|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - January/February 2008 / Points of View: Another new Washington entitlement |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Points of View: Another new Washington entitlement |
|
|
|
Written On: January/February 2008 |
|
|
|
Written By: Rep. Bruce Chandler, R-Granger |
|
|
|
During the last few years, the Legislature and governor have developed a troubling habit of creating new entitlements for select constituencies without providing funding or accountability. The governor's signing of the Paid Family Leave law earlier this year continues that trend. Its focus is entirely on describing who is entitled to receive the benefit, how much they will receive, and for how long. How the program will be managed, how it will impact employers and other employees, and who gets to pay for it are just a few of the issues ignored in the bill. Eligible employees will be entitled to the benefit beginning in 2009 whether these issues are resolved or not.
As a member of the task force directed to address these issues, I listened to many hours of sometimes-confusing discussions, and spoke with colleagues about the many effects on both employers and employees. After all this, it has become clear to me that certain principles must be a part of any recommendation to the Legislature and governor if the program is to have any prospect for being fair and sustainable.
The family leave program applies to parents upon the birth or adoption of a child. Some task force members are suggesting an expansion of eligibility to include caring for aging parents and others. If these were included in the program, it would seriously dilute the benefit for all those covered while making the program even more cumbersome and expensive for state agencies and employers to administer.
Families and businesses
Having a child by birth or adoption is a condition — not an occupational disability. It does not conform to the missions of either the Department of Labor and Industries or the Employment Security Department. To incorporate family leave benefits into workers' compensation or unemployment insurance penalizes employers by adversely affecting their experience rating as well as employees who may find themselves injured on the job or out of work through no fault of their own.
Administration
Every one of the numerous state agencies asked to consider running the program has concluded the administrative costs will be very high in relation to the total benefits paid out. My answer to high administration costs is to consider contracting with a third-party administrator to operate the program. Right now, they effectively provide other services with businesses and government. This approach would save employees and employers time, and save taxpayers millions of dollars in administrative costs — leaving more dollars for benefits.
Funding paid family leave
Because family leave is fundamentally a state social policy, I proposed paying for it permanently from the state general fund. If our goal with this program is stronger families, then every citizen has a vested interest in supporting the program’s success. Because family leave is now a priority of government it is appropriate to fund it within the context of other priorities. This would also allow frequent legislative review through the budget-making process.
One of the options brought up in the task force was an employer tax. This is unfair to businesses that already provide paid leave benefits that are often more generous than the state's plan. Such businesses should be allowed to opt out. Just as unfair is taxing one working mother to pay for another mother to stay home. Funding family leave through the general fund is the only fair approach.
There are other issues the task force also needs to resolve. The new law should not be in addition to other leave laws already in statute. It must also be clear that if some use their paid family leave and decide to not return to work, the employee cannot claim unemployment benefits. "Piling on" benefits penalizes employers who have kept an employee's job open for their return and is unfair to other employees who may lose their job through no fault of their own.
It is unfortunate the Legislature and the governor failed to consider the many unintended consequences before hastily launching a new government program. Hopefully, the task force will produce results that will be fair to both employers and employees.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
