Mandating pay for family leave could create new problems Right now, most people are supportive, or at least understanding, when someone takes three months off to care for and bond with a newborn.
By the Editorial Board of the Union-Bulletin
The Family and Medical Leave Act has been good for this nation's workers. It's even been good for their employers.
We have long believed businesses should grant family leave to care for a sick child, sick parent or newborn child or deal with a family emergency. Accommodating employees' needs results in happier - and more productive - employees.
The Family and Medical Leave Act was never intended to be the answer to the problems of balancing family life with employment. It was intended to help Americans cope with family emergencies and still keep their jobs.
Under federal law, businesses with 50 or more employees must give workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid medical leave per year for themselves or to take care of an ailing relative.
But the Washington Legislature is poised to mandate that workers get some pay while on leave. Under the proposal, which was approved by the Senate 32-17 on Wednesday, workers would receive five weeks of paid family leave.
The paid leave program would take effect in 2009, and weekly payments would initially be capped at $250 but would rise with inflation each year after.
Employees would pay a tax of 2 cents an hour, deducted from their paychecks by their employers, that would go into a pool to fund the weekly payments. It is estimated that 2-cent deduction would be about $40 a year on average. The initial fiscal note attached to the measure pegged its cost at nearly $200 million for the 2011-2013 biennium, The Associated Press reported.
This proposal is shortsighted and has the potential to do more harm than good. We would hope the House or Gov. Chris Gregoire derails the plan.
The proposed supplement of $250, while certainly better than nothing, is not enough money to make ends meet if someone is off work for five weeks. It's likely - if not certain - that there will be a push to increase the supplement, much like there is constant pressure to boost the minimum wage to a ``living'' or ``family'' wage.
This would drive up the cost to taxpayers. Inevitably, there would be a few who would abuse the system.
We fear this well-intended plan will balloon out of control. As it grows, it will become an entitlement that fuels resentment. Taxpayers won't be happy about the cost and employers - as well as fellow employees - could grow weary of having to cover for employees away from their jobs for three months.
Right now, most people are supportive, or at least understanding, when someone takes three months off for illness or to care for and bond with a newborn. The same goes for taking the time to care for a sick child or parent. It is understood that those taking the time off are also sacrificing. Those on leave are going without pay or using sick leave or vacation time.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is working. Let's not ruin a good thing.
Comments:
This is your opportunity to speak out about the story you just read. We encourage all readers to participate in this forum.
Please follow our guidelines and do not post:
Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo, such as accusing somebody of a crime, defaming someone's character, or making statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment, or posting comments that incite violence.
Comments using another person's real name to disguise your identity.
Commercial product promotions.
Comments unrelated to the story.
Links to other Web sites.
While we do not edit comments, we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
If you feel someone has violated our posting guidelines please contact us immediately so we can remove the post. We appreciate your help in regulating our online community.
Your comment will be posted after it has been verified.
Jerri Wood wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:27 PM:
" This proposed legislation is a very cautious and conservative first step towards what is needed in this country when it comes to work and family. I attended the Lance Armstrong Foundation's LiveSTRONG Summit in Austin, Texas this past October. There were over 700 'survivors' of cancer at this summit. Survivors are those who have/had cancer or who have cared for someone who has/had cancer in their lives. One of the biggest unment needs of this community was access to protected leave time and some sort of financial safety net to help make ends meet when the paychecks stop or are reduced. Far too many folks in this country, 200,000 a year, die of cancer every year and we have the ability to prevent that. If folks only had time to see the doctor for detection, treatment or had the time to take some a family member for timely care and treatment, we could save lives. And when we're talking about time off, for a large majority of folks, this is intermittent leave time, 4 hours on a Friday to attend a chemo or radiation appointment, 2 hours during the week for a regular doctor's appointment. Yes, the arrival of a new baby will require a 'chunk' of time, but most of these needs will be intermittent. One out of every 2 men and one out of every 3 women will have cancer in their lifetimes. 3 out 4 families will face cancer. This is an insurance program, a reasonable leave program. Keeping folks employed during the most stressful times of their lives. They need to be employed. Their employment is their link to healthcare. Let's look at the BIG picture. This bill has already been watered down to not include a worker's own serious illness or condition. That is a travesty and one that should be corrected in the House and sent back to the Senate to repair. This is a Family AND Medical Leave Act and Insurance. And the last time I took care of my Mom and Dad, their illnesses were not entitlements, but the time that I spent with them, caring for them was a priviledge, one that we all earned. "
Jerri Wood wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:27 PM: