HCAOA The Voice Winter 2017-18

12 HCAOA The Voice PUBLIC POLICY STOPPING A BAD BILL can be as important as passing good legislation. More than four months after the new fiscal year began and five months after the legislative session adjourned, Connecticut lawmakers put the finishing touches last month on a two-year state budget adopted on Halloween, Oct. 31. Until then, Connecticut had the dubious distinction of being the last state to approve its budget. While citizens, business owners and municipalities can breathe a sigh of relief, one measure under consideration that was not approved also provides—for now—a reprieve for home care providers. In September, the Connecticut state Senate approved an amendment as part of the state budget that would have banned non-com- pete agreements in the home care industry. While the amendment was not ultimately passed by the legislature, it was sought by the state Department of Social Services and considered as part of budget negoti- ations. As part of a grass-roots initiative, HCAOA Connecticut opposed the proposed ban on non-compete agreements, which could have had devastating effects on the home care industry in Connecticut. Members responded to the call and contacted their local lawmakers to voice opposition to the measure and helped ensure it stayed out of the budget. During the regular legislative session, an identical provision was considered and rejected by the Human Services Committee. It was introduced as part of a Governor’s bill to implement the budget in order to address concerns expressed by elderly constituents who were fearful of losing long-time caregivers working under non-compete agreements that were being strictly enforced by one home care agency, according to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee. HCAOA Connecticut testified against the measure. HCAOA Connecticut wrote legislative leaders in opposition to including the non-compete provision in the state budget, arguing that it would harm elderly clients of home care agencies as well as the caregiver employees it was designed to protect. Additionally, it would hinder economic development in the state and reduce tax revenue, which the legislature should not be doing in the present economy and dire state budget circumstances. Non-compete agreements, as many home care providers know, are standard, very limited employment agreements used frequently to limit (for a short period of time) one home care worker from servicing one client. Agency owners argued that such agreements do not prevent workers from accepting work at any time from any of the almost 600 HCAs registered in Connecticut, nor do they prevent clients from receiving services. They are merely designed to protect, for a reasonable period of time, the investment an employer has made in hiring, conducting a background check, training and employing a caregiver. Additionally, they assure that employees, home care consumers and employers all benefit from supportive, long-term relationships that include the full benefits of agency employ- ment, as opposed to the inconsistent employment of self-directed care. While home care providers have prevailed for now, HCAOA Connecticut will remain vigilant about any future attempts to adopt a ban on non-compete agreements in home care, as the legislative session approaches in February 2018. Mr. Hallisey is managing principal of Matthew Hallisey Gov- ernment Affairs, LLC, in Hartford, Conn. His firm represents Home Care Association of America in legislative-lobbying in Connecticut. HCAOA Connecticut Successfully Opposes Ban on Non-Compete Agreements in Home Care By Matthew Hallisey ON NOV. 7 THE FULL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES passed a bill to limit joint-employer liability for affiliated businesses under federal labor and wage and hour laws. By a vote of 242-181, eight Democrats crossed the aisle in favor of the Save Local Business Act (H.R. 3441). HCAOA has been a supporter of enacting this legislation. The measure would require businesses in a staffing, franchise or other contract relationships to have direct control over another business’s workers, thus sharing liability as the workers’ joint employer. The measure is partially aimed at reversing the 2015 National Labor Relations Board decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. In that case, the board held that organizations with indirect control over contractors, franchisees, or staffing agency employees may be considered their employer for collective bargaining purposes. The Browning-Ferris decision is currently on appeal. The measure moves to the Senate, where it would need the support of at least eight Democrats to avoid a filibuster, as the Republicans likely represent 52 votes and a threshold of 60 votes is needed to avoid a filibuster. House Passes Joint-Employer Bill