The segments below provide a brief overview of MACo’s work on employee benefits and relations policy in the 2026 General Assembly session. 
County governments are major public employers, responsible for managing a diverse workforce that delivers critical public services. To this extent, MACo advocates to ensure that state employment laws are fair, balanced, and workable for public sector employers, particularly when proposals uniquely or disproportionately affect government operations or essential personnel.
During Maryland’s 448th legislative session, employee benefits and labor policy centered around ongoing workforce challenges, evolving labor standards, and rising personnel costs. The General Assembly considered a range of proposals from collective bargaining, employee protections, and benefits expansion, many carrying significant operational and fiscal implications for county governments.
Follow these links for more coverage on our Conduit Street blog and Legislative Database.
MACo opposed HB 831/SB 922 – Collective Bargaining – Local Government Employees and Public Employee Relations Act. This bill would have mandated collective bargaining rights for local government employees statewide and significantly altered local government labor relations. MACo raised concerns about the sweeping, state-mandated collective bargaining framework that would apply uniformly to every county, regardless of size, structure, or existing labor agreements. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo submitted a letter of information on HB 1602/SB 579 – Counties – No-Cost Preventive Cancer Screenings for Volunteer and Retired Volunteer Firefighters. This bill mandates that counties provide no-cost preventive cancer screenings to each firefighter who volunteers with a volunteer fire company. Counties may satisfy this requirement by either providing a no-cost annual examination that includes preventive cancer screenings consistent with IAFF guidelines or by applying for the Innovative Cancer Screening Technologies grant. MACo worked with the sponsor and committee on amendments to narrow the definition of volunteer firefighters to individuals who are actively involved in fire suppression operations. This ensures the no-cost screenings mandate is appropriately targeted to individuals with the highest occupational exposure risk. This bill DID pass the 2026 session with MACo’s amendments.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 797/SB 439 – Employment Discrimination – Fire and Rescue Public Safety Employees – Use of Medical Cannabis. This bill prohibits an employer from disciplining or discharging a fire and rescue public safety employee for the use of cannabis if the employee possesses a written certification. MACo raised significant liability, operational, and public safety concerns for local governments responsible for employing and overseeing fire and rescue personnel. This bill DID pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 532/SB 445 – Employment Standards – Firefighters – Payment of Wages and Payroll Information. This bill eliminates local bargaining authority over firefighter overtime policies and instead establishes a statewide standard, resulting in a new unfunded mandate. This one-size-fits all approach undermines local operations, places an undue financial burden on county governments, and compromises emergency response services for Maryland residents. This bill was amended to have a two year delay by not taking effect until October 1, 2028. This bill DID pass the 2026 session with the two year delay.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 1356/SB 857 – Labor and Employment – Civic and Related Activities – Protection (Maryland Employee Civic Activity and Lawful Expression Protection Act). This bill would have imposed unreasonable restrictions on counties as employers by prohibiting adverse action against any employee who engages in broadly defined “political activity,” “civic activity,” or “lawful expression.” MACo raised concerns with this bill’s proposed creation of new presumptions, legal standards, and potential damages tied to employment actions. The bill could have limited counties’ ability to address situations where employees publicly associate their civic activity with their official role. In such circumstances, the public may reasonably associate conduct with the county government itself. MACo defended that counties must be able to address actions that create confusion, reputational harm, or operational disruption. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported HB 45/SB 417 – Labor and Employment – Mandatory Meetings on Religious or Political Matters – Employee Attendance and Participation (Maryland Worker Freedom Act) with amendments. This prohibits an employer from disciplining, discharging, refusing to hire, or otherwise penalizing an employee or applicant who declines to attend, participate in, or listen to employer communications expressing opinions on religious or political matters. MACo’s amendment sought a clear exemption for governmental entities to avoid unintended consequences for counties, as public employers charged with implementing, administering, and at times advocating for public policy. This bill DID pass the 2026 session without the state and local exemption.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo supported SB 804 – Labor and Employment – Occupational Safety and Health – Revisions to Heat Stress Standards with amendments. This bill would require employers, including counties, to develop heat stress prevention plans, acclimatization plans, high-heat procedures, and emergency response protocols. County amendments sought to clarify training requirements, streamline reporting expectations, and preserve flexibility for employers while maintaining strong protections for workers. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 1524 – Labor and Employment – Paid Leave – Attendance at School Functions. This bill would require employers, including counties as public employers, to provide at least 20 hours of paid leave annually to an employee who is a parent to attend a school function at the child’s elementary or secondary school. This would have created an unfunded mandate that would have imposed significant fiscal and administrative burdens on local governments that already offer generous leave benefits. This bill was withdrawn by the sponsor and DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Testimony
MACo opposed HB 203 – Labor and Employment – Training Repayment Agreements – Prohibition. This bill would have broadly prohibited employers, including county governments, from entering into training repayment agreements with employees. Repayment agreements help ensure basic retention during probationary periods and safeguard taxpayer dollars by preventing employees from voluntarily departing shortly after receiving significant publicly funded training. MACo testified that these agreements are often an essential tool in recruiting and retaining public sector staff, notably in public service professions. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 86 – State and Local Employees – Cancer Screening – Paid Leave. This bill would have mandated that state and local governments, as public employers, provide four hours of paid cancer screening leave, separate from any existing leave policies. Under current law and county practice, cancer screening is an allowable and appropriate use of accrued sick leave or sick and safe leave. Mandating a separate leave category creates redundancy while imposing new fiscal and operational pressures on local governments. Counties raised concerns that, at a time when counties are managing constrained budgets, adding a duplicative leave requirement diverts limited resources without meaningfully expanding access beyond what is already available to employees. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 188/SB 3 – Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act of 2026. This bill would have fundamentally restructured how minimum and maximum weekly unemployment insurance (“Unemployment”) benefits are calculated by tying them to the state average weekly wage, rather than the fixed statutory schedule used under current law. Because counties reimburse the State for unemployment benefits, the bill would have imposed immediate and substantial new fiscal obligations on local governments already facing mounting budget pressures and limited revenue flexibility. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 366/SB 993 – Workers’ Compensation – Exemption From Exclusivity of Remedy – Action for Wrongful Death by Nondependent Child. This bill would have allowed non-dependent children of an employee, including adult children, to bring a wrongful death lawsuit against an employer in court outside of the workers’ compensation system. Expanding litigation beyond this existing system could have introduced uncertainty into a structure designed to provide predictable benefits for workers and defined obligations for employers. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 347/SB 90 – Workers’ Compensation – Occupational Disease Presumptions – Hypertension. This bill expands existing workers’ compensation presumptions for paid firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics diagnosed with hypertension by presuming not only compensability, but also disablement. Counties warned that this shift would potentially increase claims and shift the burden onto local governments to rebut conditions that are common in the general population. This bill DID pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
MACo opposed HB 346 – Workers’ Compensation – Vocational Rehabilitation Services – Retroactive Compensation. This bill would have required an employer or insurer to continue paying temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for up to 60 days after an injured worker reaches maximum medical improvement (MMI) if there is a delay before vocational rehabilitation services begin. While vocational rehabilitation ideally begins immediately after MMI, delays can occur for a variety of reasons that can be outside the employer’s control. Counties cautioned that mandating additional payments during this period may unintentionally create incentives for delays in initiating rehabilitation services while increasing financial obligations for public employers. This bill DID NOT pass the 2026 session.
Bill Information | MACo Coverage
