Question: Should the state extend benefits, from health coverage to sick pay to retirement, to workers contracted with the state, at a cost of $5 million a year?

Senate vote: No, 19; Yes, 16

How local senators voted:

Richard Bennett, R-Norway, no;

Kenneth Blais, R-Litchfield, no;

Bruce Bryant, D-Dixfield, yes;

Neria Douglass, D-Auburn, yes;

Margaret Rotundo, D-Lewiston, yes;

Chandler Woodcock, R-Farmington, no;

Senate rejects extending benefits to contract workers
By Bonnie Washuk
Staff Writer

AUGUSTA – The Senate voted 19-16 Wednesday to reject extending worker benefits – from health coverage and sick pay to retirement – to workers contracted, but not hired, by the state.

Sen. Kenneth Blais, R-Litchfield, led the floor fight against the idea saying it’s a pocketbook issue. Extending benefits to contract workers would cost taxpayers more than $5 million a year. The state can’t afford that, he said, especially at a time when services to the most vulnerable are being cut.

Democrats backing the bill countered that it’s a fairness issue. They argued that contracted workers doing the same work as state employees should be treated the same.

Blais said that giving contract employees the same benefits as state workers – dental and health coverage, 12 paid holiday days a year, at least 12 vacation days and 12 sick days a year, salary increases, access to the retirement program and training opportunities – “is definitely plowing some new ground in our state.” He pegged the cost for the benefits at $4.9 million a year.

An amendment would also require hiring three senior staffers to manage paperwork at an additional $631,000 annual cost, he said. The bill would impact an estimated 330 contracted workers who make $10,000 or more a year. It would only affect individuals who hold state contracts, not those working for contracted agencies.

“As an employer, I would be very concerned to see this being a model for something moving out into the private sector,” Blais said.

Contracting workers for something such as consultation work is common in the private sector, Blais said. It’s cheaper than hiring full-time workers, and often the contracted workers are self-employed and handle their own retirement and benefit needs. It would be complicated, Blais said, to contract a person for several months and have to start processing retirement and health benefit paperwork. After the contract expires, “Would they be eligible for COBRA?” he asked.

Sen. Beth Edmonds, D-Freeport, spoke for the bill on the floor. “If I’m working next to someone who’s doing exactly the same job I’m doing, working at it as hard as I am, and I’m a state employee and they’re a contract worker, they deserve the same thing. It’s a fairness issue for me.”

Senate President Beverly Daggett, D-Augusta, sponsor of the bill, said she was asked by the Maine State Employees Association to consider the bill. Daggett stressed that her bill would only impact “long-term” contract workers. It would be up to bureaucrats to define what a “long-term” contract worker was. “This isn’t like a temporary worker who works a week or two,” or works for a season, Daggett said.

There have been cases of workers contracted for years at a time, according to Susan Mitchell of the MSEA. Examples include workers in the Department of Revenue doing the same work as full-time state employees, under contract until 2008, she said. The state’s trying to save money on benefits, Mitchell stated.

[email protected]