House Democrats seeking to override Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of paid family leave legislation on Wednesday picked up key support when Progressives who previously opposed the bill said they plan to change their votes.
Five Progressives voted against the legislation last month, even though they have advocated for paid family leave, because they didn’t feel the Democrat-backed program offered strong enough benefits.
But Progressive legislators now say they do not want to stand in the way of paid family leave from becoming law, even if they think the current proposal is imperfect.
“We feel that even with those flaws in it, it’s still easier to build on an existing framework than it is to start fresh again,” Rep. Robin Chesnut-Tangerman, P-Middletown Springs, the chair of the House Progressive Caucus said Tuesday.
Chesnut-Tangerman said there was no pressure from Democrats, or within the Progressive Party, to support the vetoed legislation.
“I’m relieved that we have a unified position, but there was no pressure to have a unified decision,” he said. Two other Progressives voted in favor of the original vote.
With the support of the entire Progressive caucus, Democrats are close to the 100 needed to reverse Scott’s veto. The bill passed in January in a vote of 89-58. Assuming two Democrats who were absent vote for the measure, and House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, casts a ballot, the party would be three short.
Six Democrats opposed the original bill, as well as four independents.
Progressive members and some left-leaning Democrats have taken issue with the paid family leave bill, which represents a compromise with the Senate and doesn’t include temporary disability insurance (paid time off for personal injury or illness). 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.
They also are concerned that the program would be administered by a private insurance company, instead of the state.
Scott vetoed the bill last week because it would be funded by a $29 million payroll tax that would fall on workers, unless employers volunteered to offer the benefit.
The governor is supportive of paid family leave, as long as it isn’t mandated for all workers to take part in the program.
Scott has pitched his own voluntary paid family leave program, which he included in his administration’s bargaining agreement with Vermont State Employees’ Association, and could move forward this year.
“My administration’s approach is voluntary for employers and employees,” Scott said after handing down his veto last week. “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.”
House Majority Leader Jill Krowisnki, D-Burlington, said Tuesday that the vote count on the paid family leave bill was still a “work in progress,” but did not provide details.
“We are working really hard to ensure that we can override the governor’s veto,” Krowinski said.
Democratic leaders will also have to flip members of their own party or independents if they want to see the paid leave program become law.
Six Democrats, most of whom are more moderate members of the party, also voted against the legislation last month.
The Progressives’ support comes after many organizations including Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, the NEA, the state’s largest teachers union, and the AFL-CIO, a union representing 10,000 members in the private sector, reversed their positions on the paid family leave bill in the last few weeks.
These groups have shared the Progressives’ view on the legislation, but in recent days, have urged lawmakers to override the governor’s veto.
While the paid leave legislation faces uncertainty in the House, it is much safer in the Senate, where the legislation passed on a vote 20-9 — securing the two-thirds majority needed to overturn a gubernatorial veto.
