General Assembly clears dozens of bills before crossover
As the Virginia General Assembly reached its halfway point this week, dozens of bills – on reproductive rights, firearms, marijuana, and much more – have passed at least one house.
Legislation passed by either the Senate or House of Delegates must be approved by the other house by the March 9 deadline – otherwise they are dead for the year.
Bills that clear both houses then go to Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who can either sign them into law or veto them.
The following bills are advancing in the General Assembly:
Sales tax – Both houses passed a bill (HB 805), which would authorize all counties and cities to impose an additional local sales and use tax to support school construction projects.
Minimum wage – Both houses passed legislation (HB 1 and SB 1) to raise the minimum wage from the current $12 an hour to $13.50 an hour effective on Jan. 1, 2025, and to $15 on Jan. 1, 2026.
Marijuana market – Both the Senate and House of Delegates passed legislation (SB 448) to establish a framework for the creation of a retail marijuana market administered by the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority. Retail sales could begin after Jan. 1, 2025.
Contraceptives – Both houses passed legislation (SB 238 and HB 819) requiring health insurance carriers to cover contraceptive drugs and devices.
Human rights – The House passed HB 18, and the Senate passed SB 17, which adds ethnicity as a protected class in the Virginia Human Rights Act and imposes harsher penalties for those committing hate crimes.
Hidden fees – The Senate approved a bill (SB 388) requiring sellers to disclose upfront the total price of an item, such as phone upgrades, concert tickets, and car rentals.
Mental illness – The Senate passed SB 357, which would allow a person who assaults a law enforcement officer to avoid being charged with a Class 6 felony and a six-month mandatory sentence if they can prove they have an intellectual disability, autism, or serious mental illness.
Assault weapons – Both houses passed legislation (HB 2) banning the purchase, sale, and transfer of assault firearms and certain feeding devices manufactured after July 1, 2024. Violators could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Firearm storage – The Senate passed SB 368, which requires gun owners to lock up their firearms if there is a minor or person prohibited from possessing a firearm living in the house.
Abortion extradition – Both houses passed legislation (SB 15) to prohibit the extradition of someone to another state to face charges for having a legal abortion in Virginia.
Salary disclosure – SB 370 cleared the Senate. It would prohibit employers from seeking the salary or wage history of a job applicant and relying on that information to set the prospective employee’s salary.
Legacy admissions – Both houses passed bills banning Virginia public colleges from giving priority to applicants related to alumni or donors.
Community service – The House passed HB 614, which would allow incarcerated people to be given the opportunity to perform community service in lieu of paying fines and court costs.
English language learners – The Senate passed SB 272, calling for higher staffing ratios in classes for English language learners.
Drug costs – Both houses passed bills (HB 570 and SB 274) to create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board which could set reasonable rates for certain high-cost drugs.
Children and firearms – Both houses passed legislation (SB 44, HB 36) calling for parents to be charged with a Class 5 felony if they allow a child under 18 to gain access to a firearm if the child poses a threat of violence or has been charged with a violent felony.
Legislation to facilitate the construction of a sports arena in Alexandria hit a snag. The House approved legislation, strongly supported by Youngkin, to set up a Virginia Sports and Entertainment Authority to oversee a $2 billion arena for the Wizards and Capitals at Potomac Yard.
The chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), however, removed the arena bill from the docket, calling it “not ready for prime time.”
In response to Youngkin’s statement that Democrats do not want “a strong America,” Lucas tweeted, “This is the speech he gives while wanting us to compromise and give him the Glenn Dome?!?!” She also said, “The more we use the reputation of the commonwealth to finance billionaires’ projects, the more we risk not being able to finance our own projects.”
SB 370, that just seems silly to me. Most employers no longer give references other than – yes a person worked there and will confirm a title and salary as facts, because of litigation from past employees & liability insurance protection. Taking away salary limits that information further. Resumes are becoming more like creative writing than summarizing actual accomplishments & success – in part because they are harder to check out or verify. This is in part driving really great paying jobs to “head hunters” who act more like private investigators scouting out prospective employees – which almost never are publicly advertised.
I think you are reading SB 370 wrong, which is focused on preventing employers from requiring salary information as a condition for employment, or not offering employment unless it’s contingent on providing that information. I am 100% in agreement with the bill, which follows the growing trend across the nation to ban the process (22 states now). There was a bill back in May to eliminate it federally, not sure where that is right now. As a guy who has spent most of his career in useless management, I always believe that pay-setting should reflect the potential added value that person has to your organization, now what their previous employer happened to pay them.
It’s also worth noting that if you couple the ability of companies to require one to provide this information, with the ability to use falsifying it as cause for termination, and the fact that recruiters within whatever industry are often former colleagues, it ends up being pretty easy to keep wages depressed.
I guess I’m not understanding. This bill seems to remove a key means to determine the potential added value of a job candidate – the past salary. Knowing the job candidates’s past salary give you a sense of their most recent employer value of them & the value of their responsibilities; but, importantly doesn’t determine how that fits with your company. Again, I’ve learned not to trust written resumes, & unfortunately many past employers will only share/ verify name, title & salary. This bill takes one of those three away. How does that help the company with assessing potential value, loosing a verifiable data point? Also, all references from the job candidate say the same thing (she/he is great, that is why the candidate provides them). Past salary is not everything nor should it be, but it is one of the most quantitative factors to help assess job candidates preparedness for greater responsibilities. The only place this proposed law makes any sense to me is for entry level positions. What am I missing here as the purpose or benefit of this? I’m only seeing detriment to a company’s ability to assess job candidates.
Requiring salary history for employment also reinforces pay inequity between men and women. Often women start out at a lower salary than men. When they move jobs, if the new salary is based on their current salary then they are still behind.
For example, I was hired into a job for a little more than I had been making previously. It was a good salary for me, but there were hidden costs to the job (related to increased travel and such) and I asked for a raise because I felt that the salary wasn’t sufficient for the work. I got a bonus, but not the raise.
After letting me go (despite the good reviews and bonus), they hired a man, with fewer qualifications and less experience, and paid him close to twice what they’d been paying me. But he’d been making more before of course, so it’s all okay.
There is a lot of evidence that requiring salary history in hiring perpetuates unequal pay for the same work–between women and men and for other marginalized groups. It also affects people moving from the non-profit sector to private sector jobs, or someone who starts working during an economic downturn who has to take jobs at a lower salary.
Having set pay ranges for specific jobs is much more equitable and also defensible against claims of bias and discrimination.