|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - January/February 2008 / Points of View: Getting to ‘yes’ on family leave |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Points of View: Getting to ‘yes’ on family leave |
|
|
|
Written On: January/February 2008 |
|
|
|
Written By: Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle |
|
|
|
Getting to "yes" on family leave insurance for Washington has been a challenge for many years, but on one point everyone agrees: Giving moms and dads paid time off from work to bond with newborns reduces infant mortality and produces lasting benefits for parents and for the physical, emotional and mental health of children.
Successful laws in more than 100 nations have ended the debate over whether paid family leave is good for kids and parents. The question now is whether a state law can be crafted that helps working families while allaying concerns of our business community.
You've heard the concerns: Family leave insurance might hurt business. It might be an administrative nightmare. It might cost jobs and increase unemployment.
These are exactly the same fears that fueled doomsday scenarios from lobbyists before California's family leave insurance law took effect in 2004. Fortunately, none of these fears proved true. To the contrary, California's economy and employment have boomed since paid family leave became the law. No one says the law caused the economic boom, but it obviously didn't hurt.
Even more tellingly, the California agency that oversees paid family leave reports it has received no complaints from businesses about negative impacts of the program since it went into effect more than three years ago.
To be sure, there are differences between Washington and California. That is why we're working with the business community to tailor a family leave strategy for our state. We're looking for the best way to provide a $250 weekly benefit for up to five weeks to allow working parents the time they need to bond with their newborns or newly adopted children.
As an author of our state legislation and co-chair of the Joint Legislative Task Force on Family Leave Insurance, I'm grateful that business leaders have already helped us to refine family leave eligibility, waiting periods, claims verification, employer notification, and numerous other safeguards for business.
The work continues. For example, we recently sent out requests for information to see if a private sector company might be able to administer paid family leave more efficiently than a state agency. Whether or not this idea pans out, I'm certain we can find ways to keep administrative costs affordable.
We are also working with business leaders on funding. At this point, the task force is recommending that the benefit be paid out of the state general fund for at least the next four years. This was the approach supported by the business community.
I'm sometimes asked why we passed family leave legislation without having funding and other details worked out in advance. Well, we did have a detailed plan at the beginning of 2007. It covered family leave to be with newborns as well as leave to take care of sick kids, spouses and parents. All the details were there: benefit, administrative guidelines and funding from a two-cent-per-hour payroll tax paid by employees were all specified in the legislation.
Not only was our legislation detailed, 87 percent of small-business owners who were interviewed about the proposal supported it after hearing the details. Polls showed our plan was also extremely popular among the general population — with supermajority support from every age group, every part of the state, and every political affiliation.
Why didn't we simply pass the comprehensive yet detailed legislation I've described? We held back because business leaders requested more time to explore funding and administrative options. That's a major reason why we pared down the proposal and created the task force.
Although the final report of the task force is nearly finished, the spirit of the task force will continue. We will continue working with business leaders to create a family leave law that is good for parents and children and good for Washington's businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
