supports that. Adding regulatory burden without data to justify risk further eroding from off competitiveness at a time when the state can be supported. That's the end of my written statement, which I will make sure to send to Chiara. Thank you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. And just and make a note, we also originally had Beth Fostigie, our commissioner of our HR department in in state government. And as you all are aware, the flexible work and return to work issue is in front of the labor report for it may go to court. It has been in court. Well, good. Well, it is

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: similar to the attorney general's office. I think we don't wanna speak for them, but I think they would be in a similar situation.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And so they the administration asked that they not they didn't have Beth to testify. The same is true. VSEA was gonna testify, and they're also not testifying today as a result. So there is ongoing action. Yes. Arena, four stated points. But this, as you have noted, is for all employers. Right. And you have a data point that I that was not aware of, which is that Vermont and Tantrum, the only two states in the country that have My understanding

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: is that is what I found. That Vermont and New Hampshire, what we have in place already is the only. There are people states with predictive scheduling laws, but in terms of flexible work arrangements, what I found is only Vermont and

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: New Hampshire. Well, after COVID, that is a little surprising that it and it's interesting. Thank you. Many of have any questions, Randy?

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah, I do have a question. So, we have this draft one. One. Yeah. The bill was introduced. The draft doesn't even contain the flexible working arrangement section. I'm wondering what the bill really looks like. How?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's right now that we're what?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I have to bring it up too. It's that really short bill that Senator Hinsdale introduced that would basically switch it to a shelf. Do have a copy of that two thirty?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is that what you're asking I thought this was.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: I haven't. It doesn't look anything like draft 1.1. In fact, 1.1 doesn't even have the section about flexi warranty arrangements inside of me. I'm in. No.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: 1.1 is in fact what we're gonna be discussing next because we've had two requests for us to review. And these are these are additional amendments for us to look at, David.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: They So point one one point one is supposed to pivot bills introduced. It's not what

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: 1.1 is for us to consider. And you're gonna hear from Colin, and you're gonna hear from Charlie, both of whom are here. The network has a request, and the VNA has a request on on on and this was relate this bill, as it was initially drafted, had enough relation that this was the best one for us to consider these two proposals. Okay. I have not seen those, so I don't Yeah. Nobody I mean, we're looking at them fresh today. Tom, Kesha, any questions? No. No. Okay. Thank you. Have you sent that to Kira?

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I was gonna do while Perio has tested. So now

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it's what I'm gonna do next. Thank you very much. We would love to have that. Much appreciated. And so I think then we will shift. As David has noted, the you have draft 1.1, I believe, at your place, which has two recommendations for amendment two s two thirty, and we could just use s two thirty for these as vehicles if we want. And and we'll obviously have committee discussion flexible work arrangements. But why don't we begin? I think the first one is Colin. Colin? That

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: is my thing.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. No. No. I know.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: But I

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: think you are the

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: Subject matter?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They're the full time teacher. Oh, it's Collyn, come join us. Great.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Tell us. And my colleague, Rebecca McBroom, is gonna

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Hello, Rebecca. You're welcome to join Collyn as well if you would like. So we are happy to entertain, so tell us what the problem is you're solving and why we're looking at this and how we can help. Sure. So first of all,

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: for the record, Conrad Robinson, Vermont, NEA. Good to see folks. We prepared very brief comments, nothing written for the original time constraints that were were for your committee.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. But which have shift.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: I understand that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I appreciate and understand the other problem. Yeah. So the context

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: for the language, and I I believe legislative council will kind of walk you through it in a little bit. Last year, you'll remember that this committee worked on some adjustments to Vermont's unpaid family leave law in the form of H461 that's now attached 32. And last April, your committee took some testimony from the Pilots and Flight Attendants Association around sort of an inconsistency that exists between the presumption of full time work that exists for pilots and flight attendants for being able to access leave benefits that are available under state statute. And you ran at me that. You said, okay, for purposes of flight attendants and airline pilots, let's cite federal regulation that says these workers are presumed to meet the minimum standard if they're full time workers to make them eligible to access this The federal. The federal. Yeah. So the language you all moved forward last year and integrated into the bill had a specific federal regulatory citation for payroll line pilots and flight attendants. What we're asking for today is to say, well, it was good enough for them, a similar presumption exists in federal regulations for school teachers, school teachers. And it's the exact same construct, and so we believe that this was sort of a, we were doing a remedy last year in one particular space, and through, just by virtue of circumstance, we find ourselves in a place where we're looking to have a consistent and parallel remedy for public school teachers as well. Again, if it was appropriate for pilots and flight attendants, seems like it should be appropriate, and the federal regulations are consistent in that matter. They are the same in so much as that presumption exists. So the language that a legislative council will be speaking to purely sort of says here's the citation for airline pilots and flight attendants, and here's the federal regulatory citation for school pictures. So, that's the headline.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Introduce yourself Rebecca for the

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: Negro, General Counsel, Montanier. I would add that most of our, the Vermont Parental Family Leave Act mirrors the Family Medical Leave Act. It was drafted as that of being the baseline. So, I think that this makes sense. It exists under federal law. It exists under Vermont law as well. It's just parallelizing that federal statute. Certainly, would think that if teachers are eligible for this under the federal law, we want them also eligible under Vermont law. So, it's just, I think, really thinking the Vermont feedback is consistent

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: with the federal and the like. It's not much more than that. I guess I'm just curious. You have such a strong contract. The NEA teachers have such a strong contract. Is paid leave not a piece of your contract?

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: Well, we have a variety of contract processes. Right. I mean, in areas where it's covered by either the state law or federal law, our contracts can add an addition to that, whatever that baseline is, but usually, the family leave act or in the Vermont Parental and Family Leave Act is that ran apart from those contracts. That's the BS line. That's I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think the question. Yeah. And then the other question is, given the governor's fallen steer paid leave program, have the MEA thought at all to join that as a group boosting that those numbers, and I don't know, just keep short answer

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: brought about, I'm just curious. The short answer is, to the best of my knowledge, that has not been brought up by either our members or school management officials in the course of contract negotiations. I don't know if that's for any particular reason, I don't know that it's for And our

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: so, yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, but this exists already in federal statute. Correct. And we, all we have to do is adopt it, I mean, we just have to change our statute to parallel it. Is that correct? Yeah. The issue here really

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: is there's a minimum amount of hours to be eligible to qualify. Of course, teachers work in excess, are salaried employees. They work very long hours during the school year. But then the question becomes this number of hours provision that exists under federal law. How

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: does the summer hour how do the summer hours affect this full time consideration? Well, that's what's difficult. I think

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: that's why why it exists in Vermont Law is because our teachers are working far in excess typically of their normal workday or working weekends, working after school. And so the question is how calculate that. That's why this carve out that may not affect the laws because it's hard to calculate the salary employees that have that furloughed time during summer. Got it, got it, yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Committee, any, any questions? For the

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: point of attendance, salary work, at Pilots? The short answer is I don't represent them, so I'm not, I'm not familiar. I believe Highlands are, I believe, salaried, and obviously I saw testimony that you all received from their union last year on this issue, and I haven't had a chance to fully review it.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: But you're probably saying you're making a comparison between what's in federal law, but many people. Yes. So was just interested in what the other class of people are like, are

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: And maybe That's my understanding.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Are they any different than teachers?

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: My understanding is that, I'm not sure about flight attendants, but my understanding is others

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: might be able to speak to that more accurately. Sophie may have an answer, she's always and knows so much on this in this particular area. Great. If we have no questions, I'm gonna pivot then to the should we let's Charlie, if you'd make your pitch as well. Pitch, Dave. And then we'll have Sophie up to the bottom of back. Yeah, that

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: we'll stick around. Happy to Oh, I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: would hope. Give the questions. Thank you. And Charlie, welcome. Thank you, good morning. Please enter the chair for today. I appreciate your comments.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Charlie Glesserman, Policy Director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and make my pitch today, aligning documentation requirements with our state leave statute that y'all did such a wonderful job advancing last year with Fair Employment Practices Act. So as you may remember, in H461, which was our safe leave law We don't have this in front of us.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We don't have your draft.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Can't to a different draft.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm on a plane. That's 02:39.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I I can't. Sophie has some Sorry. Go ahead. I'll get that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. Okay. We're just gonna wait I mean, present. But, god, we don't have this in front of us. It's all come in one sec. Oh. Perfect. So be and, Kiara, what a team. Okay. We now have it in

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: front of us. And That's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: okay. 1.2 is what we're look working off of, which we have columns and then now we've added Thank under the, I believe, second amendment, second amendment on the bottom of page one. Okay, so sorry, Charlie, take it away.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Terrific, no, Colin, needed. So last year, this committee advanced a bill. As Colin noted, 08/1961 creates up to twelve weeks of unpaid job protected leave for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, where they can seek safety, seek justice, and heal. In reviewing that statute, the Civil Rights Unit and the Vermont Attorney General's Office identified a disparity between the documentation requirements needed to access SafeLeaf and those needed to access protections under the Fair Employment Practices Act as a victim of crime. The Fair Employment Practices Act prohibits employment discrimination based on protected statuses, and that includes status of the victim of crime. So, this lack of alignment between the statutes could leave survivors vulnerable to adverse employment actions after taking their legally authorized safe leave because those documentation standards are not aligned. So, we would request that the committee consider adding the language included in this latest draft to ensure that survivors can access both protections without unintended barriers and not fall into that threat. Thank you so much for the opportunity and time, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, the Angie's office noted that we had failed to include this piece of it, And so we'll have them in, obviously. Have we in terms of the data on this, do we know how many survivors have taken advantage of the opportunities they already have in law, and do you have a notion of how many additional ones this would help serve?

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I do not know, but I think the Civil Rights Unit might be better positioned to share their experience on that question. So

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this, Great. Any questions, committee?

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Self attestation, subject on page three, paragraph four. Does that mean that person who there's been no law enforcement report, there's been no court action, there's been nothing except the person comes in and says, I've been stopped or I've been harassed. In

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: short, that is correct. A person provides a statement outlining why what happened to them meets the definitions included in the statute. So say, there are statutory references for domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Within the statute, they would know how, what the harm that they experienced aligns with the description of a harm outlined in that statute, and that would be their self agitation statement. And so, would still need to meet the, what's the exact word, I guess barrier of outlining how they're- Threshold? Threshold. The threshold outlined in the statutory requirements here. So, what they experienced, say, as an instance of domestic violence, would still need to meet the threshold of domestic violence in '15 BSA November, and that doesn't change because their documentation is self attestation.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Just yeah. Okay. No. Actually.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Present or self

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I recalled when the committee was taking a look at age four sixty one, that there were other states used self attestation as a documentation requirement to act as SafeLeave.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: That's what it is.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: This would align Fair Employment Practices Act documentation with existing SafeLEAF requirements. So I guess that is a precedent, but this is language exactly that you all passed last year.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Great. Just Kesha, did you have something?

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: I felt like you had- Well, no,

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I mean, I was listening to see if I could help address this on the legal side, because I used to be the legal director for our domestic violence program at Chittenden County, and a lot of what you might do at the police station or initially to get a relief from abuse order report is confidential. So, it just tracks with, you know, essentially not forcing someone to have documentation that goes beyond their day in court around this, which may or may not come, but, you know, otherwise you'd be trying to pull police files and things that most employers don't really even wanna do to get this kind of evidence. Yeah. That's exactly right. And I would also note that these kinds of protections, both protections from adverse employment impacts, protections to access safely, sometimes these are needed very immediately. Before legal, proceed. It is a matter of true safety that a survivor can, say, relocate, they won't be able to show up to their job the next day. And so, we wanna make sure that survivors have access to those immediate protections exactly when they need them.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Anything further? Okay, Charlie, thank you very much.

[Charlie Glesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you very much. And

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sophie, welcome you. Working away there.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: That's a bunch of. So drop 1.1. Let's proceed by 1.2.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Let's just look at 1.2. Sorry. We Turn the poll over. I know. Back to the poll that you're following. And 1.2 is now posted. It is now posted. Right. Terrific. So people online can follow. Welcome, Sophie.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning. Sophie's at at me for the office of the emergency council. Just checking here on sharing. So, one quick question. It's about pilot salary. I did a quick AI check. Pilot's hourly rate is based on seniority, but annual pilots are paid on an hourly system, although at annual earning job, it's essentially a salary.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, interesting. Well, because they all they work by hours, sort of like lawyers. I mean, you know, they clock in. Hence, all the delayed flights we have because the pilot has timed out. Right? I

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: think yeah. I I wouldn't blame the pilot. No. No.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm not blaming the pilots. I'm just saying we have all experienced this, but it's it's not unlike other. And so that must be true for flight attendants as well.

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: So,

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: again, just to reflect back on what was discussed earlier, so the amendment is an amendment to s two thirty, so it doesn't repeat the language that was in two thirty around the flexible work arrangements. I can put that up if you want, but otherwise, I was planning just to go through the proposed amendment. So, essentially this is adding, in '21 VSA four seventy one, adding section two, this is the language that would add to the Vermont Parental Family Leave

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: Act,

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: meaning full time teachers as defined in '29 CFR. So again, it's, as you've already heard last session, this committee added in the airline flight crew employees that then he was in April that became passed into law. And so the request here is that if you qualify as a full term teacher under federal law, for the Federal Family Medicine Leave Act, then you should also be deemed to qualify as an employee under the Parental Family Leave Act in Vermont. And I have those definitions if that would be helpful to them. We

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have if if people would like to see the Go ahead. Medications. I I guess while we're waiting, I I would be curious how many others jobs that said how many other jobs there are that are aligned with that that are gonna come asking every year because it does strike me. They were great. You just do a whole group of them. Yeah.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I don't know, stuff like that, I could look that up for you.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, one of the questions is, as you look at the statute, you see the first section of headline waifus, is section 825.801, and the full time teachers are in say, week 25,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: one to 10. There's a

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: lot of other pieces in that, because that's the family, and I believe that there's a lot of regulations around it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, why don't you show us what the feds are and what we're gonna try and align ourselves with.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so C3, this is the language here, if an employee is maintained on the payroll, so this is the definition that's being used here, that we bring in the teachers. And then it has the definition of full time teacher.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So this is step of definition of full time in front of my curriculum. Just

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the language. Is that what we printed out? It would have been easier, I think, at this point. And so this probably gives you a flavor for all the different sections that are in here. The back of the federal law. So a teacher, this definition, instructional capacity by an educational agency or school. Includes authentic coaches, driving instructors, special education assistants. It does not include teacher's assistants or aides. Temporary workers, the counselors, psychologist, This would bring those folks in under coverage. We don't have a parental family for that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Vermont has to adopt federal law. Federal law doesn't just hang there and everybody can just Yeah, use federal

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so right now the teachers and the airline crew are covered by the family medical leave act at the federal level, and the FMLA generally is, you know, sets a floor, and then the MONTs parental family leave act generally is more generous than the FMLA in almost all respects, not every respect, but most respects. So this would just give to the airline crews and teachers that added benefit that comes under the parental family VBAC, because we have more expansive definitions of things. It's back to what was done in H461 last session, more expansive definition of family members, etcetera. In addition to safe leave, I mean, those bereavement leave, we had a lot of other things that were added into Vermont's law. So then

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the reason to do this is that our pay check event is more generous, people would like to take advantage of it, they're entitled to it for federal law, and we just need to align it. Okay?

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Question that I have is, in terms of federal law that mentions teachers, it mentions airline crew, can you give us flavor of who else is mentioned?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll look on the staff,

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: we can get back to our next step. I don't want

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to go through all the regulations painfully right now, but I'll have a look and see. I think it tends to be individuals that you would just have a full time job, an airline pilot or a teacher, they just don't work the regular sort of hours and the regular number of weeks. I don't know how many other professions are like that, but I double check and see if there are other ones.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep, yep.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: Whenever we talk about paid leave, I want to know how our voluntary program works.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, see, part of what I asked of him is, yeah. So we will ask about our voluntary program and how I don't know what the numbers it has at the moment. And we we as we if if if if we go forward with it, we will have the AG's office in. We will have Do they have I don't know who runs the because that outsourced, so we'll find out from Vat's office.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And again, just to be clear, onto the parental family leave, that is unpaid leave. That is, right. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So that's what it's like to get a notion of how they have enrolled, how it's doing. I have no idea. We haven't not gotten that inside.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That was my question I was gonna follow. So is any of this paid family that I believe all unpaid?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is all we call it the Paid Family Leave Act because they're

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Parental. Parental and family leave act. Right.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: I thought the voluntary program was still an insurance a voluntary insurance policy that provided paid. The earned sick leave is a separate I don't think it was earned sick leave. It was the governor's voluntary date leave. It's not

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: a loss. It's just voluntary.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: Right. But that's paid. So I'd like to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: know that's what I'd like

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: to know how that's going. Yep. We'll find out. Okay. It is paid. That's all.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: To crystallize this point, the what we're the language we're considering here would only have aligned the non paid family medical need that would have gone past.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, you can't lose your job.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's actually job protection. You may take your health insurance, you pay your premium, but you can't keep your health insurance, so when you're out, And it's up to twelve weeks and a twelve month period. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Just a reminder, it's yeah. At thirty thirty nine? No. At 32.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: At 32.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And it was last year's? H461. Which is right there on the wall. Other questions or concerns? I I I tend to be sympathetic to wanting to align with law that exists elsewhere and bring Vermonters into being able to take advantage of the same, sadly unpaid benefits, but the same benefits as they're entitled to under federal law.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the second section, what this is seeking to do is taking the language that was passed around Safe Leave in Act 32, H four sixty one, and adding that to the Fair and Funded Practices Act. So that's a separate part of Vermont Door, and that's generally the discrimination, anti discrimination rule that we have. And there's a whole list of protected categories under that rule. Let's see if I see.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And SAFE, I believe, was a piece of four sixty one, yes? Yes,

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yes. So, the Fair Employment Practices Act, so there are all these protected categories. So, it's an unlocal employment practice, and it lists out all the different unlawful practices, but the protected categories are race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry, place of birth, age, crime victim status, or physical or mental condition. And so what this amendment seeks to do is define that term crime victim status to an inclusive of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault. So, just to provide sort of the context for this. Yeah, Thomas.

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: So I

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: see in this language, except for Obana Vide, pronouncing occupation qualification requires, this self attestation question earlier, is there precedent in current law that we, to qualify for any of these things, that people can just self attest to the things, or is there?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, the way this would work is that if you believe you've been discriminated against, and again, there's a whole variety of prohibited actions here, you would argue that you'd fall into a protected status. You you're in a protected category of being discriminated against on the basis of my race or my religion or sexual orientation. And one of the categories that currently exist is crime victim status. And so what's being proposed is transferring the language that defines the crime victim status provision under the Parental Family Leave Act into this statute. And so under the Parental Family Leave Act, if you were seeking unpaid leave because you're the victim of domestic violence, there are a list of kind of documentation that you can provide to your employer to say I need the leave because of, you know, I'm a survivor of domestic violence. And then the list of documentation includes the self access station. So, it already exists. It exists under the Parental Family Act. Right. And what we're asking to do is expand it very modestly to include So, really, all this is doing is just changing, or not changing, but adding to the definition of the crimes

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: crime victim.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of a crime victim. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And adding victims of domestic violence. Because you have all other crime victims in this as well. Right. So, are other crime victims able to, to just to amplify on Thomas' question. Are other crime victims able to self attest to this until they have their moment in court? Or So this is the definite I think Charlie's point is well taken. If you have an immediate, you know, the immediate need, the need may be immediate for an employee, if it takes place at work or whatever, it doesn't matter where it takes place. But, are other crime victims afforded the same

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: opportunity? This is the current definition of a crime victim that's under the Fair Beginning Playing Practices at, on the top, page two. Right. So, yeah, subsection 15, and it goes through can, who's gonna be considered a crime victim, with reference to other titles. So, what this is proposing to do here, so you were asking, so here a victim as defined in 13 BSA 5,301, provided the victim is identified as a crime victim in an affidavit filed by a law enforcement official with the prosecuting attorney, property, or state or federal jurisdiction, and then that shall include the victim's child, etcetera. And then this is what's proposed here, is to add in, again, to the definition of crime victim status, a plus if you're a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, and you have supporting documentation from any one of the following sources. And then this is where the language is carried over from the Parental Family Leave Act of the kind of documentation. And then it does include that little room in that number four, the self attestation piece. The others are, you know, court orders, participating in a program, etcetera.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And supporting documentation. Right. So,

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: if I can re articulate Chair's question, the categories which are above this, can they provide self attestation, or are we creating a kind of a unique category for sexual violence? I

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think it's different with sexual violence, and there may be Can you

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: go back up just a little bit? Sure. Use orders, stalking, sexual assault, vulnerable adults, can't solve a destitational death. Right. Right.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They've obtained it. They all have obtained a religion that you saw, obtained an order, obtained an order.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yep. Right. And

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think we there is a difference with domestic and sexual assault, and I think Charlie's touched on that. Is there anything else, Charlie, or or Sophie, you wanna add? You you stay there, Sophie. I I would note that As we consider these victims different from crime victims, these are also crime victims, but they that sort of with additional layer.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: Yes. I would say the goal of this language is to align documentation requirements with safety. And so, like, that is the purpose that we are bringing into this, rather than creating a a different kind of category for domestic and sexual violence survivors. Because what we certainly wouldn't want is for a survivor to access their legally authorized safe leave and then be able to lose their jobs because they did that. And so that is why the alignment of documentation standards is important. Of course, you know, we we would support victims of crime having access to protections that are not domestic and sexual violence survivors in ways that are acceptable to them, but the kind of matter in front of the committee here is aligning documentation standards.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I appreciate that, and I think everybody appreciates that up until ROVANET IV. So, we, and I think, you know, an expert on this, but then I don't know how that opens up, if we open that for all crime victims to be able to self test. I think that would be a challenge.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: And I feel very comfortable with the language as it's drafted here as a

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: step forward. Even if we strap rummant four.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: I think that it is important for that language for self attestation to be accessible to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, because that's the documentation requirements currently to access unpaid job protected safeties.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Got it. So this aligns with the safety bag. Correct. And this, we have already included as domestic victims of domestic and sexual violence to be able to access through self attestation. So we've already made a choice on this, the legislature has and this committee has in Act 32. Yes. Is what you're saying.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: Well said.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Does that mean that, let's take the hypothetical situation that a person simply makes this up, that nothing occurred, the person is using it as an excuse to take time off, Is that possible?

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: I'm sure that there are checks within all of these statutes and that the civil rights unit of the Attorney General's office might be able to speak more to how those play out in practice. But, you know, we know that survivors are accessing safety through these laws, and it's important that they have those protections.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, guess the question is that part of the claim says, for voice truth, no further corroboration shall be required unless otherwise mandated by law. I'm trying to understand what that means. In other words, could a person make up an accusation in order to get some perceived benefit from it and they can't even investigate it?

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: I think the intent of that language is that only self attestation is needed. So, if you are meeting the statutory definitions of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, that harm is articulated in your self attestation. Your employer couldn't then say, No, I reject your self attestation. I need a police report in addition to your self attestation for you to access this protection. So that's the purpose of our My nation's

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: question is, let's say a person wrongly makes an accusation in order to take time off to go on a vacation to Miami, does it mean that nobody can question it?

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: I have never heard of a situation like that happening in Vermont. What I would note is that the vast majority of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking survivors never report the crimes that were committed against them to law enforcement. And so, you know, the reason why, this committee and the Vermont legislature passed safe leave with this self contestation language is so that vast majority of survivors can still seek their immediate safety needs. And I would say that the same exact principle applies to this law. The self contestation language is already in our safety law. It was language that was passed by this body last year. So this is simply aligning documentation requirements between existing law and the Fair Employment Practical What I'm really

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: asking is, suppose there is in fact evidence that a person has made up a claim in order to get some perceived benefits such as by law, does that say that nobody can question even if they have evidence?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would just say, mean, employer could deny, if the employer had reason to believe that there was no valid basis, the employer could take whatever action they were planning on taking, and then if the employee says, Well, no, I mean, fall into this category, then, and they file a lawsuit or a complaint over it, and there's gonna be an investigation into the merits of that, then that would, it would get pursued that way.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Think they're raising something that is not that that has been falsely claimed. However I guess that's

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: what I'd like to know is what are the ways that that other Well, we

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we should discuss it. We'll get AG's office and us discuss Kesha. Because I think I think no no one's gonna I I can't imagine anyone doing that. And second, you would I mean, to to do this, you have to bear your soul here with your employer. I doubt. I mean, it's Well, think we don't think there'd

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: be an avalanche of these guys. I think that would be

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a I reiterative think there's one.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: But just my simple question is, is there any way that where there is a false claim that an employer is aware is false and perhaps has evidence of the falsity of it, what does the employer do? Does

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: If it's false, what's the avenue of recourse for the employer?

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, you have a statement like that, for which no commemoration shall be required. We've said it by law, so what's happened there if

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it is being used? We've excluded it. Kesha, have her thought, and then we will, we're gonna, we will then have the AG's office in for further discussion.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: I mean, so, so I have many thoughts starting with, starting with, you know, to achieve safety, victims have to do a lot, and survivors have to do a lot. That can that can look like leaving work to find new housing arrangements, or it could look like going to stay with family in Florida while divorce paperwork is served to somebody because a piece of paper does not protect you if you're in danger and you're afraid.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And if the danger's at work, that's even

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: So more that would be my next point is that we could also have the network come back and talk about how employers are usually really valuable partners in helping someone achieve safety, more so on the side of the the perpetrator or the alleged assailant, the abuser. It is shown that the person they are most likely to listen to if they are on the job harassing a partner and leaving work to go commit some type of violence or harassment against somebody, the person they're most likely to listen to is their employer saying, you have to stop this. This is not okay behavior. The if it it's nice. It's just good employment practice, good HR practice. If if a victim can talk to someone in their place of employment because that person could show up and endanger other people. When see domestic violence related homicides and the ones that have been the most gruesome in Vermont, it has often been someone showing up to abuse or or threaten or kill a partner and other people become collateral damage. So it's beneficial for all of us if someone can be open about this situation, but it's also beneficial for all of us if that person does what they can to get safety from someone who is abusing them. I will say on the whole other side of this, when we talk about doing our own state paid leave program. I think the reason we've been tripped up on this, and I agree with Jane Kichel and Bobby Starr, I miss them for this reason, is because we would have had to set up an apparatus that's more expensive to make sure someone deserves leave than just give everyone some paid leave to take care of a number of crises they could face. A flood, a mental health crisis. It definitely been someone that that's So I hate this conversation Yeah. Unusually because everyone deserves the dignity of paid time to take care

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's a separate issue. I don't

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: hate that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So So I would boldly propose, given we're almost at 10:00, that we continue this conversation with the additional witnesses people would like. We'll get the AG's office in. We'll get HR in to update us on the volunteer paid leave, and any additional data we can get from the network would be great. Colin and Rebecca, if there's anything additional for you, we will take this up again and make a decision and let me take it up again. And thank you very much, everybody. We are going to shift to our next labor issue, which is f

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: Great. Okay. I can hear you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Come on back. Yeah. We're gonna do to the shift one seventy three or workers' comp bill. As I mentioned, the the House is moving on the second half of S-one 173, which is the labor relations board work and then the additional staff, the mediator, you know, you'll recall that whole piece. So the House is moving on that. We're going strip that from this bill and we're going to move in. We're going to just discuss the workers' comp bill. The workers' comp, sorry. So to that end, we are going to begin. We're going to begin with Kelly. If Kelly could set the table. Sure. Welcome back, Kelly Masakot, to. It's good to have you. Oh my god. And you're a jerk. It's my whole Coming in this last week. Happy workers' comp day. I know. Right. It's good to have you all. Kelly, if you would just remind us where we are with this. Exactly. What we're at 20,000, but we're now just focusing on what this pump in this bill. Yes. So it's 173. If people pull it up so they should have it from last week.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Thank you. Again, Kelly Masacott on behalf of the Mock Association I'm for a workers' comp attorney representing injured workers here in Longfaylor, a partner at Bigham Fox Center. Again, we're talking about work injuries here in Vermont and specifically vocational rehabilitation for injured workers. It's one of four benefits in the workers' comp system. Very injured workers are actually entitled to this benefit, vocational rehabilitation. It's only when a work injury leaves an injured worker unable after full recovery, recovering as best as they can after work injury. If the work injury leaves them unable because restrictions and limitations from the work injury, they're unable to get back to earning their pre injury wage. It's an average weekly wage is what we look at. So we do look at their education and their skills, not just the job they were doing, but their education skills in case they have other ones that could bring them back to that pre injury wage.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So just before you go on, when you say very few workers actually end up qualifying for this benefit. You're gonna ask me to Okay.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: I don't know. Dirk might know.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Dirk might know how many, of the total number of workers' comp claims, how many actually qualify for both rehab?

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: Thank you, madam chair. Dirk Anderson, Department of Labor. I do have some numbers. I can tell you now or you can wait until it's my turn.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Tell us then.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: Okay. So roughly So, with context. Roughly on an annual basis, twenty four, 2,500 Vermonters receive indemnity benefits. So that means they're out of work for more than four days, and they are entitled to wage replacement benefits. Roughly 10% of those, or two fifty, 300 maybe, are out the requisite ninety days. I mean, don't have to be out ninety days to qualify for both rehab, but that is what triggers the carrier's responsibility to notify the injured worker. Got it. So that's kind of the subset of the population we're

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Gonna I think that's all. David?

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: How many require mediation? That's what the bill is about, is mediation. Right.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: Different part of the bill. I'm not here to speak about it.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Yeah, the mediation is actually the last page, which is the work that The last page, like the work

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the labor relations board, which had been were striking from this because the house is is sending a bill out. So we don't need to do double work. It's the whole whole of our very short time in this building.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: And I will say what the statistics Jerk was just speaking about, ten percent of the people who are out more than ninety days or Excuse me, ten percent of the people who receive indemnity benefits, so people who are out of work for more than four days because of a work injury are flagged by the filter we have to see if they're interested in being assessed for this benefit, which doesn't mean that they're actually

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: entitled to the benefit. Right, so it's even upset.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: So if we even take the number of work injuries, which I don't know, do you know how many Form 1s are filed in the state in a year? Sixteen thousand, seventeen thousand. Seventeen thousand Form 1s, meaning injuries are reported. Sixteen thousand, seventy thousand, right? And then of that two thousand five hundred people are missing or getting some sort of indemnity, meaning wage replacement because they're out of work for four more days. And then out of that, ten percent of those are then out of work for ninety days or more, which flags the, Hey, you might be screened and entitled to this benefit. And then do we know how many from that are actually entitled to the benefit?

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: We Sorry. Know

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: the number I think It's a very small number.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: What I think is important for this committee is to understand this is a small subset.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Right. And Dirk did say something that's important that I was gonna highlight, which is right now, flagging method of somebody out of work for ninety days is when there's some sort of trigger for whether it's screening, which I'm where we're trying to get rid of in this pill, whether it's done some other way, it's 90 out of work, that is kind of the method of trying to capture and checking out whether these people are entitled to the benefit. It's not a perfect method. It doesn't capture everybody who might be entitled to the benefit because, again, what we're looking at is, does the work injury after the best recovery you can have leave you unable to go back to your pre injury wage? And there's certainly situations like employers who accommodate people who never go out of work, because there are employers who continue to accommodate people after a work injury. Right.

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: Who never go out of work.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Right. But once they fully recover, the employer says, I'm sorry, we can't hold onto you. They're gone from that job. They've never been out of work and they Well, wouldn't wouldn't know it though. They don't trigger the VR form and the person would never know that they might be entitled to this benefit. So that's just my plea that it's not a perfect system in many ways. So we

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: need to do it better. Also, maybe perhaps DOL or POL and employers need to do a better job when in those circumstances letting people know there are some opportunities.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: I will get to the bill right here, but I will say very strongly VR needs a major overhaul. I think Dirk would not disagree with me on that. I think the VR counselor we have to testify, Kareena Dunnigan would not disagree. I think everybody in the system would agree. There was proposed rule changes a few years ago. I was part of the group that was successful in shooting those down because I did not believe they were helpful for injured workers, but it is not it needs a lot of work. This proposed bill helps to change in small ways things to improve the system, but there is work that needs to be done in voc rehab overall. I would be happy to be part of it. There needs to be change.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think actually we would be interested in entertaining a notion of how we, once we look at fixing these particular These small needs, yeah. How we can work with the department to move forward and review and maybe charge the department working with you to do begin some of that work of re envisioning of opiate. So that's something, looking at Rowan and Dirk, that's something we might chat about.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: The last time the department introduced Voc Rehab rules, which Ms. Masacotte helped kill.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, just admitted it. She did, she did.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Nobody talked to the claimant side, they weren't great

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: branded workers. At that time, I was not in this position, I wasn't familiar with those rules. But the fact that we introduced rules, I think, is an indication that there is work that could be done to make voc rehab better.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That sounds like a possible addition. Okay, great. Back to this. Back to 173, and what we're really looking at, just to go to David's question earlier, is Section one. We are not looking at Section two any longer.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Correct. So this bill has three goals and the provisions up here. So in Section one, the first goal, which is page two, line 20, is to inform injured workers that they may be entitled to the benefit in the future, even if they're not entitled now. Right. If people don't settle their claims and these claims don't have to settle, work injuries can sometimes get progressively worse over time and they could be entitled to this benefit in the future. And so the bill proposed it just for there to be a notification on the paperwork sent out by DOL that hopefully an injured worker might read and it might plan a seed that someday they might be entitled to this if the work injury prevents them from earning

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that wage. And that right, Kelly, exists into it for as long as the- It's already there.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: It's just informing. I know it as a claimant's attorney, but unrepresented injured workers don't Right. Know Okay. So that's kind of a no brainer to me. Right. Let me get to the next section. The second That's the first act. Pass. The second goal is to get rid of the unnecessary step of VR screening, which right now is done by state VR counselors. In the workers' comp system, we have And that's in That's all on page three. It begins on line five of page Yeah. Again, a very small number of injured workers are entitled to this vocational rehabilitation benefit. If somebody is entitled, it can run the gamut. It might just be help polishing a resume and interview skills. It could be something substantial. I mentioned before, it might be an associate's degree if it's a very high paid worker that can't get back to that job and they need some education. So to understand if somebody's entitled to this benefit, there's an entitlement assessment done by a VR counselor who is a private counselor that knows the rules, the VR rules, and is familiar with what the standards are. Right around the time I started practicing twenty years ago, I believe they instituted this screening process, which is done by the state VR people. These people aren't familiar with workers' comp, and it's not their fault. They're not trained in it. But the idea is that they kind of do the screening. I think the hope was to streamline and figure out who should get that entitlement assessment earlier and who should kind of hang on. It's not been successful. Right. There would be our counselor here who can speak about that. It's not been successful. So the ask is to get rid

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: of this debt. Got it.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: And replace it with? Just having it go to the private counselors who know what the standard is and are familiar with it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, just go to experts in this area. Absolutely. That's makes it.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: The state VR folks, not only are they not familiar with the standards in workers' comp, but they also There's a delay. If they screen it and they feel like it's not ready to move on for a full entitlement assessment, it gets put in for another ninety days of screening, the same counselor doesn't see it again. So then it's another set of eyes. There's not familiarity. Just in my opinion and the opinion of many is that it's not been successful and we should get rid of it. And then number three, the third goal, which is on page four, lines five through eight, is basically to allow an injured worker to initiate these VR services after ninety days out of work, which again is right now the trigger, if the carrier has failed to. Now, two things I wanna say. When I refer to VR services, this does not mean they're entitled to the benefit. It just means getting the counselor involved in assessing whether they're entitled. This is just

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to assess if they're entitled.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: And sometimes it's on hold because they don't have enough information and they can't decide if the person's entitled. And it sits there and they kind of suspend for months because they don't have the information to make an informed decision. So when I say initiate services, it just means getting that counselor involved. The other thing is VR, excuse me, an injured worker right now under the law has the right to change VR counselors. The minute the carrier assigns a VR counselor, I or an unrepresented person can file what's called a VR rate and change the counselor. So it's not a big deal for us to allow an injured worker to file and choose the counselor from the outset. If we're getting rid of screening and the trigger's already ninety days, if the carrier fails to do it, why not just let me or an unrepresented person do it on their own if the carrier hasn't done It lets us get it going faster, which means people are gonna get retrained faster if they're entitled to this benefit, and they're gonna get back to work faster. We like that. We like getting back

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to work faster. Question I have for you is who's paying until that is assessed? Who's paying? What's the pay c?

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: So the carrier is paying for wage replacement benefits while somebody is trying to recover from work, from a work injury. And they're also paying for the vocational rehabilitation counselor, private counselor, who is helping the person if they qualify. But there's an incentive here for the carrier to support getting this all done faster. Sure. For her

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: get back to work better.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Sure. I mean, I told you last time, there's a cynical part of me that thinks the carriers actually like to delay the VR process because people's indemnity, wage replacement can't be cut off until the carrier has shown, Oh, the VR piece has been looked at. And so sometimes that's the point that it finally gets looked at, even though it should have been looked at months or sometimes years earlier. And by that time, Oh, they finally filed the form. It's so late that the person who might be entitled to voc rehab can't meaningfully use it because they can't afford to because they don't have the money to do the class. It doesn't pay living expenses. So the sooner you can get going on voc rehab and have that wage replacement while you're recovering, if you can do classes, if you can get the training. So I think carriers, cynically, sometimes want the squeeze, want the person to feel the squeeze and don't want them to do the plan, want them to settle it out for less money because then they can settle, they can pay less. If the person gets it started earlier, it might cost them a bit more because they're gonna use the full extent of the services. But by the way, this is against self this is against my own self interest. I get more of a fee if the case settles. I'd rather my client actually get the VR services over. I'd rather get them back to work. Well, that's what I'm saying. Get the VR services so they can

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: get Get back the job to that is stimulating maybe even pays the part. Pay the least as much, but pays more. The key is to get them back to work.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: By the way, side note, it's not in the bill, but the whole pays as much. A person could be injured and it's five years later by the time that they're trying to get back to work. We're trying to get them back to the wage they made at the time of the injury. It doesn't follow with inflation. Their compensation follows with inflation, but not the Voc Rehab piece.

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: And I've always thought that needs to be corrected too.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, maybe we will put that into something larger. I

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: didn't try to put it in there.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, no. Got it. Thank you. Well, that's helpful. The goals in this bill. Yes. And we are going to hear

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Karina Dunnigan is a Voc Rehab counselor here from Catamount Kids Management. Works she's a private Voc Rehab counselor, and she is here to speak to the delay and how this is a broken process with the screening.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. So we'll go to Karina, then we'll go to Jamie just to shake it up a little bit, and then we'll go to Dirk. Thank you. That helped, Kelly. Thank you. We're really great. Is that okay, Dave? Absolutely. Dirk, okay? Gonna be clean up. Karina, welcome. Thank you. I'm not sure you've ever been there. I have never been there. No. So, why don't we introduce ourselves and

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: and we're Senator Kevin Kelly, David Weeks, representing Royal Lake County.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nice to meet you, son.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Randy Brock, Frank McCabe, and Morgan Grand Island.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nice to meet you,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: sir. The Alison Clarkson Windsor District.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: It's functioned in the Southeast areas of Chittenden.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And Kesha will be joining us again shortly. Kesha is also Chittenden Southeast. Okay. So introduce yourself, and I bring us into the Voc Rehab.

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: Okay. Okay. Well, I've

[Unidentified witness (multiple people used this ID)]: got some prepared remarks here. Great.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would hope you would both send your remarks, email them to Yes. Kiara as soon as possible.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Certainly. Good morning, senators. You for having me. I'm Karina Dunnigan. I'm a private vocational rehab counselor and owner of Catamount Case Management, a company that provides vocational rehabilitation in your Vermonters. My business has been in practice for over thirty years. Most of those years did occur under the previous owner, who is also my father. Yep. Great. I'm one of 25 counselors in the state of Vermont who are certified by the Department of Labor to provide vocational rehab to injured Vermonters, injured Vermonters, should say. And VR is one of four benefits that an injured worker may be entitled to. Order to provide Did

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you say that one? Grocery rehab is one of what?

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: It's one of four benefits that an injured worker may be entitled to receive. In order to provide these services to injured workers, counselors need to have a master's in counseling and specific work experience within the Vermont Workers' Compensation Systems. As you know, the VR screening was designed to cost effectively identify people who had a work injury and may need assistance returning to suitable employment. Unfortunately, it's not been effective at what it was designed to do. It doesn't do a good job of identifying injured workers who need assistance, either because the screening is not being completed in a timely manner, it's not being completed at all, it's not being completed correctly, and there's no one checking to make sure that the system's functioning properly. And there's also no remedy for when the system falls apart. Other than some injured workers' attorneys, there's no one checking, as I mentioned, to make sure that the referral is done in a timely manner, that it's done correctly, and injured workers, mostly, unless they're represented, they're not even aware that voc rehab is a benefit that might be available to them. I'd like to tell you about a real case that I have that I think illustrates the problems associated with the screening and the delays that can occur. And just to be clear, Kelly's really passionate about these issues, but this isn't one of her cases. This is an issue that is well known among attorneys across the state representing injured workers. My client, who I'll call Sam, experienced a foot injury while employed as a stove installer. As you likely know, stove installation is extremely physically demanding. You're required to lift over 100 pounds, and some of that while going up ladders. So it's really demanding. Sam had always worked in physically demanding work. He'd always had jobs on his feet, and he struggled academically when he was in school, and eventually completed his GED. As a vocational rehab counselor, I can tell you that someone with this background, and the academic struggles, and the work history that Sam had, combined with a foot injury, which are typically really, can be very challenging to recover from, just because of the amount that we all use our feet, Sam is very likely gonna have limited opportunities to get back to work, even if he has a good recovery, because an injury to a foot can be really limiting in what he can do. Sam was referred to his first screening when he reached ninety days out of work. So, that was when this first screening was supposed to happen. The system was working the way it was supposed to. And as you know, the screening considers information from three categories: medical, employer contact, and contact with the employee. The screener reached out to Sam and his employer, and the employer indicated that they wanted him to come back to work, but they would try to accommodate him by having him avoid going up ladders. But Clanden had That's

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: what I'm saying.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: He didn't have a return to work. He was still in medical treatment at that time. And Sam was hoping to

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: get back to work at that time.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: The screener concluded that Sam didn't need to be referred to someone like me for a full eligibility assessment because it appeared he would be able to go back to his job eventually, and that there was no evidence to the contrary. But the screener did recommend the follow-up screening in ninety days. Now, we'll come to the second screening, which unfortunately didn't occur until one hundred and fifty days. So, we see a bit of a delay there. And again, Sam was not represented. He doesn't know what he's entitled to or what may be out there for assistance for both rehab, and no one is checking to make sure it's short. So, one hundred and fifty days later, and it's a different screener, so it's a second person who is coming at this with new eyes. We see Sam was still in medical treatment, but he's got some more issues with his foot. It's not healing, and he's now been out of work eight months. The screener spoke to the employer who explained that Sam had attempted to work, returned to work for two days, and was taken back out of work on the third day because he was in so much pain, couldn't walk. So, we have information documenting that Sam had an unsuccessful return to work, he's still in medical treatment, he hasn't been released, and he's having difficulty. He's now been out of work for the better part of a year. The screener determined he doesn't need to be referred to a VR counselor for an eligibility assessment. However, follow-up screening in ninety days is recommended again. Jeez.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's an unproductive cycle here.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: For sure. Now we've gone through the third screening, which was done roughly ninety days later by yet a third person. So again, a new person doesn't know the case, but coming at it, we really do. So since the second screening, there had been medical imaging done on Sam's foot. It showed a nonunion fracture. So that's a fracture that is failing to heal, a huge problem. And now Sam has been referred for surgery. So we have confirmation that Sam has additional significant medical treatment plans. She talked to the employer. The employer said, We don't have light work. Sam needs to be at 100% before he comes back. So now we have information confirming. The employer cannot accommodate anything less than 100%. We have medical information showing that Sam is struggling in his recovery and he needs surgery, and yet, still no referral to a VR counselor. Follow-up screening in ninety days, again, recommended. At some point in this process, Sam hired an attorney who was familiar with the delays that this reading process can cause. She fought very hard to have the Department of Labor assigned a VR counselor, because Sam had now been out of work for eighteen months with no assistance. He had lost his housing, and he was working, and he was living in a motel with his wife and stepson. That was where he was at when he was referred to me. So he'd been out of work eighteen months, and had really had huge impacts on his life because of the reduced income.

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: So

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm not really familiar with the world of the York Council and such. Who in this process should have referred him at the end of what point that's the point I'm like I understand the story it's all lagging by me but It's frustrating. Was, who went where and when was the statinist? How is

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this bill, how are the recommendations gonna improve this?

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Yes, so the, currently, the adjuster can refer an injured worker. Adjuster works for who? The insurance company, the workers' comp insurance company. Instead of referring for a screening at ninety days, they can just refer to someone like me, a VR counselor, who would then just do the entitlement assessment

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: right away. So, you're qualified to do the entitlement assessment and prepare somebody for different work if necessary? Yes, yep.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: So, what should've happened is, we have a little breakdown of the system in multiple ways, but what should've happened is that first screening that Sam had, he should've been referred to someone like me, who assessed his eligibility for vocational rehabilitation. But instead, they found that he didn't need to be referred, he didn't need to be referred, didn't need to be referred, and that's an incorrect conclusion based on the information that the screener, that three screeners had, in my opinion.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So finally, eighteen months of being off work, he is referred to a VR counselor? Yes. To you, I guess.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Yes. He was referred to me. I found him eligible immediately. All the information was there. He can't go back to his job or any of his jobs he previously did, earning the same money because of serious foot injury. He's now got restrictions.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And he's had a surgery healing. Correct.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Yeah, so by the time I came in to work with him, he it had been eighteen months since state of injury. He was now basically done with his recovery, which is a huge problem because that means wage replacement is ending because it's tied to the medical treatment. Right. And so he started working with me. He now can't really take advantage of vocational rehab because he needs an income as soon as possible. He's no longer getting the wage replacement that he was getting when he was still in medical treatment. So the delay can impact somebody's return to suitable work, meaning that as close as possible to what they were earning at the time of injury and physically appropriate. The delay can impact that very, very

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: much, and not a helpful thing, let's just put that way.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: So just to conclude and to summarize, the screening process failed to identify Sam's need for vocational rehab for the better part of a year. That's a time that he could have been working with someone like me to create a return to work plan, and a lot can be accomplished in a year. Yeah. To get him back to suitable work. Because there was such a delay in Sam getting vocational rehab, by the time I started working with him, he could not utilize the service to the full extent that he was entitled to. So, I determined that he was entitled to retraining, to go back into a different line of work that would not have him on his feet all day and not lifting 100 plus pound stoves. Because he has no income coming in, by the time I start working with him, he can't do training. He doesn't have the time. He needs to find a job ASAP, And that puts pressure on him to accept a lower wage, basically whatever he can get, a lower wage and a job that may be putting him at risk. So I'll read

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the question here, then David, I would thought, given this sort of lags, that Sam could have appealed to the Department of Labor for additional flexibility and an opportunity for training for this, given how long and if he had a lawyer, how failed the screening how the screening process just really didn't serve him, and how he lost that opportunity in their delays. And if there was a good lawyer here, I would have thought they would have been appealing back to DOL. Yeah.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Yeah, maybe I can let Kelly speak I'll on that

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: question right in. So

[Kelly Massicotte (Workers’ Compensation Attorney, Biggam Fox & Skinner; testifying for injured workers)]: the wage replacements are not tied to the voc rehab. So Corinne's right, he's entitled to retraining. But if the guy's gonna work, he can't do the retraining and work necessarily at And the same Katrina said something very important, but it trailed off, is he was forced to get his doctor to release him. He asked his doctor, Release me for this work. I've got to get this job. And it's work that's probably very likely to lead to re injury because he's working on his feet again. But he's got to do the work because he's got to support his family. Right. So he is doing work that his doctor said he can do, but it's not a great situation, right? It's not a great situation. Honestly, weight replacement should be more tied to voc rehab in my opinion, just because of this problem. Another piece to work on, which

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we may

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: ask. Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. It sounds like it's safe to say he's now back at work doing work that may just exacerbate the initial injury.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Yes. That was my kind of concluding summary, is that he's had to accept a job that's below his wage and that has him on his feet all day. And we all agree that that's not the best situation for his foot.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: David, you had a Well, one was similar. We must work together on some of this. Well, that's discouraging. And then I hate to ask the other obvious question, which is I mean, just to complete this story, which is how old a person is this? Because how long is a work life affected by this?

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Yeah. So he was 45 when he was injured. So another twenty years of work. Yep. Yeah. That's tough.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sort of halfway through his work career.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Karina Dunnigan (Private Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, Catamount Case Management)]: Yeah, this is an example of how the delay in the screening being completed correctly, or the delay in getting to a person, getting to a VR counselor, can really impact somebody's return to work and their wages for the rest of their life, their health for the rest of their life. Yeah. So, support what this bill proposes to do, which is remove the screening, and that's going to improve the timeliness that injured workers can get back to work, and I really appreciate you taking the time to listen and assist injured workers. Thank you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. That was terrific. Any other questions for Karina? That was Thank you. That was an illustration of pictures worth a thousand words. Thank you very much. Yeah. Jamie. It was good to see you last night. Absolutely. Thanks for having

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: me this morning. Jamie with Premier Piper, Legacy of the Premier on behalf of the American Property and Casualty Insurance Association. The ACIA is a national paid association of over a thousand members. So a 100 of whom write PNC line all lines in Vermont, including workers' comp. Collectively, they probably write it a little more than a few thirds of them. You

[Unidentified participant]: do. Two thirds

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of the workers' comp claims.

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: Two thirds of all PNC loans. And workers' comp is a different property. Yeah. You can see I had a shared goal of helping injured workers in this time to work and effective both rehab and can accomplish that. However, the amendments, we believe, remove appropriate guardrails and introduce costs if they're all necessary, and therefore, I would ask you not to move forward. Me first speak to some of the current market trends that we're seeing, which will help provide a little bit of context for our position. As you know, as you may know, workers' comp rate making is kind of a different process at least compared to other lines of insurance. There's sort of forward projections, and then there's a true up at the end of projections, might look at, for example, loss trends, which is primary component in a workers' comp premium. Those loss trends cover indemnity and benefits costs. And so there's an entity called the National Council or the Thomas NCCI. I always forget the heck They help to gather information and data, and they give the Department of Financial Regulation every year projected lost costs for the petroleum for the mortgage problem. And so starting in 2017, Monarch has seen a notable trend in these costs for the voluntary market, which is the open to competitive, you know, the market, of course, in the sun sinus. Starting in 2017, there's 7.9% decrease in lost costs. In 2018, three points. The next year, 5.1% decrease. In 2020, 11.6 decrease. 2021, 5.5% decrease. 2022, 4.9% decrease. 2023, 6.7 decrease. '24 as an anomaly was flat. '25, 7.4% increase. While this is good news and the reduction is really a reflection of the purpose of the EFR, Department of Financial Regulation, has put on some particularly high risk sectors. Vermont, workers' comp premiums are still above average nationally. However, another translation of this downward trend is that the system is working as intended, at least with respect to loss cause and trying to bring them down. Turning to the below, this removes the ability, entirely as you've heard, to have a screening process, which we think is an effective starting process. That SRE processes helps determine whether a full assessment is appropriate for the mandatory approvals for the blood brain have canceled thereafter. Moreover, on it hasn't received too much attention. You're on page three, line five, it's deleting the cost effective state, which we think is an important lens in place so that, for example, whether it's an employer or an insurer, this has the ability to to use that as a lens in arguing.

[Unidentified participant]: Is that that b? That is line five, page pass. Okay. Oh, I see. Good. Right. K.

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: You know, it's it's a little bit of a deja vu for me on on this bill. You may recall last year's bill, was a an issue related to timely payment of penalties and fees, which we assessed in February to do so. And at the time, there was a question whether or not the data that would support making policy change. I kind of feel similar in this regard because I hear from APCIA members, they don't see a problem in the screening process or the vehicle pre health process, at least from their perspective and their folks on the ground. They haven't seen any sort of systemic problem that would, for example, substantiate removing the screening process in its entirety. On the contrary, it may be that, as I mentioned before, the system's working as intended and claimants are appropriately screened for a full assessment. I will also add, as you've heard, that the injured worker has a right to change both rehab counselors. You'd have that right in your hand. Correct. There's also a process that the injured worker can invoke or insure or any party to to the dispute of issue can invoke, and that's administered through the Department of Labor. First is and the rule will speak this out in the DOL that will speak to this. First is DOL, of course, encourage the party to seek resolution on the report before they come to them. The second is asking the department for a conference for discussion, mediation, and resolution. And the last would be a request that the disputed issue be addressed out of formal hearing. So there are mechanisms in place to address, maybe perhaps some of what we've heard this morning, but in general, for these types of claims that there is a process at the screening level. So, again, I feel in the and maybe see if you have data to sort of substantiate such a change. Perhaps it's more if there's a problem within the current screening process, maybe we target solutions there. If the timing needs to be looked at, if the questions asked need to be revisited or somewhat addressed, maybe that's the better place to look rather than drawing out the entire process in this entire interview.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. I have a question for you. Costs to health. I mean, how are you assessing those costs? Are they are you talking about just cost to the insurance company?

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: It's cost to the system which will

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: lives and the cost to their families and the cost in time.

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: Well, is, of course, on behalf of insurance companies.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know, I'm just

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: Working with employers and looking through that lens, and yes, we believe this will add cost into the system, it will be borne by the system,

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: including insurance.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But it's born by the system with the loss of worker not working too. I mean, so the quicker workers get back to work, that's a plus for

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: As I this stated, it's a shared goal that insurers have Okay. Help injured worker get back to work.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So you see an initial screening. You see mediation. It sounds like worker it I mean, just from a high level, it just seems that perhaps injured workers are not fully aware of all the opportunities that lie before them with the these sustained injuries and ongoing injuries. And then I mean, you talk about mediation. You talk about other things that the department could step in and help with, but it doesn't sound like. Well, again And now people are asking for sure.

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: And I'm not intimately with the questions asked at the screening process, but that could potentially be a component to be added to this one already. Here are your options. Right. If they're denied full assessment, I just have to assume that they're given something to superior options after giving this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Given our time frame, because we have to leave here about, say, takes about seven minutes probably to get over it until they I would suggest we hear from DER, and then we will come back to this and clarify. But thank you, Jamie. That was very helpful. Did you have a question, Jamie? Okay.

[Jamie Feehan (Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, representing APCIA)]: I mean, you've cast a great net in terms of hearing from its parties, but employers is a one one focus.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. No. No. And I I ABC would be good. Appreciate that. You. No, really appreciate it. Dirk, welcome.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Dirk Anderson with the Department of Labor, I'm the Director of Workers' Compensation and Safety, I've been in that role for a little over three years now. I've been with the department

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: for like twenty two years, four years? A while. Is a In my twenty two years, you have always been one of the fastest. You. Yeah, and a lot of things. Maybe it shows a lack of decomposition. No? Well, maybe that could say the same thing about me.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: So I know you've got limited time, so

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'll Well, just only today.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: I will start by saying the department is generally supportive of this bill. And the reason for that is this. The initial screening has been in place since about when I started, so over twenty years. You've heard what the claimant's bar thinks of it. The general consensus among my staff is that it is not particularly helpful either, and my main reason for supporting the removal of the initial screening is the delay, because the carrier has to file a form of us, we have to refer it to higher ability over at Dale, the Dale screener has to screen it, they've got, they're supposed to do it in, I believe, ten days. That doesn't always happen. And the majority of the initial screenings results get approval. Like, this person may be entitled to service instructor. So it's just a delay in the process, doesn't really accomplish much, which I think is what just massacred has to buy two. The people at HigherAbility, we have spoken with them. They don't particularly like doing this. You

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: certainly welcome Oh, the hireability of the screeners? Yes. Okay, missed that piece, okay.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: Certainly welcome to have them in here to talk about it. Yeah. And maybe to address what Jamie said about the necessity for some sort of screening. Of the people who are eventually injured workers who eventually do get an entitlement assessment from a VR counselor, Not all of those results get an approved plan, because the third step that we haven't talked about yet is the VR counselor needs to submit a VR plan to the department. One of our employees, Rick Smith, reviews it to make sure it is reasonable. And a subset of all entitlements result in actual approved plans. So there's still some gatekeeping by the department to make sure that people aren't just getting VR for the sake of getting it, whether they need it or not.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Got it. So that's already built into the system. Yes. I think that's the level of Yeah. So that's about it. But you Wait. Is

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: do you support

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it with And and okay. Because I'm gonna ask my other question.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: Okay. I just wanted to comment on the first change at the bottom of page two, line twenty and twenty one, the right to request Voc Rehab services in the future. Yeah, the department does already notify workers on the form that goes out, that if you decline VR, not reading from the form, injured workers who decline VR services may request them at a later date by writing to the Department of Labor and providing their reasons why they should receive service licenses. Now, I think Shelley would probably like to see more robust planning. Which, you

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: could be involved. We could

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, Vermont Department of Labor)]: do that. Don't think that

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: would require legislation. My guess is we can improve this. Yes. But it it's good to know that at least it's there, and all we need to do is work on improving or underscoring or holding or whatever. Great. Okay. Or something else. Thank you. That's it in a nutshell. Thank you. Much appreciated. Maybe any questions for GERD? So I think the second question is if we work on this and get this to a place where we're happy with it, I hear that we might hear from agency and from a higher ability and from a couple other would get some other ideas of additional people we might hear from and somebody actually a person who has gone through other than Sam, I think Sam's story was well illustrated. Thank you very much, Karina. The other question is, of course, the bigger question that Kelly and Karina raised, which is maybe the whole thing needs to be looked at and reviewed. And might we think about charging DOL and interested stakeholders to come back to us next session as x y n n with a proposal on how we continue to approve what we have because this committee is very interested in getting workers back to work doing work that gives them pleasure, that's fulfilling, that's productive, that furthers their lives and the work they provide. So I think we all have interest in having a system that's more successful in terms of would you think about that? And perhaps we can engage with all us and mistress of that name to craft some some kind of proposal. Okay. To consider. I would consider that. Okay, great. Let's work on that offline. Unless there are other questions, committee, we are going to take your badges and we're going over, we're going to flip to economic development. We're going to hear from the outdoor rec business on our economic development bill. They're going be addressing the economic impact study they've asked for, and we're gonna be preparing we're gonna shift the economic development for an hour. So take your badges. We're up on the 2nd Floor in Room 270, And here, he's gonna run that meeting. And, and Rowan, and Helen, Karina, thanks very much.

[Rebecca McBroom (General Counsel, Vermont-NEA)]: Thank you. Thank of course, always. Okay. Oh,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: let's

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go offline.