Contact Us for More Information

Lawmakers Try to Stop State-Sponsored Retirement Plans

Posted by Corey F. Schechter | Feb 21, 2017 | 0 Comments

Contributing Author: Dianne Schechter

California legislators are fighting a resolution in Congress that could derail plans to create a state-run retirement plan for private-sector employees who don't have one at work.

Two Republican congressmen, Rep. Tim Walberg (R., Mich.) and Rep. Francis Rooney (R., Fla.), have introduced measures that would effectively prevent small businesses from automatically enrolling workers in individual retirement accounts under state or local government sponsored retirement plans.

Eight states—including California, (for my prior article regarding California's adoption of a new state-sponsored plan, click here), Connecticut and Oregon—have recently enacted retirement-savings programs for residents without access to a workplace plan—and dozens more are considering similar measures. Most of the measures allow employers to automatically deduct as much as $5,500 a year—or as much as $6,500 for workers older than 50—from employees' paychecks for deposit into an Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”). New York and Philadelphia are also considering the enactment of similar plans in their respective cities.

The first of these state-run programs is expected to start in 2017, according to AARP, the advocacy group for older Americans. The group estimates about 55 million full- and part-time private-sector workers in the U.S. lack access to retirement-plan coverage through work.

The first Labor Department ruling, issued in August 2016, clarified that state-sponsored retirement programs with auto-enrollment wouldn't be covered by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which sets not only minimum funding and reporting standards but numerous other minimum requirements for employer-sponsored retirement plans. That ruling effectively removed a concern on the part of some states that their programs would be pre-empted by federal regulations—and paved the way for states to set up plans that allow for payroll deduction IRA-type savings vehicles.

The second Labor Department regulation, completed in December 2016, allowed cities and counties above a certain size to sponsor their own auto-enrollment plans; however, many conservative lawmakers worry that the state plans would discourage small businesses from offering private sector plans and ultimately limit workers' options for saving as well as the protections afforded them under ERISA — charges that the advocates of the concept sharply dispute.  Moreover, a concern of the congressmen sponsoring the proposal is that employers who operate in more than one state will be subjected to different requirements in each state

The ultimate goal of the congressmen's efforts is to scrap the two Labor Department rulings issued late last year that paved the way for state or local auto-enrollment programs.Their measures are being proposed under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block resolutions passed in recent months from taking effect.  Will Hansen the Senior vice president at the ERISA Industry Committee (which advocates for large employers on health, retirement and compensation policies) said the use of the act is common when there is a change in administration.The resolutions' chances of passing both the House and Senate are not entirely clear at this time.  However, given the Republican-held majority in both Houses, passage is likely,

Be sure to follow our blog page for continuing developments on this interesting topic.

About the Author

Corey F. Schechter

Corey Schechter practices in the areas of Employee Benefits, Employee Stock Ownership Plans, Pension and Profit Sharing Plans, ERISA, ERISA Litigation, Business Law, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs), and Employment and Labor Law.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Retirement Plans

We help establish a customized plan that meets regulatory requirements as a tax qualified plan. Following implementation, our attorneys can assist clients and their plan administrator with regular reviews and updates to help with regulatory compliance for the plan's operation, and continued effectiveness in meeting the client's specific goals.


We are dedicated to employee ownership. When you come to us for ESOP services, you receive influential legal counsel who stand beside you to help you stay informed, in compliance, and abreast of the latest developments-all to help you realize your plan goals as fully and effectively as possible.


A QDRO is a specially designed court order that is required for the division of retirement benefits in a family law case. Many family law attorneys do not possess the expertise necessary to divide retirement benefits or stock options upon divorce. We have extensive experience in dividing qualified plans, government plans, IRAs and stock options between the employee spouse and non-employee spouse.

Butterfield Schechter LLP provides the information in this website as a service to its clients and visitors to the site. This website is for information purposes only and is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information in this website is provided "as is," and while the information in this website is updated periodically, additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein, and no guarantee is given that the information provided is correct, complete, or up-to-date. Seek the advice of professional counsel before acting or relying upon any article, form, or information in this web site. To ensure compliance with the requirements imposed by the United States Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. Butterfield Schechter LLP has endeavored to comply with all known legal and ethical requirements in compiling this website. In the event that this communication does not conform with any laws or regulations of any state or country in which it may be received, Butterfield Schechter LLP will not accept legal representation based on this communication from a person in such a state or country. Electronic mail is provided as a convenience in communicating with the attorneys at Butterfield Schechter LLP. Contact by e-mail does not alone create an attorney-client relationship. Please remember Internet e-mail is not secure and messages sent to the firm or any of its employees or attorneys should not contain sensitive or confidential information. Thank you for visiting our site.