The Massachusetts legislative session is now in full swing, and committees will begin the hearing process on more than 8,000 bills filed this session.

AIM will carefully watch the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, which reviews all potential new employment-law obligations for employers.

Here is a breakdown of some of the major bills before the Committee and a best guess on the chance that each proposal becomes a law.

AIM welcomes your input on any of the legislation as we develop our positions and testimonies. The Government Affairs team also joins the monthly HR Roundtables to provide updates on the status of the different bills.

Pay Transparency

An Act relative to salary range disclosure and An Act relative to transparency in the workplace would require employers to provide the pay scale for a particular employment position to an applicant or to an employee already holding the position, upon request.

The proposal would also require the state to publish aggregate wage data reports broken down by industry; mandates that covered employees submit EEO-1 and EEO-4 reports to the secretary of the commonwealth, who will then transfer relevant wage data to the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development (EOLWD; clarifies that wage data reports are not public records; and establishes penalties for non-compliance. The range requirement would apply to employers with 15 or more employees and the data requirement would apply to companies with 100 or more employees.

Chance of Passage. High. Both the House and Senate chairs of the committee are sponsors of the legislation. Several high-profile elected officials have endorsed this legislation and similar pay transparency provisions have passed in several states.

Wage Theft

An Act to prevent wage theft, promote employer accountability and enhance public enforcement allows for vicarious liability for any wage violations up and down the contracting chain. Any hiring company would be liable for wage violations committed by subcontractors.

The bill also incorporates a concept passed in California known as the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). PAGA allows plaintiffs’ lawyers to take powers normally granted to the Attorney General and create small class action suits and bring direct suits against employers.

Chance of passage: Moderate. While this legislation has been introduced for several sessions the bill only passed the Senate once. However, it remains a top priority of organized labor and several advocacy groups.

Minimum Wage

 An Act relative to increasing the minimum wage seeks to raise the state minimum wage up to $20 per hour over the course of the next four years ($1.25 per year) with a final effective date of January 1, 2027. The bill indexes the minimum wage to inflation and would automatically increase the minimum wage annually based on the consumer price index for urban workers. In addition, the proposal applies the minimum wage to municipal employees and sets a new tipped minimum wage to 60% of the minimum wage.

Chance of passage: Moderate. Although the state just completed a round of minimum wage hikes raising the wage to $15 per hour this January, Raise Up Massachusetts, the group behind the Fair Share Amendment (the so-called ‘millionaires’ tax’ ballot question) is already pursuing a new minimum wage. They have also filed the initial paperwork to register this as a ballot initiative.

Four-Day Work Week

An Act relative to a four-day work week program would provide state funding for a voluntary pilot program that would allow businesses to transition employees to a reduced work schedule without an overall reduction in pay. Participating employers would agree to regular reporting to help study the effects of transitioning employees and businesses to a four-day work week and in return could qualify for a tax credit.

Chance of passage: Low. The legislation was filed for the first time this session. New bills tend to take a session or two before gaining traction and are rarely passed right away unless there is a pending emergency.

Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

An Act relative to defense against abusive waivers. would prohibit the use of mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. All arbitration would become entirely optional and void most existing employment agreements.

Chance of Passage: Low. Even if the bill were to pass it would be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The U.S. Supreme Court has invalided state efforts to regulate arbitration agreements via statute (See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion). California’s attempt to pass similar legislation limiting arbitration in employment agreements, Assembly Bill 51, was invalided in 2021 by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that the legislation was clearly preempted by the FAA (See CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES v. Bonta).

Apart from these bills, other legislation may appear during the session in response to court decisions or through the budget-making process. We will monitor all these issues throughout the session.

If you have any questions about the information here or other legislation, please reach out to the AIM Employer Hotline at 800-470-6277 or join us at the monthly HR Roundtables for the Government Affairs update.