Committee reviews bill to allow school support staff to seek unemployment benefits

The Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs on the floor discussed bill F37, which would remove a statutory exclusion and allow many school support staff to apply for state unemployment insurance during scheduled school breaks.

Proponents including Rebecca McBruill, general counsel for Vermont MBA, told the committee that support staff — paraprofessionals, bus drivers, food‑service workers, custodians and administrative assistants — are essential to daily school operations and earn substantially less than the statewide average. "Our schools genuinely would not function without them," McBruill said, adding that support staff make on average less than $19 an hour while the Vermont average wage is about $30.18, citing CPR (July 2024).

The Rutgers University 2018 study and more recent Economic Policy Institute analysis were cited by witnesses to describe the workforce: McBruill said support staff make up roughly 30 percent of the union’s 13,000 members and that many hold second jobs or work additional hours outside the school year. Committee members pressed witnesses for more specific counts and hours worked, and proponents agreed to supply additional data to the committee record.

Michael Harrington, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor, described how state and federal rules currently treat school employees. He told the committee that federal and state law long have excluded certain instructional and administrative school employees from unemployment eligibility when they have reasonable assurance of returning to work. "I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of...whether or not these individuals are deserving of unemployment. I think our role here is really just to share with the committee what the implications are of a particular bill like this," Harrington said.

Harrington and other Labor Department staff offered a preliminary estimate of potential fiscal effects using occupational counts and benefit assumptions. Using a rough example limited to paraeducators, the department estimated about 4,500–5,000 such positions statewide; if half drew benefits at an average weekly benefit of about $550 for roughly 12 weeks (summer plus holiday breaks) the department estimated roughly $16 million in benefit payments. The commissioner said most Vermont school employers are reimbursable employers and thus would ultimately be responsible for repaying trust‑fund dollars that are paid out, meaning the cost would move to schools and, indirectly, taxpayers.

Committee members and witnesses discussed take‑up rates observed in other states. Witnesses and staff pointed to Minnesota and Oregon as recent examples and said Minnesota’s initial cost projections proved higher than actual experience. Several committee members asked the Department of Labor to consult with counterparts in states that have enacted similar changes and to request Joint Fiscal Office analysis of likely local impacts.

Witnesses emphasized workforce retention and student services as core policy considerations. McBruill and others said paraprofessionals and support staff are often the primary wage earners in their households and that greater eligibility for unemployment could reduce turnover and help districts meet mandated special‑education staffing needs.

Committee members also raised operational questions that would need resolution if the bill moves forward: how the ‘‘return‑to‑work’’ provision and work‑search requirements would apply, whether paraeducators who provide instructional services might be treated differently under federal law, and how the state would measure and budget for uptake. The Department of Labor recommended vetting language with federal partners to reduce the risk of later nonconformity with federal unemployment rules.

No formal committee action or vote on F37 occurred during the hearing; senators and witnesses agreed to provide additional data and to reconvene the discussion at a later meeting.

The committee said it will request further fiscal analysis and comparative data from states that have implemented similar eligibility changes, and asked proponents to supply requested membership and hours data to clarify potential costs and affected populations.