 I think we should start off with the commissioner and he can start us and as we get into more specifics, we can have questions and we have the entire morning devoted to this. Good morning, everyone. For the record, Michael Harrington, Commissioner Vermont Department of Labor. We also have Cameron Wood, our UI director, as well as Matthew Barowitz, who's our economic and labor market information director or chief economist. So each of them can speak to the respective areas. Appreciate seeing you all in 2022. Although I think we've stayed in pretty regular contact even after the session ended last year. So we can certainly give an overview of the department. If, if you'd like, but maybe to the point you just ended with, Mr chair, in terms of looking at coven, which seems to be the most prominent or area that we face right now, I think we would also agree that workforce is one of, if not our top priority going forward given the workforce shortage that we and every other state are experiencing. At this point, we don't believe there's necessarily directed or specific legislation that's needed for the department or the state to, you know, further combat the COVID crisis from maybe the Department of Labor's perspective that said, I think we're all familiar with the OSHA emergency temporary standard that's currently moving through the court system. So we are keenly aware of that. That's the requirement from the federal government that employers larger than 100 that must have either a vaccination policy in place or require their employees to be tested on a weekly basis and report and maintain those test results. We have some, some varying opinions on on that from our perspective, where what's known as a state plan state. So, some states OSHA actually overseas enforcement in their states. There's roughly about 23 states that are state plan states. We're one of them. So, really, what that does is shift the responsibility on to us and the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Administration or OSHA. And we will need to, if this moves forward and doesn't get stalled out again in the court system, look to implement some type of an emergency rule that is as effective as the emergency temporary standard. So, I think we have some thoughts on how to go about doing that without overburdening Vermont's small employers. I think we would, we would say to Senator Clarkson's comment earlier, you know, small employers in different than small employers in other other states. So, figuring out how to be mindful of that. From the unemployment insurance perspective, we are at, I guess what we would call pre pandemic levels for people collecting unemployment. I think what makes this time now different from when we enacted provisions early on to expand eligibility and either additional benefits or additional supports for employers is that now we have a vaccine and we also have boosters and those vaccines cover a wide age range from from a toddler and young adult to adult. So, from that perspective, there are many more opportunities for protection with our worker community. I think also what we're finding is that more employers have now adjusted their, their work habits. So that there's more flexibility. There's more ability for people to work remote or have, you know, changes in shift coverage. So again, I think there's a lot more opportunity there or if someone finds that their current employment is not conducive to their, you know, there are other responsibilities in their personal life. And we also have a lot of options as well in terms of moving around the employment system so they could find easily another employer that may offer more flexibilities, you know, if they needed to manage childcare, or things of that nature. So that is here as well and Matt can certainly talk about the employment landscape in terms of what it looks like in terms of how Vermont's labor force has decreased over the past two years, but also what what hiring looks like in our work workforce landscape. So happy to go in whatever direction, the committee would like, or I can just keep talking. Very much for that. That's a good starting point. I'd like to stay on the COVID thing and let's get through that issue first and then we can go more into the other issues. And maybe one of the things I'd be curious is to hear from Cameron, what, tell us what the, if somebody comes in with saying, I came down with COVID and we can talk about whether it makes a difference whether they're vaccinated or not. And the doctor says you got, you got to take three weeks off and isolate yourself or something like that. And the person says well, I got laid off, either temporarily or permanently as a result of that. And he goes to, to you and says I'd like to draw an employment. What is, what happens to that person. Good morning for the record Cameron would unemployment insurance and wages division director for the Department of Labor. Happy to try to address the question, Mr. Chair. You know, as a general matter. The first thing we'll look at is whether or not someone has separated from employment. And in the event we actually did a webinar just yesterday for a lot of employers regarding vaccine mandates and unemployment insurance and the impacts of a vaccine mandate on a potential separation and whether those individuals would be eligible. And I spoke a little bit about this topic. If an individual has been asked to quarantine, or is out sick due to contracting COVID-19. And they have an anticipation of going back to work. So, you know, they have a job available they will be going back to that job after that period of quarantine or illness. We would likely not consider that to be a separation from employment in that instance, and the individual would not be eligible for unemployment. If there has been a separation because somebody is out due to, you know, being sick. The individual if it's COVID related would likely not be eligible for unemployment at this point during that period, because a requirement to receive unemployment is that you'd be able to work available to work and actively seeking work and somebody who has separated because they're not able to work because of COVID, whether they're sick, or they are being asked to quarantine would not be eligible for unemployment at that time because they would not be able to work because of that reason. If there is a separation because of COVID. So let's say, you know, somebody contracts COVID, they're being asked to quarantine their employer says, No, you need to come to work. And there's a separation there, let's say the person doesn't show up and they're terminated, or the employer just chooses to terminate, you know, you're going to be out for too long, I need to have somebody here, you know, we're not going to bring you back. In that instance, we would look at that and say, after the period of illness, we would look at the separation and determine that person most likely to be eligible. You can't, you know, if somebody has to quit a job or somebody refuses to go into work, because it would be contrary to guidance provided to them by a health care provider, the CDC. So, you know, health departments telling somebody to quarantine for five days, the employers telling them you're asymptomatic, you need to come to work and the person refuses and quits. You know, we would probably consider that good cause to quit and we would likely find that person eligible for benefits after the period in which they would, you know, need to quarantine. Once they become able to work again, we would likely deem that person eligible and able to receive benefits. It's really going to depend on whether or not there has been a separation. If it's just somebody having to stay home with the intention of going back to work and they're out of sick leave, for example, to cover that time period, we would likely not allow them benefits in that instance, because they wouldn't meet the eligibility requirements for unemployment. I hope that answers your question, Mr. Chair. Well, it's a complicated area. Yes, is that different than what our law provided when we did the temporary fix last year as far as temporary separations where they where they they're not they're able to eventually go back to work do we make any provision for people who were not given their job or promised their job back. Yes, sir, there were some expanded eligibility provisions that went into place during the height of the pandemic, primarily to allow people who needed to separate from employment for an extensive period due to a quarantine or taking care of a health care member. You know, who is out of work or needing to take care of children who, you know, because of a school closure or remote work or something to that event. We also had the Pua program at that time, which was designed to assist those individuals as well if they were not eligible for unemployment. There was flexibilities across the country at the federal level and also the expanded provisions that were put in place in Vermont have have since expired so at this point, we are back to traditional unemployment insurance program, which would not allow for for similar exemptions. And yet, are you getting some inquiries from people who have come down with coven and saying, you know, I can't afford to live I need some help financially. And I don't you know I either. Maybe I'll have my job back maybe or not I don't know how long I'm going to have to be out but common sense, and even CDC guidelines may dictate that they stay away from work or they have childcare school closes down and they have to stay at home. I'm having. I mean the Commissioner gave us a bunch of examples and I think they're all accurate but I'm not sure I come to the same conclusion that it's, it's much different this time around than last time around, and whether we should be helping these people. You know I would say you know I've received some questions mainly from employers, not necessarily from claimants, like yesterday on the webinar that we did there were a few questions about this issue that we answered for employers that were on the call. I would say we haven't seen a significant increase in claims being filed I mean you know typically claimants don't proactively reach out to us and ask whether they would be eligible in our typical response even when they do is you know you have the right to file. It's hard for us to gauge your eligibility without having all of the information available to us so we try to be very cautious about not being firm on whether somebody would be eligible for their circumstance because you know there could be a different party to the dispute the employer. We don't have that information so we try to be careful of not advising people that they will be eligible but I'm not aware of a lot of claimants reaching out to us about this issue and I also know we have not seen any spike in UI claims related to this topic we haven't seen adjudications going up related to this topic in particular no sir. So is this. I mean if I got sick. I had to go out of work for a month or something and my employer laid me off. I thought there was a disqualification period but then that could you could still get benefits and I think in this case you said you didn't mention a disqualification period you said that in that case we probably award benefits. So your your disqualification is going to be it's very similar to what you just described Mr chair so for for everyone's benefit who may be listening you know if somebody separates for employment due to some medical circumstance that prohibits them from continuing to work. They would not be eligible for unemployment based on that medical separation because at that point in time again you would not be you know available to work which is a requirement of UI. But once that period once your medical disqualification is lifted, then we would look at that separation and determine whether or not you would be eligible at that time. So let's say you know you you know you broke your leg and you can't work and your employer discharges you know at the point in time when you can go back to work. And it's not a great example to be honest people may be able to work with a broken leg but the point being you know at the point in time when you're clear to go back to work and you're now able to work again at that point in time. You would become eligible for unemployment based on the separation and that's where I was describing Mr chair and a COVID situation. If you are discharged you know if your employer, you know terminates you because of a COVID related separation, you may not be eligible for unemployment during that period when you have COVID if you are ill, or during the period of quarantine. But once that period is lifted or once you have recovered at that point in time we would look at the separation. And if it was an eligible separation and you were able to go back to work we would allow benefits in that instance. I guess, I guess maybe I misunderstood the way the laws I thought that if you quit for health reasons presently. It's as you said but there's also some period of disqualification even when you're able to go back to work like a week or or something like that. Up to six weeks or something. Yes, sir, let me double check I believe you are correct but you know the point being once you're. Let me confirm while we're sitting here talking with the committee but you know once the big question is your, your availability of work and once that has been resolved you could then potentially be eligible for benefits. I'll confirm on the medical disqualification. Okay, so no collection. This is sort of, it's frustrating, obviously, because here we are in a surge. Again, we had one obviously this fall and we managed to get through Delta without UI clearly being impacted as we're now again at record lows of unemployment claims. But I guess my concern is what are people doing, you know, even if they're out and their employers okay with it. What are they doing about income. And that I guess that concerns me if they're out for two or three weeks that's a huge economic burden on them and what, what's our remedy for that is their one and be with no paid family lead with nothing safe with no safety net for people what are we doing about that. So I'll jump in here. If you don't mind I think the question really becomes is the unemployment insurance program or the unemployment insurance trust fund the appropriate place for that. And I don't think it is personally it because it is a health separation and a health reason for not being able to work. And so what ends up happening is we start having workarounds for regular eligibility requirements that typically would mean someone isn't eligible so if someone to Cameron's point if someone has to leave work due to a medical condition, they would not be eligible for unemployment insurance in normal times. So then Michael is it a workers comp issue that we should be looking at I mean, you know what we certainly looked at health concerns at the beginning of COVID and we in state we in stated, you know, we, we put into play, and into place measures to support workers who had to leave because of COVID so we've dealt with health issues already with you I and set a precedent for that. I guess my question is, does this belong in the workers comp should we be make then making these workers eligible to access workers comp more readily or. Yeah, I think those are great questions. First of all, I think the hard part will be trying to compare today to 2020. And we had things like an emergency order where there were certain federal exemptions and exceptions and federal programs that many of these people would have been eligible for. So many of these people became eligible and moved into the PUA program, based on their eligibility. And to your point, you are talking more about a, you know, a family or medical leave program which does not currently exist and I think that's the challenge when we talk about workers compensation. The only way an individual becomes eligible for workers compensation is if you can directly tie back the injury or the reason for separation to the workplace. And unfortunately, as we know, it may well be it may well be but again you have to the employee. The burden is on the employee to prove that the exposure and subsequent, you know, consequence of that that put them out of work was through working. I'm just astonished, you aren't getting that pressure right now from restaurant, particularly the lodging and hospitality sector, where there, you know, our workers in particularly in restaurants are exposed all the time by the tourists by who are bringing it in or by our own unvaccinated or by people who've gotten it. I mean, you know, and I think the difference though is that with the change in the CDC guidance, right, so there's no, you know, but even if you're vaccinated and you are exposed, you don't need to quarantine or isolate anymore. And so part of that too is with 80 plus percent of our population fully vaccinated. If they are a close contact or fall into the exposure category they no longer unless they're, you know, exuding symptoms, they don't need to quarantine anymore. So the level of the number of people needing to quarantine is much less. I also think, go ahead. You know, I get it, but I also get that a thoughtful person. You know, it's still unclear to me how contagious you are in that circumstance. I mean, I know there is CDC, CDC guidelines on this now. I'm concerned about people who are, you know, without paid family leave and without UI, are we left with workers come to pick up the week or so that people may have to not be working. And so for every dollar counts and every week of work counts, what are we going to do to help these people. To Cameron's point, I think what we aren't seeing right now is a massive number of people filing for unemployment. So I think it's also hard to know exactly who is impacted and and how are they impacted. Right, because we aren't seeing a significant number of, you know, what we saw right now is even a much smaller uptick than we normally see during our winter session. So even those construction employers or granite shed workers that typically lay off hundreds of Romaners actually are there's such a demand right now that they're actually keeping them on through the winter to do other projects. So again, even the seasonal unemployment isn't as steep as it used to be, at least this year. Let me let me interrupt because we'd like to take a break at 10 o'clock. I'm just going to, we're going to continue with this conversation because I think it's, I think it's really important. I'm not surprised that there's not that many people applying. I mean, we're in a different environment. I mean, with the emergency order, there are a lot of businesses that were shut down, and people thought about, you know, the expectation I should get unemployment. If my business closed, but here the businesses are operating, and they lose income for a couple of weeks, and they probably don't even think necessarily of unemployment but they need some income so we need to talk about that. I don't want to commission or come back to workers comp because I had on a much smaller scale. I had the same question in terms of the presumption law we passed last year and continued. It's very hard to prove with airborne diseases that it was coded that that it was caught at work, but a lot of these things are going to be caught at work so let's take a 10 minute break. To remind me about that because I could go on and on, you know, so we'll come back at 11.