|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - May/June 2005 / Chair's Column: There Are Better Alternatives to State-Run Family Leave |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Chair's Column: There Are Better Alternatives to State-Run Family Leave |
|
|
|
Written On: May/June 2005 |
|
|
|
Written By: By Tom Lemly - Chair, Board of Directors |
|
|
|
Tom Lemly is a partner in the Davis Wright Tremaine law firm in Seattle, where he specializes in all aspects of labor law.
Balancing an employee’s family and work responsibilities is never easy. Over the years while working with our clients on employment law issues, I’ve learned that each situation is unique. The best solutions come when the employer and employee sit down and develop creative solutions that satisfy both their needs.
That is why the one-size-fits-all state mandate considered by the Legislature this year doesn’t work. Lawmakers wisely let the family leave bill die, but I fear it will be back next year.
Supporters of the bill try to argue that employers oppose allowing workers to stay home with a new baby or take care of a sick relative, but employers are not uncaring. They understand the importance of family, and the managers I work with try very hard to find solutions when the need arises.
What employers do object to is a costly new state program like this one being proposed in Olympia. Under HB 1173 and SB 5069, all employers, regardless of size, would be required to provide five weeks of paid family leave. While the federal family leave program applies only to companies with more than 50 workers, the state program, as originally proposed, would apply to all employers. All employees and their employers would each pay a penny an hour to the Dept. of Labor and Industries for each employee.
While proponents claim that the program would cost only $40 a year per employee, that adds up to nearly $100 million per year out of the pockets of Washington workers and employers. That money would be sent to Olympia and used to hire yet more state workers, expand the bureaucracy and create more red tape—all in order to hand part of the total back again as part of a new state program. L&I estimated it would take $70 million and 60 new state workers to implement the plan.
Washington is already the eighth-most-costly state in the nation in which to do business, according to data released by the Milken Institute. Only our moderate electricity prices keep us from moving higher and that may change this summer if drought conditions continue.
Washington workers’ comp benefits are the country’s fourth highest, and our state has the highest minimum wage and average cost per employee for unemployment insurance. Adding another unique employer tax to that burden with a paid family leave program is unwise—and unnecessary.
Instead of creating yet another state program, legislators can accomplish the same goal by supporting changes in flex time and comp time rules in state and federal wage and hour laws. Such changes would give employees more flexibility to accrue time off for family and personal needs.
It is in the employers’ enlightened self-interest to work with their associates to find solutions to their family needs. Employers are sensitive to their workers’ family needs and understand that meeting those needs is part of attracting and keeping good employees.
Employers also know that a good rapport in the workplace can’t be prescribed by the legislature or mandated by state law, regardless of how well-intentioned elected officials are.
Rather than increasing the cost of doing business and adding to government red-tape, lawmakers ought to find ways to foster flexibility in today’s competitive and fast-changing workplace. That bold step would add jobs and make work more family-friendly.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
