Compliance & Policy
The Employers’ Guide to Voting Leave Regulation and Early Voting
There are just 26 business days left not only to make sure your organization is up-to-date with state and local election rules governing employee voting leave requirements, but also to communicate and coordinate your Election Day plans with employees in order to ensure the minimal disruption to your workflow.
September 29, 2024

Key Takeaways

  • Election Day is 36 days away.
  • Make sure your organization is in compliance with relevant voting leave regulations.
  • Coordinating vote absences and encouraging early voting can help minimize election-related disruption to your productivity.

ARTICLE | The Employers’ Guide to Voting Leave Regulation and Early Voting

Election Day is Tuesday, November 5th, which is just 5 weeks away as of this posting.

That leaves just 26 business days not only to make sure your organization is up-to-date with state and local election rules governing employee voting leave requirements, but also to communicate and coordinate your Election Day plans with employees in order to ensure the minimal disruption to your workflow.

Below, we have compiled a list of relevant voting regulations by state as well as information about early voting that you can also share with employees and potentially reduce the number of absences concentrated on Election Day, as well.

The process of early voting has already begun in many places and will soon begin in many more, so let’s get to it.

Alabama: Employees in Alabama that begin work less than 2 hours after polls open or end work less than 1 hour before polls are entitled to 1 hour of voting leave if they give reasonable notice. There is no early voting in Alabama. 

Alaska: For employees that don’t already have at least 2 consecutive hours off duty when the polls are open on Election Day, employers are required to provide paid voting leave and allow as much time off as is reasonably necessary for employees to vote. The early voting window can differ in different districts but 15 days prior to Election Day is the norm.

Arizona: Employers in Arizona must provide employees with up to 3 hours of paid leave if they do not already have 3 hours in row when they are not scheduled to work on Election Day during when the polls are open. Employees must apply for voting leave in advance of Election Day, and employers can specify the hours on Election Day when employee’s utilize their voting leave, and employees. The early voting period in Arizona is different in different areas but begins about 15 days before Election Day in most districts.

Arkansas: In Arkansas, employers are required to adjust employee’s work schedules on Election Day in order to enable employees to vote. Early voting will begin 15 days prior to Election Day.

California: Employees who give their employer at least 2 working days notice of their intent to take time off work in order to vote are allowed up to 2 hours of paid voting leave at either the beginning or end of a shift, which combined with voting hours before/after the shift provide sufficient time for an employee to vote. Although there is some variation from one county to the next, in general early voting in California begins 29 days before Election Day.

Colorado: Employees that request voting leave and who do not already have 3 consecutive non-working hours during which the polls are open are entitled to paid voting leave. Employees can request that leave be at either the beginning or end of their shift, but employers can determine when leave is granted. Early voting begins in-person 15 days before Election Day in general, though there may be some variance between counties.

Connecticut: There are currently no voting leave rules in place in Connecticut as the last law regulating that issue expired in June 2024 and has not yet been replaced. Early voting begins 15 days prior to Election Day.

Delaware: Employers in Delaware are not required to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day. 

Florida: Florida law does not require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting schedules can differ from one county to another but early voting in Florida typically begins at least 10 days in advance of Election Day.

Georgia: Employees in Georgia are entitled by law to up to 2 hours of voting leave that can be used on Election Day or before via in-person early voting. That leave can be unpaid except for employees who can’t have their pay decreased due to absence from the job. Early voting begins the fourth Monday before Election Day, which is October 14th this cycle.

Hawaii: Elections in Hawaii are conducted by mail, and all registered voters should receive mail-in ballots automatically about 18 days in advance of Election Day. Voters can also turn in ballots or vote in person at service centers beginning 10 days prior to election day.

Idaho: There are no laws or regulations in Idaho that require employers to provide voting leave to employees. Some Idaho counties allow no early voting at all, but for the counties that do allow early voting, it begins the third Monday in advance of the election, which is October 21st this cycle.

Illinois: Employers are required to provide employees with up to 2 hours of paid voting leave if an employee doesn’t already have 2 consecutive hours of non-working time when the polls are open. Employers can use their discretion as to when the voting leave is exercised, and employees must apply for voting leave in advance of Election Day. Early voting in Illinois begins 40 days before Election Day.

Indiana: Indiana has no rules with regard to voting leave for employees. Early voting in Indiana begins 28 days before the election.

Iowa: Employees who request voting leave in writing in advance of Election Day are entitled to 3 consecutive hours of paid voting leave, assuming that there is not already a period of 3 consecutive non working hours when the polls are open. Employers, however, can set the time during which employees are allowed to exercise their voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Iowa starts 20 days prior to Election Day.

Kansas: Kansas law ensures that employees have at least 2 consecutive hours while the polls are open that they are not required to work. If the polls are open before or after an employee’s shift but for less than 2 consecutive hours, employers are required to provide complementary paid voting leave sufficient to amount to 2 consecutive hours when combined with the pre or post-shift open poll hours. Other than lunch hours, employers can also set when the voting leave is utilized. Early voting varies by country and begins up to 20 days prior to Election Day.

Kentucky: Employers in Kentucky must give employees up to 4 hours of leave that can be used either to cast a ballot on Election Day or to apply for an absentee ballot. To qualify, however, employees must request voting leave at least one day before they intend to utilize it, but employers can set the hours during which that voting leave is available on a given day and can penalize in certain cases employees who utilize voting leave but fail to actually vote. Early voting in Kentucky starts 5 days before the election.

Louisiana: There are no laws in Louisiana that require employers to provide voting leave to employees. Early voting in Louisiana starts 18 days before Election Day this cycle.

Maine: Employers in Maine are not required to provide employees with voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Maine begins 30 days prior to Election Day.

Maryland: In Maryland, employers are required to allow employees up to 2 hours of paid voting leave if an employee does not have at least 2 consecutive hours before or after their shift when polls are open. Employers, however, are allowed to require employees to submit a form that the state will provide as proof that they either voted or tried to vote if they utilized that voting leave. Early voting in Maryland opens two Thursdays prior to Election Day, which is October 24th this cycle.

Massachusetts: In Massachusetts, the only industries in which employers are required to provide employees with voting leave are the mercantile, manufacturing, and mechanical industries. Employers in those industries must provide employees with 2 hours of voting leave, while there are no voting leave requirements made of employers in other industries. Early voting starts 17 days in advance of Election Day.

Michigan: Michigan has no rules requiring employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins the second Saturday prior to Election Day, which falls on October 27th this cycle.

Minnesota: Employers in Minnesota must provide employees with paid leave for as long as necessary to enable employees to vote and return to work. In-person absentee voting begins 46 days before Election Day. 

Mississippi: No laws or regulations in Mississippi require employers to provide employees with voting leave, but Mississippi law does state that employers can’t take any adverse action against employees because they voted (or chose not to vote). Eligible absentee voters can begin casting their ballots 45 days before Election Day.

Missouri: Unless there are 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open already, employers in Missouri are required to provide employees with at least 3 hours in a row of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can require that employees who wish to exercise their voting leave apply to do so in advance of Election Day, and employers can choose when that voting leave is utilized. Beginning the second Tuesday before Election Day, which is October 22nd this cycle, Missouri offers in-person absentee voting in locations designated by local election county election officials. 

Montana: Employers in Montana have no duty to provide employees with voting leave. In-person absentee voting in Montana begins 30 days prior to the election.

Nebraska: For employees that don’t already have at least 2 consecutive hours off when the polls are open on Election Day, employers must provide up to 2 hours of paid voting leave at a time of the employer’s choosing if the employee requests voting leave either on or before Election Day. If an employee exercises voting leave without requesting it, however, it may be possible for that voting leave to be unpaid. Early voting begins 30 days before the election in Nebraska.

Nevada: Nevada employers must provide employees for whom it would be impractical to vote before or after work with paid voting leave - 1 hour of paid voting leave for employees who must travel 2 or fewer miles to vote, 3 hours of paid voting leave for employees who must travel more than 10 miles to vote, and 2 hours of paid voting leave for all other employees. Employers can determine the window during which that voting leave is exercised, and they can require that employees apply for voting leave in advance of election day as well. Early voting starts 17 days before Election Day. 

New Hampshire: Employers in New Hampshire are not required to provide voting leave to employees. New Hampshire offers neither early voting nor in-person, no-excuse absentee voting. 

New Jersey: There are no New Jersey laws requiring employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day.

New Mexico: If polls are not open for at least 2 hours in a row before an employee’s shift or for at least 3 hours in a row after an employee’s shift, then that employee is entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave, although employers can set when that leave is utilized. Early voting opens 28 days before Election Day. 

New York: Employees in New York who do not have 4 consecutive hours before or after their shift when the polls are open are entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can specify if the voting leave is utilized at the beginning or end of the scheduled work period, or at another time agreed upon by both the employer and employee. Early voting begins 10 days before Election Day. 

North Carolina: While North Carolina employers are not required to offer voting leave, employers that discharge employees for taking leave to vote may be in violation of rules prohibiting wrongful discharge. Early voting in North Carolina begins no sooner than 3 Thursdays prior to Election Day.

North Dakota: Employers in North Dakota are not required to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting schedules can differ by county but early voting tends to begin at least 15 days prior to Election Day. 

Ohio: Employers in Ohio must give employees a reasonable length of time off work on Election Day so that they may vote. Early voting in Ohio begins on the first business day that occurs 29 days before the election or less. 

Oklahoma: Employees who don’t have at least 3 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open before or after their shift are entitled to two hours of voting leave and potentially additional time beyond those 2 hours if distance to the voting site requires it. Employees must request voting leave at least one day before Election Day, but employers can set the day and hours during which employees can exercise their voting leave. Early voting this cycle begins the Wednesday before Election Day, which is October 30th.

Oregon: Employers in Oregon are not required to provide voting leave to employees, and Oregon does not have early voting in a traditional sense since Oregon elections are conducted largely through mail-in ballots. 

Pennsylvania: There are no requirements that Pennsylvania employers provide voters with voting leave. There is no statewide early voting, either, but some Pennsylvania counties allow voters to fill out absentee and mail-in ballots in person beginning 50 days before the election.

Rhode Island: There are no rules in Rhode Islands that require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting begins 20 days prior to Election Day.

South Carolina: Employers in South Carolina are not permitted to terminate employees as a result of exercising their voting rights, but there are no other rules with regard to voting leave. Early voting begins 15 days before Election Day.

South Dakota: Under South Dakota law, employees that don’t already have 2 consecutive non-working hours when the polls are open either before or after their shift are entitled to 2 hours of paid voting leave. Employers, however, can choose when the hours during which voting leave is utilized. In-person absentee voting begins 46 days prior to Election Day.

Tennessee: Employers are required to provide up to 3 hours of paid voting leave to employees if they don’t have 3 consecutive hours when polls are open either before or after their shifts. Employer’s may demand that employees request voting leave by noon on the day before Election Day and may also set the hours during which an employee utilizes their voting leave. Early voting in Tennessee begins 20 days before Election Day.

Texas: Employers in Texas must provide employees with at least 2 consecutive hours in which to vote if that employee doesn’t already have 2 consecutive hours off duty on Election Day when the polls are open. Early voting begins 17 days before the election if it’s a business day and if not, the next business day.

Utah: If an employee’s work shift on Election Day doesn’t allow for at least 3 consecutive off-duty hours when the polls are open and that employee requests voting leave before Election Day, employers are required to provide up to 2 hours of paid leave. Early voting in Utah begins 2 weeks prior to Election Day.

Vermont: There are no rules on the books requiring employers in Vermont to provide any employee voting leave, although state law does require employers to give employees unpaid leave to attend annual Town Hall Meetings if employees provide 7 days notice in advance. Vermont opens early voting from 45 days prior to the election until the day before Election Day.

Virginia: The only laws on the books in Virginia requiring employers to provide employees with election-related leave apply only to employees who are working as election officials. In-person absentee voting in Virginia begins 45 days before Election Day. 

Washington: Washington has no state laws or regulations that require employers to provide employees with voting leave. Early voting in Washington begins 18 days before the election.

West Virginia: Employees in West Virginia are entitled to up to 3 hours of voting leave unless those employees already have 3 consecutive non-working hours when polls are open. Employers, however, can demand that employees submit applications for voting leave at least 3 days in advance of Election Day. Early voting begins 13 days before Election Day

Wisconsin: Employers in Wisconsin must provide their employees with up to 3 hours of unpaid voting leave during the hours of the employer’s choosing to any employee that provides at least 1 day of notice. Early voting in Wisconsin begins no sooner than 2 weeks before Election Day.

Wyoming: For employees who do not have at least 3 hours in a row outside of their work shift when the polls are open, employers must provide at least 1 hour of paid leave, although employers are allowed to determine when that voting leave is utilized within the shift. In-person absentee voting starts 28 days before the election.

Mployer’s Take

If the election process is not already underway in your area, it will be very soon.

Employers seeking to minimize election-related confusion and disruption should be proactive in coordinating absences, communicating plans, and ensuring that disruptions in workflow and productivity are kept to an absolute minimum.

For the next 5 weeks, uncertainty about the outcome of the elections is an unfortunate inevitability, but there is no need for or benefit from uncertainty about how your organization will manage employees as they exercise their voting rights.

Clear expectations surrounding voting leave policy for both employers and employees best serves the interests of both parties.

Economy
The Market Employment Summary for August 2024
Each month, Mployer Advisor breaks down the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent State Employment and Unemployment Summary to highlight some employment trends across various markets. This is an overview of August’s report.
August 19, 2024

Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from July 2024 that was published in August 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

The two-tenths of a percent increase registered last month when the US unemployment rate average climbed from 4.1% to 4.3% was the largest jump we’ve seen in almost a year since the rate spiked from 3.5% to 3.8% between July and August 2023. 

In total, 13 states recorded an increase in their state unemployment rate averages over the month of July, led by Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Carolina, which all saw their unemployment rates increase by 0.3%. 

Connecticut was the only state that saw a reduced unemployment rate last month at minus 0.3%.

The 114 thousand new jobs added last month were about 35% below the predicted numbers, while only 2 states - New York and Oregon - registered a meaningful net addition to the number of payroll entries in each state. 

Missouri was the only state last month that recorded a significant net loss in jobs.

Below is the breakdown of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) market employment summary for August 2024.

States With the Highest Unemployment Rates

For 3 months in a row now, Washington DC has had the highest unemployment rate among ‘states’ - up one-tenth of a point from last month to 5.5% - followed by Nevada at 5.4% and California and Illinois at 5.2% unemployment, each.

Washington is the only state that currently has an unemployment rate in the 4% range at 4.9% as of last month, with all the other states coming in in the 3% and 2% unemployment range.

Last month, 13 states saw their unemployment rates climb - Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, and North Dakota each recorded a 0.1% increase; Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, and Utah each recorded a 0.2% increase; and Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Carolina each recorded a 0.3% increase in unemployment.

Over the last 12 months, 29 states have seen their unemployment rates increase, led by Rhode Island at plus 1.8%, followed by Ohio and South Carolina at plus 1.1%, and Washington at plus 1.0%.

States With The Lowest Unemployment Rates

South Dakota recorded an unemployment rate of 2.0% last month and retains the title of state with the lowest unemployment rate for the 7th month in a row.

Vermont, North Dakota, and New Hampshire posted the next lowest unemployment rates at 2.1%, 2.2%, and 2.5%, respectively.

The only state that recorded a reduction in its unemployment rate was Connecticut, which saw its unemployment rate drop by 0.3% over the month.

Over the last year, only Arizona and Michigan recorded net reductions in their unemployment rates at minus 0.5% and 0.4% each.

States With New Job Losses

Missouri was the only state to record a net decrease in job numbers over the course of July, dropping a little more than 22 thousand jobs and seeing their payrolls in state reduced by 0.7%.

No state recorded a net reduction in jobs over the course of the last year.

States With New Job Gains

Only New York and Oregon saw their payroll figures climb last month. New York added about 41 thousand jobs and Oregon added about 8 thousand jobs, amounting to about a 0.4% increase each.

Over the last 12 months, California has added the most jobs in terms of raw job numbers at plus about 284 thousand, followed by Texas at plus 265 thousand, and Florida at plus 229 thousand.

The largest proportional job increases over the last year have occurred in South Carolina (plus 3.7%), Nevada (plus 3.3%), Alaska plus (3.1%), and Montana (plus 3.0%).

Mployer's Take: 

Despite a respectable 100 thousand plus new jobs added to US payrolls last month, the employment data from July renewed a lot of speculation about an imminent economic downturn. 

In fact, one of the many metrics used to identify recession known as the Sahm Rule now indicates that we have in fact already entered one - although the accuracy of this metric as applied to the current economic conditions may be less useful than they normally would be as a result of the continuing effects of the COVID dip and recovery.

The stock market saw a steep decline of more than 5% over the first 5 days of the month, as well - which also added fuel to the recession predictors' fire and led to significant speculation that a past-due market correction was at hand.

As of this writing two business weeks later, however, the DOW has recovered 99.5% of the losses in the dip from earlier this month in part due to an influx of cash from retail investors looking to take advantage of some relatively cheaper prices, and a major correction no longer appears to be at hand. 

With the Fed set to meet again in just over 4 weeks and most forecasts predicting a quarter to half point cut in baseline interest rates, we may be in a position soon in which an economic downturn looks less likely than it did even just a few weeks ago.

The fact that trends sometimes appear to be shifting in a matter of weeks speaks to a degree of volatility in the current economic climate, however, and with elections coming up in just a couple months in which control of Congress and the presidency are up for grabs, increased volatility is certainly possible if not likely.

We may soon get the opportunity to find out how much of a stabilizing factor the presumed interest rate cut turns out to be, assuming that it comes to pass in September as expected. 

Looking for more exclusive content? Check out the Mployer blog.

Medical Benefits
Health Care In the 2024 Elections and Beyond
While healthcare is not a major focus on the campaign trail, it will surely be a key topic after the inauguration and both candidates have differing opinions on everything from reining in costs, to the Affordable Care Act, abortion and contraception, and LBGTQ rights.
August 13, 2024

Key Takeaways

-While healthcare is not a major focus on the campaign trail, it will surely be a key topic after the inauguration and both candidates have differing opinions on everything from reining in costs, to the Affordable Care Act, abortion and contraception, and LBGTQ rights

- Where candidates do align are on pharmacy, transparency and doing something about costs

- A future Harris administration is likely to continue trying to expand and improve upon the ACA, promote ICHRAs, negotiate lower drug prices collectively, protect against price gouging, and improve healthcare transparency

- A future Trump administration is likely to give additional power to state governments for negotiating drug prices and deciding on the legality of reproductive care within their borders, may return to replacing and or repealing Obamacare, and protect against price gouging and improve healthcare transparency, as well

ARTICLE | Health Care In the 2024 Elections and Beyond

The next couple of years are likely to be pivotal in shaping the future of US healthcare for potentially decades to come.

Despite the current presidential and congressional election cycles continuing to heat up on the federal level, there has been relatively little discussion on healthcare policy so far this year relative to recent cycles. 

Just because they are not making headlines, however, there of course remain substantial differences between each side of the aisle’s competing vision for both how the healthcare system should operate and for the federal government’s role in facilitating and/or regulating those operations.

Further, while healthcare-related issues may not be currently commanding the national spotlight as they have for the last 14 years as other issues (and non-issues) have taken center stage, healthcare is likely to surge once again to the forefront of people’s minds next year when healthcare expenses are predicted to spike and pressure will grow considerably for a governmental response from whichever politicians win their races this fall.

In short, while there may be an increasing amount of noise, we likely won't hear anything material on healthcare until months or even years after the inauguration of the winning administration. 

But, fear not, the healthcare debate will arise again at some point in 2025 and 2026 and the usual healthcare themes of the day will be back in the mix - PBM, transparency, Medicare fee schedules, etc. - but rest assured that there will be impacts to employer sponsored healthcare depending on who wins the election. 

Given that we are likely approaching a situation on the medical cost front in the years ahead that is going to demand action from our elected officials, and since we don’t yet know who those elected officials will be, we thought it might be a good idea to discuss a little about each party’s platform and plans going forward with regard to healthcare in order to inform how they might respond when the time comes.

Medical Cost Trend

History As Precedent

One good thing about the upcoming presidential election is that both major party candidates have been a part of very recent presidential administrations - as president and vice president respectively - so there are records available to point to when predicting priorities and how their different policy approaches toward health care issues might be expected to play out for whomever is in office next term.

In comparing those records, the Kaiser Family Foundation recently released information covering how each of the last two presidential administrations handled a number of different healthcare topics including the ACA, abortion, contraception, LGBTQ health, prescription drug prices, health care costs, mental health, and the opioid epidemic.

ACA

  • Biden-Harris: Expanded ACA access eligibility through 2025, closed the “family glitch” coverage gap, reinstated funding for outreach and enrollment assistance. 
  • Trump-Pence: Attempted to repeal and replace the ACA in 2017, allowed enhanced ACA direct enrollment through online brokers, proposed a block grant to states to address pre-existing conditions, weakened individual mandate enforcement, and reduced funding for outreach and enrollment assistance.

Abortion

  • Trump-Pence: Regulated clinicians in clinics that receive Title X family planning funding to prevent them from providing abortion information or referrals, appointed Supreme Court justices that cast the deciding votes in overturning Roe v. Wade, and prohibited US global health funds from going to non-governmental organizations that either promote abortions or offer them as services.
  • Biden-Harris: Revised regulations on abortion medication to enable dispensation via certified pharmacies and telehealth platforms, strengthened HIPAA protection and travel rights for abortion seekers, supported codifying Roe v. Wade standards as national standards, and Harris became the only President or Vice President to visit an abortion clinic while in office. 

Contraception

  • Biden-Harris: Approved first over-the-counter contraceptive pills, reinstated rules requiring Title X family planning programs to provide a full range of contraceptives, and promoted contraception coverage as required in the ACA.
  • Trump-Pence: Exempted employers from ACA contraceptive coverage requirements based on moral or religious grounds, restricted family planning clinics that offer abortion services from qualifying for Title X funding.

LGBTQ Health

  • Trump-Pence: Removed health care protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation, broadened protections for health care entities to deny services based on conscientious objection, and proposed a prohibition on gender-affirming care for young people.
  • Biden-Harris: Issued regulations to provide protection to LGBTQ people in grants and services associated with HHS, supported plaintiffs in challenging state laws banning gender affirming care for young people, rescinded Trump-era conscientious objection protections, and expanded protections for gender identity and sexual orientation via Section 1557 of the ACA.

Prescription Drug Prices

  • Biden-Harris: Improved government’s ability to negotiate prices for some drugs covered by Medicare via the Inflation Reduction Act, expanded gene and cell therapy access for people on Medicaid, delayed implementation of a Trump-era drug rebate that will increase Medicare spending. 
  • Trump-Pence: Created a model that allowed some Medicare Part D plans to put a $35 cap on monthly insulin costs and put a cap on associated out-of-pocket expenses, enabled states to import prescription drugs from Canada via a new pathway, proposed eliminating Medicare Part D drug rebates.

Healthcare Costs

  • Trump-Pence: Protected patients from unexpected out-of-network medical bills, issued rules regarding price transparency and posting prices for medical services, challenged some anti-competitive behavior between players in the healthcare industry.
  • Biden-Harris: Proposed the removal of medical debt from credit reports, proposed expanding protections for out-of-network surprise bills, improved price transparency, improved Medicare’s ability to negotiate some drug prices, released updated merger guidelines to reduce anti-competitive behavior in the healthcare space.

Mental Health

  • Biden-Harris: Promoted maternal mental health awareness, expanded mental health and substance abuse treatment, increased licensing flexibility for social workers to help address mental healthcare worker shortages, increased school behavioral health services, improved Medicaid mental health care access, and enhanced crisis care and 988 hotline mobile access.
  • Trump-Pence: Issued an executive order regarding veteran suicide and established the 988 hotline, expanded Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, expanded short term policies not compliant with the ACA that often don’t include or limit services related to mental health. 

The Opioid Epidemic

  • Trump-Pence: Declared a public health emergency regarding opioid addiction and proposed harsher penalties up to the death penalty for drug smugglers and dealers. 
  • Biden-Harris: Improved access to evidence-based treatment and awareness/prevention education, reduced obstacles inhibiting opioid users from medication to help treat their addiction, and launched a nationwide initiative to improve overdose outcomes via overdose reversal training and increased availability of overdose medication.

Annual Percent Change in CPI - All Goods vs. Medical Care

If Kamala Harris and Democrats Win Election

While the nominating convention is not officially until mid-August and therefore no official party platform has yet to be formalized, the draft that was released a couple weeks ago does include a few healthcare related notes.

For one, the platform draft makes a point to note that the Biden-Harris administration has already taken steps that have resulted in significant cost savings in the US healthcare system, including passing the PACT act to expand veteran health care coverage, capping insulin prices at $35 dollars a month for many seniors, and saving Americans an average of $800 dollars a year on their health care premiums. 

In terms of plans going forward, a Harris-Walz administration is expected to continue pushing to expand the ACA as well as the use of ICHRAs, for example, while continuing to fix coverage gaps and oversights that exist within the current system, like the “family glitch” correction under the Biden-Harris administration that allowed dependants of people with budget-exceeding employer-sponsored healthcare to receive ACA subsidies. 

The party platform also outlines the plan to continue building on the Biden administration’s actions enabling Medicare representatives to negotiate lower drug prices on an additional 50 drugs per year.

Further, Harris has endorsed restoring Roe v. Wade’s national standard of legal abortion up to viability, expanding telehealth coverage, and protecting the viability and accessibility of Medicare for future generations.  

If Donald Trump And Republicans Win Election

A new Trump administration may continue pushing for individual state governments to take on more responsibility for the health of the citizens they serve and the laws that expand or restrict the quality and kind of medical care available to those citizens, including pushing their plan to create new pathways enabling states to import drugs from Canada and to allow state governments to decide the legality of abortion and reproductive-related health care issues. 

Earlier this year, former president Trump also declared a renewed interest in repealing Obamacare, which could potentially result in the removal of healthcare coverage for as many as 50 million people currently insured via the ACA exchanges, depending on what if anything replaces Obamacare if/when it is repealed.

For employers and the 55% of people who get their healthcare from their employers, the largest impact of ACA repeal would likely be felt by the tens of millions of people with pre-existing conditions who would experience ‘job lock’ and risk not only losing their insurance if they lose or leave their employer, but they also risk losing the ability to obtain health insurance coverage in the future, whether employer-sponsored or not.

Despite Trump’s declarations, in any case, the GOP nominating convention platform that was released last month made no mention of healthcare policy or any intention to repeal and/or replace the Affordable Care Act, so it is currently unclear if GOP healthcare policy remains consistent with Trump’s statement and the platform positions of recent nominating conventions or if that policy is in flux. The platform also notably did not include a national abortion ban.

A future Trump-Vance administration might also restore rules enacted during the first Trump-Pence administration that have been since repealed by the Biden-Harris Administration, including reinstating additional work requirements and eligibility requirements for Medicaid applicants, restrictions to prevent Title IX funds going to abortion providers, and exemptions to allow employers to deny contraception coverage as required by the ACA.

Mployer’s Take

With the only obvious overlapping agreement between parties being concerns about high drug costs and a lack of price transparency, the lack of specificity about the health-care-related plans and policies they would pursue in office may be one of the greatest similarities between the parties at the moment.

The luxury of keeping plans vague on an issue as broadly important as healthcare only lasts as long as people and pundits have focused their attention elsewhere, which only lasts as long as the immediate negative effects of rising healthcare costs remain indirect.

When people feel more and more of those growing expenses on a personal level as employers, insurers, and providers start making changes to their own policies in order to curb the increasing costs in the coming years, however, these issues won’t remain abstract and of little concern for long.

Faced with increasing costs and worsening outcomes, the need to reform the healthcare system will once again likely become a prominent topic of both discussion and contention, and the calls for change will grow regardless of which party controls the reigns of powers. 

The main current questions of relevance are how loud will the calls for change grow, what actions will be taken in response, and by whom - and at this particular point in time, there are no particularly clear answers to any of those questions.

Economy
The Employment Situation for August 2024
The latest economic release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the U.S. added an underwhelming 114 thousand new jobs last month, while the unemployment rate jumped 0.2% up to 4.3%.
August 2, 2024

Editor's Note: This report is based on survey data from July 2024 that was published in August 2024. This is the most recent data available. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

The US unemployment rate has been climbing for four straight months now with the most recent jump rising by two-tenths of a percentage point, which is double the one-tenth increases we’ve seen in each of the previous 3 months.

Meanwhile, US employers added 114 thousand jobs, which was well below the 175 thousand net jobs that were expected and more closely resembles the average monthly job growth anticipated each month over the next year than the more than 200 thousand jobs averaged each month over the last year, indicating we may have crossed the tipping point.

Interestingly, temporary layoffs increased by just under a quarter million, which was more than a 30% increase month over month, and the number of people employed part time because of economic reasons rose by almost 350 thousand, revealing both a softening economy and employers’ hopes that the issues necessitating the staffing reduction are temporary, as well.

The number of people who are not currently working but who want a job also increased by a little more than 350 thousand to reach about 5.6 million last month.

The 114 thousand net new jobs added to US payrolls last month were fairly concentrated among a small set of industries. In fact, the healthcare industry alone claimed nearly half of those new jobs, with 55 thousand people joining the ranks of employed health care workers over the course of July - down slightly from the 63 thousand monthly jobs US healthcare employers added on average over the last 12 months.

The construction industry added about 25 thousand jobs last month, which is more than 30% above the average construction job monthly gains over the last year, while the transportation and warehousing industries netted about 14 thousand jobs, and social assistance jobs rose by a total of about 9 thousand - a figure that is down by about 60% from its average over the trailing 12 months. 

The information industry saw a loss of about 20 thousand jobs over the course of July, which is likely to get worse next month with another 15 thousand job cuts expected from Intel alone in September, but the remaining surveyed industries were essentially unchanged through the month, with payroll figures in the natural resource extraction and processing industries, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, financial activities, professional services, and leisure and hospitality industries all seeing no meaningful month-to-month change. 

Average hourly earnings rose to cross the $35 per hour threshold in July, increasing by 8 cents (0.2%) up to $35.07 per hour, while the average workweek dropped by one-tenth of an hour down to 34.2 hours per week.

Mployer’s Take

We discussed last month how economists were fairly split in their interpretation of the report released in July as to whether or not the softening of the job market and economic slowdown were reaching an ideal inflation-dampening balance or whether the data indicated that we were approaching a potentially more problematic downturn. 

This latest report clearly bolsters the argument of the latter group with job additions coming in more than 30% below the (even weakening) expectations, but the longer-term implications remain far from cut and dried.

The unemployment rate also crossed a worrisome threshold last month, with the 3-month average unemployment rate now exceeding a half point increase over the low unemployment rate within the last year, which is a metric that is often pointed to as a sign that the economy is in recession, although the nature of the pandemic rebound and atypically low unemployment over the last year make this measure somewhat less persuasive than it often has been in the past.

While wages continue to grow, they are doing so at a much slower rate, rising by about 3.6% over the last year, which slightly outpaces the 3.0% inflation recorded over approximately the same time frame.

The economic slowdown that the Federal Reserve has been targeting through their extended interest rate hiking campaign seems to have materialized to a critical mass, but the question now shifts to whether we’ve pumped the brakes just enough to reduce speed or hard enough to lock up the brakes and cause an economic skid. 

It still remains to be seen whether Fed leadership will ultimately implement the first of the long-awaited base interest rate cuts that should reduce some of the job market and economic cooling influence those higher rates have had over the last couple of years, but the significant increase in temporary layoffs seems to indicate that a substantial amount of employers believe that interest rate relief may come in time to keep those jobs from turning into longer term and/or permanent layoffs. 

While the markets clearly didn’t react favorably to the report, the odds of an interest rate cut when the Fed convenes in September now seem to be close to a 2 to 1 favorite in favor of the interest rate cut at the moment, and if the employment situation report in early September continues in line with the trends that we’ve seen over the last few months, the likelihood of a rate cut in September will climb even higher.

Check out the Mployer blog here.

Market Insights
Employment Regulation, AI, & DEI: 2024 Mid-Year Review
Looking back on predictions for 2024 before the year started to see how trends have have met and defied expectations.
August 1, 2024

Key Takeaways:

  • Regulatory uncertainties surrounding employment/labor law, AI use, and DEI initiatives are likely going to impact these areas over the next several years and beyond
  • Some states have been making more legislative progress than the federal government on issues like paid sick/family leave, AI, and income equality issues
  • Support for AI and DEI among business leaders remains high, but AI usage seems to be on a more upward trajectory while DEI initiatives may be in decline

ARTICLE | Employment Regulation, AI, & DEI: 2024 Mid-Year Review

It feels fairly safe to say that 2024 has been an eventful year so far on a lot of fronts, and now that we are a little more than half way through it, we thought it might be worthwhile to look back at some of the challenges and opportunities that employers expected to encounter this year in order to take stock, reflect on the previous 6 months, and inform the next 6 months ahead. 

The Littler Annual Employer Survey for 2024 surveyed 400 lawyers, executives, and human resources professionals about a wide variety of labor, compliance, and workforce management issues before the year began, and the resulting data provides valuable insight into how business leaders expected the year to unfold, including predictions that may be even more interesting in hindsight than they were as forecasts.

Some of the issues we’ll be highlighting include employment law and regulation, artificial intelligence use in human resources processes, and DEI initiative trends.

Employment Law & Regulatory Changes

At the cusp of 2024, survey respondents in general expected a relatively tame regulatory environment with minimal changes, in part as a result of the forthcoming presidential election occupying a significant amount of lawmaker attention - especially in Washington DC.

The regulatory areas where employers expected to see the most legislative and/or rule-making activity were paid sick/family leave, income inequality, and artificial intelligence in human resources - all of which were areas where more than half of respondents expected change.

With regard to paid sick leave, the first 6 months of 2024 have indeed seen some movement on the state level with new/expanded paid sick leave requirements in Connecticut, California, Washington, and the city of Chicago, as well as ballot initiatives in the works to put the issue of mandatory paid sick leave directly to the voters of Alaska, Missouri, and Nebraska this fall. Approximately 40% of states currently have some form of paid sick leave mandate in place.

There has also been some noteworthy state-level movement toward new or bolstered paid family leave protections for employees in Georgia, New York, New Mexico, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Colorado, with at least 13 states and counting now requiring employers to provide employees with at least some form of paid family leave. 

As for income-inequality reducing measures, on July 1st the Wage and Hour division at the Department of Labor posted the final rule expanding overtime protections via revising highly compensated employee and executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemptions to raise the threshold for qualifying employees. 

There were also a number of new state laws addressing pay transparency, the lack of which can apply significant downward pressure on wages as a result of a bargaining power imbalance between employees and employers. Hawaii, Minnesota, Vermont, and Washington DC all enacted new pay transparency requirements while Maryland expanded on the pay transparency regulations it already has on the books. 

While still accounting for nearly 6 in 10 respondents, the proportion that expected changes in paid sick leave and income-inequality laws was still down by about 10% from the year before when ~7 in 10 respondents expressed similar expectations, which is a drop that can probably be explained by an election-related decrease in governing activity. The percentage of survey respondents who anticipated new rules covering artificial intelligence in the hiring practice, on the other hand, increased from 20% in the 2023 report to 51% in 2024. 

Despite the steep upward trajectory in the number of business leaders expecting AI regulation to see some major changes this year, so far that prediction has largely failed to materialize on the federal level. While the DOL issued some guidance in April on when and how AI can be used appropriately in the hiring process, those recommendations were non-binding and limited to federal contractors, at least for the time being.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also issued its own guidance in May on how to avoid violating the Americans With Disabilities Act when using AI in the hiring practice, but the single most practical tip included may be not to rely on vendor assurances that a given piece of software is in compliance, because the responsibility for ensuring there is no impermissible bias influencing the hiring process ultimate falls to the employer from a legal standpoint regardless of whether or not AI was utilized.

Ultimately, much of the headway in terms of AI hiring practice regulation has been made in state legislatures with Colorado enacting the first comprehensive AI regulatory scheme in May 2024, building upon what New York started last year in enacting the country’s first AI law, with California, Illinois, Georgia, and Washington all considering and/or in the process of adopting AI regulations, as well.

Direct regulatory changes, proposals, and guidance aside, the biggest regulatory-related event of 2024 is almost certainly the Supreme Court’s decision to end the judicial practice of Chevron deference, overturning 40 years of precedent during which time federal regulators needed only show that their interpretations of unclear legislative language was reasonable in order for the rules they crafted based on those interpretations to be upheld.

Of course, while it is not clear from the data whether or not respondents would have predicted this outcome, the survey does indicate that nearly 8 in 10 respondents believed that the way federal regulators have interpreted labor and employment law has created challenges for their organizations. 

There is, however, no data about what proportion of respondents would also claim that the underlying employment and labor laws themselves create challenges for their organizations, but this metric will be interesting to track through subsequent reports as more rules that relied upon Chevron are challenged in court and some are presumably overturned as competitors across various industries test the limits of what is now allowable.

In What Areas Do You Expect To See Employment Law Changes Over The Next Year?

AI Utilization In HR

An absence of meaningful AI regulation in most states and nationally has created an environment where some employers are hesitant to lean into AI too heavily before a clearer picture emerges of what those rules and their enforcement will look like, while other employers are taking advantage of the opportunity to fill the void and explore potential AI uses with limited restraint. 

Among survey respondents at least, the proportions of employers are nearly evenly split between those playing the waiting game versus those charging ahead and on-boarding AI applications in their human resources operations - with 51% not using AI while 49% do.

Concern about liability exposure related to AI usage seems to be a driving factor behind adoption hesitance, with about 7 in 10 respondents being moderately to very concerned about AI usage and compliance with data privacy laws, for example. 

About 7 in 10 respondents also claim to be working to some degree with AI developers and providers in order to minimize data privacy, bias, data breach, and other AI-related issues, but given that half of those proactive respondents are only working ‘to a small extent’ with AI programmers and developers to resolve these issues, there’s clearly a great deal of room for improvement in this area.

Is Your Organization Working With AI Tool Developers To Assess Potential Risks Like Bias and Privacy Issues?

How Concerned Is Your Organization About Challenges of Data Protection and IT Security Law Compliance?

Of the employers that are currently using AI for workforce management and human resources purposes, the most popular usage is the creation and management of HR-related documents, like writing job listings and intaking/organizing new documents, which is a practice that about 53% of AI-utilizing employers have adopted, while a similar proportion (47%) are using AI to operate chatbots for internal use that can answer employee and manager questions about company policies and work procedures, etc.

Only about one-third of AI-utilizing employers are using the technology to communicate with job candidates or conduct automated interviews, while about 1 in 4 are using AI for employee training, and about 1 out of 7 use AI for employee performance management purposes.

How Are AI-Utilizing Employers Utilizing AI?

A recent poll from Deel last month seems to indicate that these trends remain largely on track. 

Although a smaller proportion of HR decision-makers (36%) have woven AI into their workflow process than HR staff in general who have done so, 23% of HR decision-makers not currently utilizing AI plan to do so within the next year, which will bring the total number of HR decision-makers that will be utilizing AI to more than half of all HR decision-makers if those plans come to fruition.

Further, 61% of respondents expect AI to make a major impact on the human resources industry over the next 5 years, and that expectation is even higher among respondents age 34 or younger (85%), many of whom will presumably be growing within their careers and gaining additional decision-making capacity over those 5 years, which may provide some self-fulfilling-prophecy-tailwinds to continue pushing AI adoption rates along.

DEI Initiatives

Almost 60% of C-level executive respondents claimed that they had increased their company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to some extent over the past couple years.

Although a majority agreed that the backlash against these programs had intensified following the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based admissions in the summer of 2003, more than 9 in 10 C-level respondents claimed that ruling did not lead them to back away from or reduce focus on these programs.

Despite that stated support, more than 1 out of 3 agreed or strongly agreed that their organization was somewhat uncertain about how to lawfully continue and progress the missions of their DEI initiatives. 

More than half-way through the year now, however, it appears either the C-level support behind DEI initiatives may have been overstated given some of the high profile DEI downsizing efforts that we've seen and given the continuing downward trend of DEI employment numbers depicted in the graph from Revilio below.

Even the Society of Human Resources management has altered its messaging to remove ‘equity’ from the DEI equation, and now simply promotes DI, which is not an encouraging testament on their confidence in DEI brand perception.

DEI Talent Headcount At Major US Companies

Mployer's Take

From business regulation, to AI use and DEI initiatives, each of the topics covered in this piece seem to be at a crossroads of sorts.

On the legal and regulatory front, employers largey got what they wanted with the Supreme Court overturning the Chevron decision, what remains to be seen over the next couple of years is whether the potential unintended consequences lead to any buyers's remorse, and if so, how much.

With all manner of industry-specific regulation now ripe for challenge and adjudication by federal judges who may come to very different conclusions in different jurisdictions, employers will likely respond to the uncertainty in a variety of ways, with some being more cautious and others proactively seeking out opportunities to exploit in order to gain an advantage over their competitors. 

Some of the uncertainty surrounding the future of AI use and DEI initiatives stems from a similar uncertainty about the legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding these issues. While expectations for the future prospects of both AI use in the HR field and DEI initiatives generally remain high among respondents, the trajectory of AI seems to be going up while the trajectory for DEI seems to be going in the other direction, although reinvigorated efforts by interested parties could potentially reverse those trends.

As these regulatory uncertainties get ironed out over time, both AI adoption and DEI reinvestment seem primed for increased prevalence, but with regulatory uncertainty potentially rising to all time highs isn the coming years, it may take longer than it normally would have to get some of those regulatory uncertainties resolved.

Compliance & Policy
Legal/Compliance Roundup - August 2024
Each month, Mployer collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources.
July 31, 2024

Each month, Mployer collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources. 

State Update

Minnesota: Beginning August 1, 2024 Minnesota employment law related on the topics of wage statement record keeping, continuation of pregnancy and parenting-related benefits, electronic tips, and drug testing via oral fluids have all been updated in accordance with the recently signed law SF 3852.

Florida: On September 30, will increase from $12 to $13 dollars per hour (up to $9.98 for tipped employees).

Oregon: On July 1, 2024 the minimum wage in the Portland Metro area increased to $15.95 per hour while the so-called “standard” counties saw their minimum wage rates climb to $14.70 and the minimum wage in nonurban counties rose to $13.70 per hour.

Overtime/Minimum Wage Exemption Threshold Increases Began July 1, 2024

The Department of Labor recently increased the pay thresholds for Executive, Administrative, and Professional employees (EAP) including salaried computer workers, and Highly Compensated Employees (HCEs) to remain exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime laws.

One month ago on July 1, 2024, the EAP exemption threshold rose from $35,568 to $43,888. That threshold number is also set to rise again the following year on January 1, 2025, when the EAP exemption minimum annual salary rises to $58,656, after which automatic increases will begin July 1, 2027 and every three years after that. 

The increase in the minimum HEC exemption threshold follows a similar path, with the first increase up to $132,964 July 1, 2024 as well, before increasing again to $151,164 on January 1, 2025 and every three years after beginning on July 1, 2027. 

The overtime and minimum wage exemption threshold for computer workers that are paid hourly remains at $27.63 per hour, while the threshold for computer workers paid on salaried basis is linked with the EAP minimum. 

You can find more about these exemption threshold increases here

HSA & HDHP Inflation Adjustments Announced

The IRS announced the 2025 adjustments to health savings account and high deductible health plans:

The self-coverage limit increased by $150 to $43,00 while the family coverage limit increased by $250 to $8,550.

  • There was a $50 dollar increase on the minimum annual HDHP deductible, bringing it up to $1,650, while the family coverage deductible rose by $100 up to $3,300. 
  • The maximum yearly out-of-pocket expenses for single coverage HDHPs, including premiums, deductibles, and other related expenses) rose by $250, up to $8,300, while the family coverage equivalent increased by $500, up to $16,600

You can read more about the adjustments here

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act NOW IN EFFECT

The final regulations in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect on June 18, 2024.

Some of the accommodations that the final rule presumes to be reasonable absent an especially significant justification for denying the accommodation, including allowing pregnant employes to: 

  • Take breaks to eat and drink;
  • Keep water nearby;
  • Use the restroom as needed; and
  • Sit or stand as needed

The rule also places a number of limitations for when employers can require supporting documentation in order for employees to request or receive accommodations under the rule, allowing employers to request such documentation only when it is reasonable under the circumstances.

The final rule also requires accommodations for medical appointments, and defines certain terms broadly enough to require accommodations for medical care involving fertility, contraception, and situations when pregnancies abruptly end whether willfully or not. 

You can find the final rule here.

Employee Benefits
Mployer Announces 2024 Winners of Fourth Annual ‘Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards’ in Arizona and New Mexico
Nashville, Tenn.– July 23, 2024 – Mployer, the industry-leader in providing employee benefits research, ratings, and reviews, has named over 750 brokerage office winners nationally in more than 50 regions as part of its fourth annual “Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards” for 2024.
Author:
July 23, 2024

Nashville, Tenn.– July 23, 2024 – Mployer, the industry-leader in providing employee benefits research, ratings, and reviews, has named over 750 brokerage office winners nationally in more than 50 regions as part of its fourth annual “Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards” for 2024.  

Mployer’s Top Employee Benefits Consultant Award Program evaluates each benefits broker and consultant office based on their depth of experience across employer industries, sizes, and plan design features, as well as employer client ratings and reviews.  

“We are proud to recognize this distinct group of 2024 top-rated insurance advisors as part of our fourth annual Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards,” said Brian Freeman, CEO of Mployer. “Employer-sponsored healthcare and benefits provide care for over 160M Americans. Who an employer selects as their benefits advisor and their plan design has more impact on employee cost and satisfaction than who an employer chooses as the insurance carrier. We have rated each broker using our proprietary M Score and applaud the winners’ demonstrated commitment to service, quality, and positive employer experience.”

In Arizona and New Mexico, Mployer has named over 25 benefit brokerages as top brokerages with several of the highest-scoring winners in the market listed below. The Arizona and New Mexico job markets are among the most competitive in the U.S. Southwestern region, employing more than 0.9 million people in New Mexico, and 3.2 million in Arizona. Offering competitive employee benefits is a critical factor in hiring top talent for the region’s employers. Finding and partnering with a highly-rated insurance consultant is imperative to attracting and retaining talent in any market.    

Several of the “Top Employee Benefits Consultant Awards” for Arizona and New Mexico include:  

To see the full list of Top Employee Benefit Consultant Award winners for Arizona and New Mexico, visit Mployer. The above winners are a snapshot of Mployer's matrices and proprietary M Score as of July 2024.

About Mployer:  

Mployer is transforming employee benefits by empowering employers and leading benefit consultants to easily assess, rate, and communicate the value of employee benefits. Providing industry-first transparency through unbiased research, benchmarking, and advanced analytics, our goal is to support employers and brokers in providing benefit plans that optimize costs and employee-employer relationships. To learn more about Mployer, visit https://mployeradvisor.com and follow us on LinkedIn.  

Disclaimer: Rankings are dynamic, and this report may not reflect the rankings currently listed on Mployer’s website. Because Mployer’s research is ongoing, interested companies that want to join next year’s list are encouraged to claim their free profile on Mployer.

Media Contact:  

Anthony Waters

Anthony.waters@mployeradvisor.com