Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate concurs in bill protecting volunteer emergency responders from termination for emergency response absences
Summary
House Bill 128, protecting volunteer emergency service providers from termination by employers for absences while responding to emergencies, was concurred in by the Montana Senate after debate on workplace effects and employer hiring choices.
The Montana Senate on March 31 concurred in House Bill 128, a measure designed to protect volunteer emergency responders from being terminated solely because they were late to work or absent while responding to an emergency.
Senator Hunter, carrying the bill on the Senate floor, said the measure responds to reports that volunteer firefighters and EMTs have been fired or disciplined for responding to calls and arriving late to shifts. The bill seeks to prevent termination based solely on emergency response absences while preserving employers’ rights to make lawful employment decisions for other reasons.
Debate included expressions of support from senators who emphasized the critical role volunteers in rural areas play in emergency response. Senator Nolan explained that some employers had told him potential hiring of volunteers could be discouraged if statutory protections were too restrictive. He said that an employer might decide not to hire volunteers to avoid exposure to related employment protections. The sponsor acknowledged coordinating with employers and disclosed a potential conflict relating to his own employment but argued the bill provides necessary protections for volunteers.
The Senate recorded the vote: the clerk announced 36 senators voted aye and 14 voted nay and the Senate concurred in House Bill 128 on second reading. The bill will proceed in the legislative process according to the rules of the session.
Supporters said the bill was a needed safeguard for volunteers who risk time and livelihoods to protect rural communities; opponents cautioned about potential employer responses that could limit hiring of volunteers and urged care in balancing protections with labor-market impacts.
