HB 947 – Relating to Dues and Uniform Assessments
On Monday, March 8, HB 947 by Representative Scott Plakon (R-Longwood) was heard by the House Government Operations Subcommittee and was reported favorable with 12 yeas and 6 nays. AIF’s Senior Vice President of State and Federal Affairs, Brewster Bevis, stood in support of this legislation.
The State Constitution of Florida forbids an employer from denying citizens the right to work based on membership or non-membership in any employee organization. This bill requires an employee wanting to join a union to submit a signed membership authorization form and the union must revoke the membership if the employee submits a signed request for revocation. The union may not require a reason for the employee’s decision to revoke membership.
The bill also requires an employee to submit a signed dues deduction form before an employer may deduct union dues from an employee’s pay. The employer must confirm with the employee that the employee authorized the deduction.
HB 947 will now go to the House State Affairs Committee.
AIF supports legislation that helps Florida compete for and protect workers and further enhances the economic development in the state.
HB 1219- Relating to Hospital, Hospital System, or Provider Organization Transactions
On Monday, March 8, HB 1219 by Representative Erin Grall (R-Vero Beach) was heard by the House Finance & Facilities Subcommittee and was reported favorable with 15 yeas and 0 nays. AIF’s Senior Vice President of State and Federal Affairs, Brewster Bevis, stood in opposition to this legislation.
The bill amends the Florida Antitrust Act relating to the transactions by hospitals, hospital systems, and provider organizations. The bill imposes reporting requirements when a transaction between two entities in the health care market results in an affiliation or a material change to the market which could create a monopoly. An entity that fails to comply with these reporting requirements is subject to a civil penalty up to $500,000.
HB 1219 will now go to the House Appropriations Committee.
AIF opposes this legislation because there is no identified need or purpose for state regulatory interference in the marketplace; the standards and criteria to be applied are not clearly identified, and it will increase the cost and uncertainty of transactions. In addition, this legislation will create the need for an additional $1 million in government bureaucracy.