In a previous column, I introduced you to the Legislature’s recent debate about bonded workers in Maine’s forest products industry, and LD 1545, An Act to Protect Maine Workers, sponsored by Senator Troy Jackson of Aroostook County. This week, I’d like to give you an update on another bill that accompanied LD 1545, LD 1552, “An Act to Improve Employment Opportunities for Maine Workers in the Forest Products Industry” and explain the final resolution to both these bills.
A quick reminder a “bonded laborer” is a foreign citizen that is hired by an American company because of a lack of American labor available for specific jobs.
The use of Canadian labor in northwestern Maine’s working forests is a long-standing partnership between Maine and neighboring Canadian provinces, and is often needed because of a lack of qualified American labor in remote regions of the working forest to operate equipment and harvest trees. There is a legal process by which American employers must follow to hire bonded workers, and that process requires giving Americans first priority for open positions. When Americans do not take the positions, only then is the employer allowed to hire a bond.
LD 1552 was a dangerous bill that threatened both wood supply and one of Maine’s most successful conservation programs, the Tree Growth Tax Law. Of both bills, this one was the most concerning to the industry.
The bill would have ejected landowners (large or small) if they were found to use legal, yes legal, bonded workers on their property. It would have also imposed an additional penalty of 150 percent of the landowner’s share of the Commercial Forestry Excise Tax contribution if they were found to use bonded workers.
Simply put, this bill would have forced a landowner to choose between utilizing bonded workers and maintaining wood supply to mills, or losing their Tree Growth status which allows landowners to be taxed at a rate appropriate for growing trees and discourages them from developing land.
The Maine Revenue Service identified several significant concerns with the legislation. In essence, like many legislators, the forest products industry, and others, they believed that attaching tax law to labor law is poor public policy.
The bill initially passed primarily along party lines and was sent to the governor’s desk where he had 10 days to take action on it, or the bill would become law.
During those 10 days, the forest products industry worked with the Governor’s Office, sponsors of the bills, and others, to develop a constructive proposal that would take the place of Martin’s LD 1552.
The proposal amended Jackson’s LD 1545, and added language to the Proof of Equipment Ownership Law whereby employers must demonstrate ownership through a bona fide lease and set forth some standards for determining whether a lease is indeed bona fide.
The industry also proposed a “recruitment clearinghouse” whereby both the Maine Department of Labor and the forest products industry would be held more accountable for hiring practices by requiring that all applications and recruitment must go through one organization. The recruitment clearinghouse concept also requires that the employment of bonded workers and Americans be very clearly documented so that the Maine Department of Labor could identify problems within the hiring system. This helps ensure that American, especially Maine, workers have the first and best opportunity for jobs.
The message from the forest products industry throughout this debate was clear. No qualified U.S. worker should go without the opportunity for employment; however, bonded workers are an essential component of the forest products supply chain.
Unfortunately, the legislative process was used to gain this already stated goal and place a large hammer over the forest products industry. Misuse of the Legislature’s time? You decide.
Writer’s Note: I am an employee of Verso paper, however, I am not involved in wood procurement at the mill.
