Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
MA Lawmakers to Weigh Four-Day Work Week The Massachusetts House Labor and Workforce Development Committee scheduled a hearing last week on legislation ( HB 3849 ) that would provide tax credits to businesses...
Bills to Overhaul Long-Term Care and Control Prescription Drug Costs on Move in MA The Massachusetts House unanimously passed a bill ( HB 4178 ) that would overhaul the long-term care industry, while...
OpenAI Ousts CEO Sam Altman The board of directors of OpenAI, developer of ChatGPT, announced on the company’s blog last week that its CEO Sam Altman would be stepping down. The blog post said...
For more than half a year, labor strife has swept the country. First, Hollywood writers went on strike in May. Then actors joined them in walking off the set a couple months later, in July. Detroit...
IL Lawmakers Approve Bill Lifting Moratorium on Nuclear Power Plants: The Illinois General Assembly passed legislation ( HB 2437 ) that, as amended, will lift a nearly four-decades-old moratorium on new...
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that federal law preempts a California law that allows private lawsuits on behalf of groups of workers, even if they had agreed to resolve their disputes through individual arbitration. In an 8-1 vote, the justices said the Federal Arbitration Act supersedes the California statute, the only one of its kind in the country. By doing so, the court said, employees were illegally allowed to escape binding arbitration agreements they signed at hiring.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) called the ruling “disappointing,” but said employees could still bring suits on behalf of others if they did not sign such an agreement. (LOS ANGELES TIMES, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICES)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said a tech industry-backed ballot question to change how gig workers are classified in the Bay State is unconstitutional because it contains “vaguely worded provisions” buried deep in a proposal that, in effect, melded two unrelated subjects under a single question.
Under the proposal, companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash, and others would have provided workers with some new benefits while continuing to classify their drivers and deliverers as independent contractors rather than employees. But the court ruled the proposal contained at least two “substantively distinct” issues, one of which was masked by “obscure language” that went far beyond just establishing a worker’s employee vs. contractor status. (BOSTON GLOBE)
--Compiled by RICH EHISEN