The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) has voiced concerns about several bills being considered by the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development. The legislation includes proposals to increase the state minimum wage by 33% and extend unemployment insurance (UI) benefits to striking workers.
Christopher Carlozzi, NFIB’s Massachusetts state director, commented on the potential impact of these measures. “Despite the rhetoric about competitiveness and affordability, Beacon Hill lawmakers are exploring new ways to make the Commonwealth less affordable, smother small businesses and Main Street job creation, and further strain our broken and nearly insolvent UI system,” said Carlozzi. “Setting the base wage at $20 per hour will have a disproportionately negative impact on the state’s smaller employers. To absorb these added labor expenses, small businesses will be forced to raise prices, cut worker hours, reduce jobs, or where available, automate. It’s no wonder Massachusetts is ranked one of the highest cost states in the nation to conduct business.”
House Bill No. 2107 and Senate Bill No. 1349 propose raising the minimum wage to $20 per hour, which would place Massachusetts among states with the highest minimum wages nationwide. Another bill under consideration, House Bill No. 2071, seeks to reinstate mandatory time-and-a-half pay for retail employees working Sundays and holidays—a policy that was phased out as part of a 2018 agreement.
NFIB referenced an economic study it released in May 2023 that examined how increasing the minimum wage could affect employment in Massachusetts. The study found that if similar bills were enacted into law, approximately 23,000 jobs could be lost over ten years—more than half from small businesses—and total economic output could decrease by more than $3.4 billion during that period.
House Bill No. 2168 and Senate Bill No. 1319 would allow workers who are on strike for more than 30 days to collect unemployment insurance benefits; benefits could also begin sooner if replacement workers are hired during a strike.
“Now is not the time to encourage increased use of the unemployment trust fund in its fragile state,” continued Carlozzi. “Especially when it comes to interfering in negotiations between private businesses and labor unions. If passed, Massachusetts would run the risk of violating federal unemployment rules as Oregon has done with similar legislation.”
Massachusetts used only a limited portion of federal relief funds from programs such as CARES Act and ARPA for its UI Trust Fund compared with other states; just $500 million was allocated despite higher needs during recent years when Springfield’s unemployment rate rose significantly.
Currently, employers in Massachusetts face some of the highest UI taxes nationally while repaying nearly $5 billion in debt related to pandemic borrowing—$2.1 billion due to an accounting error by state officials—and projections indicate that without changes or additional funding sources, the UI Trust Fund may become insolvent by late 2027, which could lead to further tax increases for businesses.
Earlier this year NFIB launched a radio and digital advertising campaign calling for reforms to address what it describes as a broken unemployment insurance system in Massachusetts.
###
