Finally, we vigorously oppose proposals that would mandate a minimum benefit package. This requirement goes beyond the problem being addressed and infringes on the right of employers and employees to develop the kind of health care coverage they want and can afford at a time when employers and employees are being very creative in the design and are negotiating a very hard line with the providers and carriers of health care for more cost effective health care plans. Such a requirement would be particularly onerous to small businesses, which have been most severely affected by the recent recession.
We also oppose those proposals that would increase employers’ labor costs. Mandating through tax penalties that employers carry laid-off workers for some specified period or open health plan enrollment to spouses, or contribute to an assigned-risk pool, would place them in double financial jeopardy. Employers’ response could be to drop their health care plans altogether and/or lay off more workers.
We cannot go on adding regulations on the backs of industries in this state.
[The bill would be] detrimental to business and the citizens of the state in that it will curtail expansion of existing industry and jobs and it will discourage the attraction of new industry.
I can imagine the mounds of paperwork with little to do with providing information about hazards. We can see very little if any benefits to the worker….very marginal costs often make the difference between whether you get the business or not.
[The] procedures required are too costly and non-productive to industry, making New Jersey a less competitive location for manufacturing.
Obviously, the Clean Air Act needs to be changed. The construction ban has no place in this country. It is an inherently unfair punishment of communities and does not clean the air.
We don’t think it adequately protects proprietary information. Competing companies will be looking with a careful eye to acquire that information. Chemists and analysts could pick up one of those sheets and say ‘Aha! So that’s what they’re using!”
[There is] no doubt that it [TEFRA] will curb the economic recovery everyone wants.
GM urges that the passive restraint requirement be eliminated…There is an immediate need to avoid the sharp economic impediment that these requirements…would place on the domestic car market’s recovery.
