-January 7, 2009: Opening Day of the regular legislative session
(On this day, the legislature will adopt their joint operating rules. These rules will set the dates and deadlines for committee work for the next two years).
-Early February: Governor's Budget Address.
-June 3, 2009: Last Day of the regular legislative session.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Manufacturer's Legislative Forum
I recently attended the second annual Manufacturer's Legislative Forum hosted by CONNSTEP on December 3rd. At the forum several manufacturing organizations from across the state attended including the Manufacturing Alliance of Connecticut, New Haven Manufacturers Association, The Small Manufacturers Association of CT, Connecticut Association of Metal finishing, Connecticut tooling and Machining Association and CBIA. Also attending the forum to learn about the issues were 4 of our local legislators: Senator Gary Lebeau (D-3), Representative Beth Bye (D-19), Representative Selim Noujaim (R-74) and the “Freshman” Representative Matthew Lesser who will be representing the 100th district.
The issues were clear as the presenters made their case. Energy, workforce development, and harmful legislation needed to be addressed this legislative session or this failing economy will see new lows that will cripple our state. Each of the organizations stood up and spoke about the potential expanded workers comp benefits and paid sick leave bills that threaten them every session. It was very apparent that this session will be a wild one. We need to all work together and reach out to our legislators to let them know how we feel, otherwise we cannot hold them accountable.
Here are a few interesting stats that I would like to share with you which gave perspective to the importance of manufacturing. Please feel free to share these with your legislators when speaking to them about harmful legislation. These statistics are from the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.
-In 2007, there were 191,400 employees in Connecticut’s manufacturing sector which represents 13.3% of all private, non-farm employees in the state.
-From 2000 to 2007, the state's average manufacturing wage increased from $54,488 to $69,360.-Connecticut’s manufacturing sector was 4th most productive of all 50 states in 2007.
-Manufacturers in Connecticut paid $171 million in sales and use tax in 2007 and their employers paid nearly $580 million in personal income tax in 2006.
-Every manufacturing job in Connecticut creates 3-5 service other sector jobs.
In closing, the legislators were very clear that this session will be a difficult one with the national economy in a recession and the state'ss budget woes. Therefore, it is imperative that everyone reaches out, makes phone calls and send letters to inform their local legislators about the issues and what will directly hurt your company.
The issues were clear as the presenters made their case. Energy, workforce development, and harmful legislation needed to be addressed this legislative session or this failing economy will see new lows that will cripple our state. Each of the organizations stood up and spoke about the potential expanded workers comp benefits and paid sick leave bills that threaten them every session. It was very apparent that this session will be a wild one. We need to all work together and reach out to our legislators to let them know how we feel, otherwise we cannot hold them accountable.
Here are a few interesting stats that I would like to share with you which gave perspective to the importance of manufacturing. Please feel free to share these with your legislators when speaking to them about harmful legislation. These statistics are from the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.
-In 2007, there were 191,400 employees in Connecticut’s manufacturing sector which represents 13.3% of all private, non-farm employees in the state.
-From 2000 to 2007, the state's average manufacturing wage increased from $54,488 to $69,360.-Connecticut’s manufacturing sector was 4th most productive of all 50 states in 2007.
-Manufacturers in Connecticut paid $171 million in sales and use tax in 2007 and their employers paid nearly $580 million in personal income tax in 2006.
-Every manufacturing job in Connecticut creates 3-5 service other sector jobs.
In closing, the legislators were very clear that this session will be a difficult one with the national economy in a recession and the state'ss budget woes. Therefore, it is imperative that everyone reaches out, makes phone calls and send letters to inform their local legislators about the issues and what will directly hurt your company.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
An important new Act that will effect your business!
Effective October 1, 2008, Connecticut will have a new law that requires business entities and individuals who obtain “personal information” about another person to safeguard and properly dispose of it. This new statute, Connecticut Public Act 08-167 entitled “An Act Concerning the Confidentiality of Social Security Numbers” will require action on the part of most businesses and many individuals. The Act specifically requires business entities and individuals to protect personal information, which is defined as any information that associates a particular individual with a unique identifier such as: a Social Security number, a driver’s license number, a state identification card number, an account number, a credit or debit card number, a passport number, an alien registration number, or a health insurance identification number. Personal information does not include information that is lawfully available to the general public from government records or widely distributed media.
This Act gives spesific attention to Social Security numbers. It requires any person who collects Social Security numbers “in the course of business” to establish and publicly display a “privacy protection policy.” The Act does not provide a sample privacy protection policy nor is there guidance other than that the policy must: (1) protect the confidentiality of Social Security numbers, (2) prohibit unlawful disclosure of Social Security numbers, and (3) limit access to Social Security numbers.
If this Act is not followed it could provide civil penalties of $500 for each violation, up to a maximum of $500,000 for any single event. These penalties only apply in the case of intentional violations, the Act may put one in the position of having to prove that an action was unintentional.
The Act impacts all businesses that collect Social Security numbers and other personal information. The fact that all businesses that have employees must collect Social Security numbers in order to deduct FICA and other employment taxes means that all businesses must develop and follow the requirements of the new Act. The Department of Consumer Protection will be primarily responsible for enforcing the Act although certain State agencies that issue licenses, registrations or certificates will be responsible for their own enforcement.
This Act gives spesific attention to Social Security numbers. It requires any person who collects Social Security numbers “in the course of business” to establish and publicly display a “privacy protection policy.” The Act does not provide a sample privacy protection policy nor is there guidance other than that the policy must: (1) protect the confidentiality of Social Security numbers, (2) prohibit unlawful disclosure of Social Security numbers, and (3) limit access to Social Security numbers.
If this Act is not followed it could provide civil penalties of $500 for each violation, up to a maximum of $500,000 for any single event. These penalties only apply in the case of intentional violations, the Act may put one in the position of having to prove that an action was unintentional.
The Act impacts all businesses that collect Social Security numbers and other personal information. The fact that all businesses that have employees must collect Social Security numbers in order to deduct FICA and other employment taxes means that all businesses must develop and follow the requirements of the new Act. The Department of Consumer Protection will be primarily responsible for enforcing the Act although certain State agencies that issue licenses, registrations or certificates will be responsible for their own enforcement.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Please Help Kill This Bill!
House Bill - 5606 "An Act Prohibiting The Storage or Toxic Waste
Near Residential Properties"
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the storage or disposal of toxic waste at a site abutting residential property. The problem with this legislation is it does not define what "Toxic Waste" is considered. Due to the fact that this act is not defined we cannot allow this legislation to pass.
Another reason to be alarmed is this will also drastically impact the success of the Brownfield legislation we have fought so hard for over the past 3 three years.
The Environmental Committee has passed this bill and is now moving to Appropriations. Now that this bill is with Appropriations we need to make sure our voice is heard. Please reach out to our legislators and let them know that you are opposing this bill.
Here is the Link to the Appropriations Committee
http://www.cga.ct.gov/app/
Near Residential Properties"
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the storage or disposal of toxic waste at a site abutting residential property. The problem with this legislation is it does not define what "Toxic Waste" is considered. Due to the fact that this act is not defined we cannot allow this legislation to pass.
Another reason to be alarmed is this will also drastically impact the success of the Brownfield legislation we have fought so hard for over the past 3 three years.
The Environmental Committee has passed this bill and is now moving to Appropriations. Now that this bill is with Appropriations we need to make sure our voice is heard. Please reach out to our legislators and let them know that you are opposing this bill.
Here is the Link to the Appropriations Committee
http://www.cga.ct.gov/app/
Thursday, April 17, 2008
No More Taxes!
HB-5844 "An Act Dedicating Certain Moneys to Fund the State Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Programs and Establishing a Sales Tax on Delivery Services"
This bill if passed will impose a sales tax on all delivery services. The revenue collected will go to help fund the state Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) programs for state-owned property, private colleges and hospitals.
Please contact your legislators and help us kill this bill. The Connecticut business climate is already hard to sell and this legislation will only make it harder.
If you have any questions please contact me, Jeff Rouleau at 757-0701 or by e-mail at Jrouleau@waterburychamber.com
This bill if passed will impose a sales tax on all delivery services. The revenue collected will go to help fund the state Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) programs for state-owned property, private colleges and hospitals.
Please contact your legislators and help us kill this bill. The Connecticut business climate is already hard to sell and this legislation will only make it harder.
If you have any questions please contact me, Jeff Rouleau at 757-0701 or by e-mail at Jrouleau@waterburychamber.com
Monday, April 14, 2008
All CT Businesses Beware!
With 23 days to go before this year’s short session draws to an end we have several harmful bills that "have legs" and need to be killed. This is where you, the Connecticut resident or business owner, need to step up and speak your mind!
Senate Bill- 217 "Paid Sick Leave"
This proposed legislation handcuffs a business when it comes to creating time off policies that best fit the company. This mandate is a one-size-fits-all frame of mind that makes Connecticut less attractive for future business. The flexibility to determine which time off policies work best for the company will be taken away by requiring all employers of 25 or more employees to provide a minimum amount of paid sick leave each year, regardless of their existing paid time off benefit structure, workforce demands or type of industry.
Senate Bill- 64 "SCARRING AWARDS UNDER WORKERS' COMPENSATION"
This bill if passed will allow injured workers to receive benefits for scars occurring on the body, regardless of their impact on the person’s ability to earn a living. The proposal would expand workers’ compensation benefits beyond fiscally responsible levels and cause employers’ labor costs to significantly increase. The Office of Fiscal Analysis estimates that by 2010 we will go from 21 claims (2007) to 200 claims with a price tag of one million dollars out of the employer’s pocket.
Senate Bill 255 "ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR WAGE LOSS UNDER WORKERS' COMPENSATION”
This Legislation will increase discretionary benefits for injured workers up to the maximum allowable amount for any reason and regardless of the extent of injury. The Office of Fiscal Analysis estimates that this measure will cost the state between $1.3 and $4.3 million beginning in Year 2010 and astonishingly will cost the private sector an estimated $527 million in the first year alone.
Please take the time to write a letter or e-mail to your Legislator to let them know that this type of legislation will put Connecticut's economy at a strong disadvantage. If you would like address please send me a e-mail at jrouleau@waterburychamber.com
Senate Bill- 217 "Paid Sick Leave"
This proposed legislation handcuffs a business when it comes to creating time off policies that best fit the company. This mandate is a one-size-fits-all frame of mind that makes Connecticut less attractive for future business. The flexibility to determine which time off policies work best for the company will be taken away by requiring all employers of 25 or more employees to provide a minimum amount of paid sick leave each year, regardless of their existing paid time off benefit structure, workforce demands or type of industry.
Senate Bill- 64 "SCARRING AWARDS UNDER WORKERS' COMPENSATION"
This bill if passed will allow injured workers to receive benefits for scars occurring on the body, regardless of their impact on the person’s ability to earn a living. The proposal would expand workers’ compensation benefits beyond fiscally responsible levels and cause employers’ labor costs to significantly increase. The Office of Fiscal Analysis estimates that by 2010 we will go from 21 claims (2007) to 200 claims with a price tag of one million dollars out of the employer’s pocket.
Senate Bill 255 "ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR WAGE LOSS UNDER WORKERS' COMPENSATION”
This Legislation will increase discretionary benefits for injured workers up to the maximum allowable amount for any reason and regardless of the extent of injury. The Office of Fiscal Analysis estimates that this measure will cost the state between $1.3 and $4.3 million beginning in Year 2010 and astonishingly will cost the private sector an estimated $527 million in the first year alone.
Please take the time to write a letter or e-mail to your Legislator to let them know that this type of legislation will put Connecticut's economy at a strong disadvantage. If you would like address please send me a e-mail at jrouleau@waterburychamber.com
Friday, April 11, 2008
Action Needed on Harmful Tax Bill
The Chamber is calling action on Senate Bill 701!
SB 701 would allow the local governments in 18 “targeted investment communities” (TIC's) to exempt the first $100,000 in assessed value from most residential properties in computing the local property tax. Waterbury is labeled as a Targeted Investment Communities.
Known as a “homestead exemption,” this proposal would shift millions of dollars in taxes onto commercial and industrial taxpayers. The idea has been around a long time and every session the bill has been rejected by the legislature because of the impact it would have on municipalities that adopted it. The resulting increase in the mill rate would undoubtedly affect manufacturers that still make up an important part of Waterbury. Larger Manufacturers might get by but as we know in the Brass city most of shops are small to midsize manufacturer that might not survive. This bill has steam behind it because the proponents feel that just because the Legislation is in place does not mean the towns have to enact the tax exemption. We know that taxpayer groups and other advocates will fight for enactment and if done the businesses in our towns will pack it up and move elsewhere. This legislation will do nothing but hurt our city and state because once these 18 towns get the exemption every other town will push for it.
It is better that municipalities are never given the chance to adopt the exemption and that towns find other ways to grant relief to all taxpayers.
SB 701 would allow the local governments in 18 “targeted investment communities” (TIC's) to exempt the first $100,000 in assessed value from most residential properties in computing the local property tax. Waterbury is labeled as a Targeted Investment Communities.
Known as a “homestead exemption,” this proposal would shift millions of dollars in taxes onto commercial and industrial taxpayers. The idea has been around a long time and every session the bill has been rejected by the legislature because of the impact it would have on municipalities that adopted it. The resulting increase in the mill rate would undoubtedly affect manufacturers that still make up an important part of Waterbury. Larger Manufacturers might get by but as we know in the Brass city most of shops are small to midsize manufacturer that might not survive. This bill has steam behind it because the proponents feel that just because the Legislation is in place does not mean the towns have to enact the tax exemption. We know that taxpayer groups and other advocates will fight for enactment and if done the businesses in our towns will pack it up and move elsewhere. This legislation will do nothing but hurt our city and state because once these 18 towns get the exemption every other town will push for it.
It is better that municipalities are never given the chance to adopt the exemption and that towns find other ways to grant relief to all taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)