Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Portable Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears business opposition to portable benefits bill; no vote taken
Summary
Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee members took testimony on Feb. 3 on Senate Bill 13-86, a proposal to create mandatory portable benefits contributions for workers contracted through platforms; the committee held the bill and did not vote.
Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee members took testimony on Feb. 3 on Senate Bill 13-86, a proposal from Sen. Ronald Singleton to establish a portable benefits system for workers who provide services through contracting agents; the committee did not vote on the measure and held the bill for further consideration.
The bill, as amended, would exempt New Jersey Real Estate Appraiser Board licensees and persons who set or negotiate their own rates, delay contracting-agent contributions until 60 days after qualified benefit providers approved by the Department of Banking and Insurance are available, and assign rulemaking to the Department of Banking and Insurance rather than the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Those are the committee amendments read into the record.
The New Jersey Business & Industry Association and regional chambers opposed the bill in testimony, citing concerns that mandatory contributions could produce a de facto employment relationship under some state laws and that the contribution rate proposed could raise consumer prices. Elyssa Frank, vice president of government affairs for the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, told the committee the bill "would create mandatory employer contributions to the portable benefits program with a high fee" and said members feared the cost would be passed on to consumers and could reduce platform activity in New Jersey.
Hillary Chebra of the South Jersey Chamber of Commerce said many platform workers rely on the flexibility of part-time work and that higher contribution rates could make services unaffordable for residents of regions with limited public transit. Mike Leggington of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce urged a lower contribution rate and warned of logistical and data-sharing challenges the bill does not address.
Committee members questioned whether the bill would force part-time platform workers into full-time benefit eligibility. Witnesses said the proposed amendment could create a 40-hour threshold. Witnesses and business groups also disputed whether New Jersey would be an outlier on contribution rates compared with neighboring states.
No motion or vote on the underlying bill was taken. Committee members agreed to continue discussions with stakeholders and the sponsor before considering the measure for a vote on a future date.
The committee record shows the bill was the subject of extended stakeholder testimony and member questions; the sponsor and committee will continue to work on amendments and implementation details before bringing the bill back for action.
