House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, center, at lectern, and Maine Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, left, join members of the Maine Paid Family Leave Coalition for a rally Wednesday outside the State House against legislation that would weaken or outright repeal Maine’s new paid family and medical leave program. Anna Chadwick/Morning Sentinel

Maine legislators heard testimony on more than a dozen bills Wednesday aimed at amending, delaying or outright repealing the state’s fledgling paid family and medical leave program.

As business leaders prepared for a slate of afternoon hearings before the Legislature’s labor committee, the broad-based Maine Paid Family Leave Coalition held a noontime rally outside the State House to defend the program against what coalition members say are attempts to destroy it.

In January, the state started collecting a new 1% payroll tax, split evenly between employers and employees, to build up a revenue reserve before benefits become available May 1, 2026. Maine was the 13th state to adopt this kind of law.

Approved by the Legislature in 2023, the program’s rules and regulations took more than a year to develop, and not everyone is pleased with the outcome — especially Maine’s business owners.

Ten bills sponsored by Republicans would address their concerns, including LD 1249 — which would delay the launch of benefits to July 1, 2027 — and LD 1169 and LD 1307, which would refund employers who already offer equivalent or superior private plans.

LD 406 and LD 539 would repeal the program entirely, with sponsors questioning nearly every aspect of the program’s administration, funding and benefits. In presenting LD 406, Rep. Joshua Morris, R-Turner, was one of several legislators who questioned the solvency of the program and whether funding will be able to meet demand.

“There’s going to be great incentive for employees to want to use it,” Morris told the committee.

Among other Republican-sponsored bills, LD 1273 would make the program voluntary; LD 952 would exempt agricultural employers and workers; and LD 1400 would exempt certain school districts from the program. Also, LD 1333 calls for numerous adjustments, such as requiring a 120-day employment period before accessing benefits, while LD 1221 calls for a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of program funds for any other purpose.

ONE BIPARTISAN PROPOSAL

Three bills sponsored by Democrats would protect or amend aspects of the enacting legislation, including LD 1712, a bipartisan proposal presented by Rep. Tiffany Roberts, D-South Berwick, and co-sponsored by several Democrats and Republicans.

“This legislation represents a critical step forward in making Maine’s PFML program more functional and sustainable, especially for small businesses,” said Jake Lachance, spokesman for the Maine State Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber and Bath Iron Works have filed a lawsuit against the administration of Gov. Janet Mills challenging how the state is implementing the program.

However, members of the Maine Paid Family Leave Coalition oppose LD 1712, as well as the bills sponsored by Republicans.

“All of (them) ultimately dismantle Maine’s PFML program, create unnecessary barriers for workers and caregivers, propose costly delays, and carve out numerous hard-working Maine people who fund this benefit,” said Catie Reed, spokesperson for the Maine Women’s Lobby.

Coalition members said LD 1712 is “among the most concerning proposals this session.”

Instead, coalition members support LD 894, which would clarify various aspects of the program, and LD 575, which would ensure equitable access to the program by removing the requirement that leave must be scheduled to prevent undue hardship on employers.

“(LD 894) is about refining — not rewriting — a program built through years of bipartisan collaboration and public engagement,” said Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, the bill’s primary sponsor. “(It) represents a focused effort to launch Maine’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program responsibly, effectively and in a way that supports both workers and employers.”

Lachance said the state chamber is neither for nor against LD 894, but it strongly opposes LD 575.

“Small businesses across Maine already face chronic staffing shortages,” Lachance said. “There are many employers, especially in rural areas, who are operating with a skeletal staff and cannot absorb unplanned or prolonged employee absences without significant disruption.”

The chamber has heard from many small business owners who have personally stepped in to clean bathrooms, stock shelves or run front-of-house operations due to a lack of staff, Lachance said.

“Removing the undue hardship provision would make this precarious situation even more untenable by removing the only mechanism employers have to balance employee leave with the ability to operate their business,” Lachance said.

ADDRESSING BUSINESS CONCERNS

Business groups have objected to many of the program’s rules, including language saying businesses that offered their own private leave programs were not permitted to opt out of the tax collections until April 2026.

However, the Department of Labor changed that provision to allow businesses to opt out in 2025 if they could prove they were giving their employees an equivalent private paid leave benefit.

The fund would pay up to 90% of regular wages for up to 12 weeks for workers who are ill or need to take care of newborns or other family members, among other reasons. Employers with fewer than 15 workers are exempt from paying into the program, but workers at small businesses still pay a 0.5% payroll tax and will be eligible for benefits.

Legislators noted during Wednesday’s hearings that the program would cost $5.72 per week for the average Mainer earning a little over $1,100 per week.

The bipartisan LD 1712 would clarify the meaning of “undue hardship” so business owners could better manage multiple leave requests occurring at peak times, Lachance said in written testimony.

It also would provide a uniform 65% wage replacement rate and a 15- or 30-day filing deadline for leave notices, which supporters say would simplify benefits administration, ensure the fund’s fiscal stability and help business backfill staffing more effectively.

Committee member Rep. Valli Geiger, D-Rockland, noted that similar programs found that some workers declined to take paid leave at lower wage replacement rates because they couldn’t afford to live without the lost wages. Roberts, the bill’s primary sponsor, said that’s one aspect of her proposal that warrants future discussion.

Coalition members said LD 1712 and the Republican bills would strip workers of basic protections, slash wages for low-income Mainers, gut union rights and weaken penalties for noncompliance.

Daughtry, who led Maine’s paid family leave effort, said those bills are being presented without evidence or experience.

“These bills come just months into the program’s launch — before a single claim has even been filed,” Daughtry said in written testimony. “They are, simply put, premature attempts to reverse course and gut a program before it has had a chance to prove its worth.”