Last edited 10:42 a.m., March 19, 2012Two out of three legislative priorities identified by chambers of commerce around the state are moving swiftly through the General Assembly.
Reforms to employment law and workers’ compensation are gaining traction in both the state House of Representatives and Senate, but desired tort law changes have not made it to a floor vote, said Sandy Howard, vice president of public affairs for the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce.
The Springfield chamber is among those in Kansas City and St. Louis, as well as business groups such as the National Federation of Independent Businesses, that threw support behind the Missouri Business Climate Agenda, and the three key legislative issues this year, outlined by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
Status updateAn initiative tied to employment law passed in the House Feb. 9 and in the Senate March 8, and House Bill 1219 now awaits the governor’s signature. The bill revises the Missouri Human Rights Act, the state’s version of the Civil Rights Act, raising the standard of proof in discrimination lawsuits to match the federal standard.
The coalition seeks to change state law in discrimination claims by raising the standard of proof in terminations to a motivating factor, as opposed to a contributing factor, the current standard.
Proponents say the measure would reduce frivolous lawsuits, while opponents – including Gov. Jay Nixon – have said it discourages a diverse work force. A similar measure passed both the House and Senate last year, but Nixon vetoed it.
Workers’ compensation reform may turn back the clock to 2005, if Senate Bill 572 is passed into law. SB 572 was passed in the House March 7 by an 88-67 vote. Reforms seven years ago had the unintended consequence of allowing employees to sue co-workers, and it made businesses vulnerable to employees with occupational diseases, according to Howard.
The latest measure would require that occupational diseases are exclusively covered under workers’ compensation laws, and that co-workers would be released from all liability for workplace injuries or death.
(Editor's Note: On March 16, the day after "Business bills make moves in Jeff City" went to press, Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed House Bill 1219 and Senate Bill 572. Click here for a story on that update.)
SB 572 originally would have reformed Missouri’s Second Injury Fund, which exists to support those with pre-existing conditions that are worsened in a workplace injury. That portion of the bill was eliminated by lawmakers through a substitute bill adopted Feb. 15.
SB 807 would limit future Second Injury claims by reducing the number of qualifying pre-existing conditions to help save the ailing fund.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster last month said the Second Injury Fund, which had a surplus of $25 million in 2005, now has unpaid bills of $14 million on more than 180 claimants. Failure to resolve the fund has cost taxpayers $1.3 million in interest just in the last 10 months, he said, recommending either eliminating the fund altogether or increasing rates that businesses have to pay.
“This is an issue that is vitally important to our chamber and its members because it has the potential to affect every business in the state,” Howard said.
Moving to a joint and several liability system with regard to tort law benefits private businesses, Howard said. Reforms in 2008 established the current 51 percent standard, which means a defendant has to pay for the liability of the co-defendant only if the first defendant was 51 percent at fault or more. Prior to that, if a defendant was found to have 1 percent liability, but had the ability to pay the full judgment and other parties didn’t claim any assets, the party with ability to pay might shoulder the full judgment.
Howard acknowledged movement on that front has been lackluster to date. HB 1298, a bill that would reform tort law, was perfected on Feb. 27, but it hasn’t gone to the floor for a vote.
HB 1298 would change the determination of a defendant’s liability in a tort action for damages based on each individual party’s liability. No hearing was scheduled as of March 14.
Additional prioritiesHoward said Springfield chamber officials also are advocating for initiative petition reform.
“Implementation of these initiative petitions can become problematic for businesses,” Howard said, adding that the sheer number of efforts seems to be on the increase at the state and local levels. “There may not be clarity, or it may be expensive or difficult or expensive to monitor implementation of initiative petitions.”
She said the democratic process is an important avenue for citizens to get engaged, but certain reforms could eliminate problems. Possible solutions include establishing a bipartisan panel tasked with reviewing ballot language as well as setting up educational forums for voters to examine consequences of the laws, according to Howard.
Howard pointed to Proposition C, also known as the Clean Energy Initiative, as an example of why businesses should care about reforming the process. The initiative, passed by voters in 2008, mandated that utility companies increase their dependence on renewable energy sources, but it placed caps on electric rate increases.
Missouri Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, said he’s seen the number of initiative petitions increase dramatically in the last 10 years, from roughly 20 in 2002 to more than 140 filed this year. He said out-of-state groups – such as the Humane Society of the United States, which backed last year’s puppy mill ordinance – are largely responsible for the increase.
Parsons has sponsored SB 817, which prohibits petition circulators from being paid on a per signature basis. The bill is currently being reviewed by the Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections Committee.
“The process needs to be there, it just needs to be improved,” Parsons said.
The fate of the Missouri Science and Innovation Reinvestment Act is something both Howard and state Representative Thomas Long, R-Battlefield, are following closely.
The Missouri Roundtable for Life, which opposes embryonic stem-cell research, had filed suit to stop the implementation of MOSIRA, following its passage in the special session last fall.
The bill, formerly known as SB 7, was written to be contingent upon the Missouri Jobs Package, which was not passed by legislators. On Feb. 22, a Cole County judged ruled that linking the bills together was unconstitutional, but the ruling did not determine a legal way to separate the two. The issue is now headed to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Long, who is the House’s representative on the Missouri Technology Corp. board, the group that manages tax credits for science-based and technological companies, said the current law prohibits money from the program going toward embryonic stem-cell research.
He said the bill would support companies and individuals developing products that can be manufactured in the state.
“MOSIRA is not a research funding mechanism, it is exactly the opposite,” Long said.
He said MOSIRA would only provide support where other funding exists, and the program would be funded by keeping a portion of state revenues derived from payroll taxes of growing tech-based companies.
Howard said the program could benefit companies such as Mercy Research and Development that are working out of the Jordan Valley Innovation Center.
“The MOSIRA program would really serve to build the entrepreneurial infrastructure necessary to support the growth of science and innovation companies in our region,” Howard said.[[In-content Ad]]
