Share Email 945 Shares

Gov. Phil Scott speaks at a Statehouse press conference on January 30, 2020. Photo by Mike Dougherty/VTDigger

Gov. Phil Scott on Friday vetoed legislation that would establish a statewide paid family leave program, dealing a major setback to Democrats who have made the policy a party priority in recent years.



Scott’s veto was unsurprising; he had signaled for months that he would not support the Democratic program because it is funded by a $29 million mandatory payroll tax that would fall on workers or employers.



Get Final Reading delivered to your inbox. Sign up free.

In 2018, he vetoed a more robust paid family leave bill Democrats sent to his desk because it had the same funding mechanism.



“For years, Vermonters have made it clear they don’t want, nor can they afford, new broad-based taxes,” the Republican governor said in his message on Friday to lawmakers explaining the veto.



“We cannot continue to make the state less affordable for working Vermonters and more difficult for employers to employ them – even for well-intentioned programs like this one. Vermonters can’t afford for us to get this wrong, especially at their expense,” he added



While Scott struck down H.107, the Democrats’ proposed program, the governor is in favor of enacting a paid leave policy that doesn’t require workers or employers to pay for it.



Last year, Scott pitched his own voluntary paid family leave program to lawmakers, which received a cool reception from Democrats, who believe that to be effective, the program needs to include private-sector employees as well.



The governor has moved his voluntary plan forward by including it in the latest bargaining agreement with the Vermont State Employees’ Association.



VTDigger is underwritten by:

If Democrats don’t enact a paid leave program this year, Scott’s plan could take effect: 8,500 state employees would receive paid leave as a benefit, forming an insurance pool that other businesses and employees could join voluntarily.



“My administration’s approach is voluntary for employers and employees,” Scott wrote. “It can be accomplished more efficiently, affordably and quickly, without a $29 million payroll tax that Vermont workers simply should not be burdened with, and without putting the risk of underfunding on taxpayers.”

Scott’s decision puts pressure on leaders of the House, who must now work to flip votes if they hope to override the governor’s veto pen. Last week, the House passed the paid leave bill in a vote of 89-58, falling 11 votes short of the 100 needed to survive a veto.



In the House, five progressives voted against the bill because they don’t believe it offers generous enough benefits. Six Democrats also opposed the legislation, largely because they felt it was too costly.



Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, addresses the House of Representatives on the opening day of the Legislature on January 7. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

The Senate would likely have the two-thirds majority to counteract the veto: last month, the bill passed the upper chamber in a vote of 20-9.



On Friday evening, House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said she was “incredibly disappointed” by Scott’s veto.



“The impact of paid family leave on the lives of Vermonters cannot be understated,” she wrote in a statement.

“Our members represent their constituents across the state and supported this bill because they heard first-hand how needed this bill is and how twelve weeks of paid family leave, or eight weeks of family medical leave, would grow our workforce, attract young people, and support the lives of working Vermonters,” Johnson added.

Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe, D/P Chittenden, said that paid leave “would make life better and more affordable for every Vermonter who goes through these moments in life.”

“The Governor’s team recognized this when they granted a paid leave benefit to all state employees using our tax dollars. Now it’s time to extend that wisdom to every Vermont Employee,” Ashe wrote in a statement.

Listen to our Deeper Dig podcast from Jan. 24: Is paid leave in peril?

Under the paid leave plan the governor struck down Friday, Vermonters would be able to take up to 12 weeks off of work to care for a newborn child, and eight weeks to care for an ailing family member.

While the plan failed to earn the support of any Republicans in the Legislature, many left-leaning members of the House also opposed plan because, in their view, it didn’t offer robust enough benefits.

In particular, Progressive members and some Democrats didn’t like the latest version of the paid leave bill because it doesn’t include temporary disability insurance — paid time off for personal injury or illness — after the Senate removed it from the program.



VTDigger is underwritten by:

The House’s version of the bill last year would have included the personal insurance. But to bring down the cost of the program, the Senate made it optional — meaning workers have to voluntarily pay extra if they want to receive the benefit.



Rep. Robin Chesnut-Tangerman, P-Middletown Springs, left, speaks during a House Energy and Technology Committee meeting in April 2019. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

But Johnson has said that she is hopeful members who voted against the bill last week would come around to it if it was vetoed, and won’t want to prevent a paid leave program from becoming law next year.



But many House members will need to will need to change their minds to reverse the veto: eight new votes would be needed to win an override.



Rep. Robin Chesnut-Tangerman, P-Middletown Springs, who chairs the House Progressive Caucus, said Friday that while he opposed the program on the House floor earlier this month, he now plans on changing his vote.



He said that the purpose of his vote last week was not “to kill the bill, but to send it back to committee to make it stronger.”



“I would like to see Vermonters get something in the near future, rather than nothing, and hope we can build on it,” Chesnut-Tangerman said Friday.



He added that three progressives are still undecided on whether to vote for the measure if it is brought up for an override.

Share Email 945 Shares