MA EPR Commission continues to meet & work through product categoriesThe MA Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Commission continues to meet and make its way through the various product categories directed for study by its enabling statute. The Commission is charged with making policy recommendations on specific EPR approaches and other strategies for products and packaging categories including paint, mattresses, electronics, lithium-ion batteries, plastics and other packaging. To date, the Commission has held three full commission meetings and four Advisory Group meetings, with the advisory meetings taking a deeper dive on the topics of electronics and packaging. The Commission sent its first official policy recommendation to the Legislature in June, recommending “that the Massachusetts Legislature enact legislation on or before July 31, 2026 establishing an extended producer responsibility program for paint.” Rennie was the lone “NO” vote against the paint recommendation, arguing that the paint proposal is not a true EPR plan, as it is 100% financed by the consumer. Upcoming full Commission meetings in September and October will review the product categories of electronics (e-waste) and packaging.
Labor Committee continues review of additional leave mandatesThe Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development heard testimony this summer on several bills that seek to impose additional leave mandates on employers and interfere with the rights of employers to communicate with their employees. RAM staff expressed opposition in testimony to H.2064, An Act relative to bereavement leave for the loss of a child, S.1296, An Act protecting the right to time off for voting, and H.2152, An Act extending parental leave. MA employers already must comply with a number of costly, statutorily required, employee leave mandates which can result in significant disruptions to business operations. Now is not the time to add onto that burden, when many businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. RAM also submitted written testimony in opposition to H.2183, An Act to ban captive audience meetings, which is aimed at prohibiting employers from discussing certain topics, including unionization efforts, with their employees. The importance of communication between employers and employees cannot be understated. Where the subject matter of a legislative, regulatory or unionization effort has the potential to impact employees and their workplace, employers must have the opportunity to provide relevant information allowing those employees to make an informed decision about their future. The workplace is the natural forum for an employer to assemble and address employees in this manner, and has been protected as such for close to 80 years under federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
RAM opposes “The Fashion Act”In testimony before the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (ENR), RAM urged the Committee to reject H.1032, An Act to establish environmental accountability in the fashion industry. The bill, also known as The Fashion Act, seeks to further global environmental standards in the fashion industry. However, the bill in its extremes simply goes too far. If adopted, the legislation would impose a burdensome regulatory framework on retailers resulting in costly compliance, legal and reporting requirements. We highlighted that retail capabilities remain limited due to the length and complexity of supply chains, sourcing multiple consumer channels and including thousands of SKU’s that must be transported, stocked and sold. The cost of compliance would be significant and likely be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. This would put retailers that operate in the Commonwealth at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, and it would hurt the Commonwealth’s efforts to promote a welcoming business environment. The Committee has yet to act on the bill.
|