The Colorado Chamber ROI – Example of Impact to Your Bottom Line
The Colorado Chamber leads the fight at the State Capitol FOR legislation that will help business, and (sadly) more often in this political climate, AGAINST legislation that would cost your company. These are three examples from 2015 of legislation that had The Colorado Chamber not prevented, would have cost your company the amounts shown:
- HB 1342 – Access to Personnel Files
- HB 1331 – Overtime Expansion
- HB 1083 – Physical Therapy/Chiropractic CoPays
The financial models were designed and built by The Colorado Chamber in consultation with The Colorado Chamber Labor & Employment Council chair Stacey Campbell of Campbell Litigation, P.C. and Mountain States Employers Council. Click here for more information on the legislation.
- HB 1342 – Killed – would have allowed a current or former employee to inspect or request copies of their personnel file from their employer. The State, political subdivisions, and financial institutions were exempted from the bill. It also allowed an employee to include written rebuttal information in their file. If an employer failed to comply with the bill, the following applied:
- personnel information not provided in an inspection could not be used by employer during legal proceedings;
- employee was entitled to attorney fees if their civil action to obtain a court order requiring the production of documents prevails;
- A court or administrative law judge could impose penalties on the employer if it could be demonstrated that the employer intended to conceal personnel documents.
- HB 1331 – Killed – would have pre-empted the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and changed the minimum wage standard for hourly employees receiving overtime. Regardless of current exempt (salaried) or non-exempt (hourly) status, any employee making less than $51,355 would become statutorily required to make an hourly wage and receive overtime after 40 hours
- HB 1083 – Killed – as introduced would have limited the cost sharing impact of co-payments for physical rehabilitation, occupational therapy, and chiropractic services to 50% of what the health provider is paid by the insurance carrier. Carriers would have also been prohibited from classifying these services as specialty services. The Colorado Chamber led a coalition of Health Care Council members to strongly oppose the introduced version of HB 1083. The legislation would have interfered with insurers’ freedom of contract and limited the cost-sharing impact of copayments for the listed services. The bill would have resulted in cost shifting across the health care market place and increased health insurance premiums for businesses and their employees. The Colorado Chamber opposed similar legislation in 2014, which was vetoed by Governor Hickenlooper.