[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2339, THE FAMILY INCOME
TO RESPOND TO SIGNIFICANT
TRANSITIONS ACT, AND H.R. 2460,
THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 11, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-047 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey John Kline, Minnesota
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
[Vacant]
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairwoman
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire Tom Price, Georgia,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Phil Hare, Illinois John Kline, Minnesota
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 11, 2009.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hare, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, submission for the record..................... 59
McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, prepared statement of........ 74
Price, Hon. Tom, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections...................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Additional submissions for the record:
Letter from the International Franchise Association
(IFA).............................................. 55
Letter from groups of contractors, subcontractors,
material suppliers and employees................... 56
Statement of the HR Policy Association............... 76
Statement of the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM)................................ 91
Statement of the Retail Industry Leaders Association
(RILA)............................................. 92
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Additional submissions for the record:
Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union...... 93
Statement of the American Association of University
Women.............................................. 97
Statement of Darryl Fagin, legislative director,
Americans for Democratic Action, Inc............... 100
Statement of A Better Balance........................ 101
Statement of Ellen Bravo, coordinator, Family Values
@ Work: A Multi-State Consortium................... 101
Statement of Cindia Cameron, organizing director,
9to5, National Association of Working Women--
Atlanta Chapter.................................... 102
Letter from Lindsey Lee, Cargo Coffee................ 103
Statement of the Center for Law and Social Policy
(CLASP)............................................ 103
Statement of Connecticut Working Families............ 105
Statement of Cathy Deppe, lead organizer, 9to5,
National Association of Working Women--Los Angeles
9to5............................................... 106
Statement of Erin Bennett, Colorado organizer; Lorena
Garcia, Colorado lead organizer, 9to5, National
Association of Working Women--Colorado Chapter..... 107
Statement of Carol Goertzel, president/CEO, PathWays
PA................................................. 108
Statement of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights (LCCR)...................................... 111
Statement of Donna Levitt, manager, San Francisco
Office of Labor Standards Enforcement.............. 112
Statement of the Massachusetts Paid Leave Coalition.. 113
Statement of Linda Meric, executive director, 9to5,
National Association of Working Women.............. 115
Statement of the North Carolina Justice Center....... 116
Letter from the National Partnership for Women &
Families........................................... 118
Statement of the New Hampshire Women's Lobby and
Alliance........................................... 119
Statement of the New Jersey Time to Care Coalition... 120
Statement of the New York State Paid Family Leave
Coalition.......................................... 121
Statement of Hon. Diane Rosenbaum, Oregon State
Senator............................................ 121
Statement of Amy Stear, Wisconsin director, 9to5,
National Association of Working Women--Milwaukee
Chapter............................................ 122
Statement of Time to Care for Oregon Families........ 123
Statement of Trust for America's Health (TFAH)....... 124
Statement of Vermont Paid Sick Days Coalition........ 124
Statement of Marilyn P. Watkins, policy director,
Economic Opportunity Institute..................... 125
Statement of Women Employed.......................... 126
Statement of Working Mother Media (WMM).............. 128
Statement of Witnesses:
Bhatia, Rajiv, M.D., MPH, director, Occupational and
Environmental Health, San Francisco Department of Public
Health..................................................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Frett Deborah L., CEO, Business and Professional Women's
Foundation................................................. 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Gorman, China Miner, chief operating officer, Society for
Human Resource Management.................................. 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Grayson, Hon. Alan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Lipnic, Hon. Victoria A., on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; former Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Employment Standards, U.S. Department of Labor............. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Ness, Debra L., president, the National Partnership for Women
& Families................................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Poole, Sandra O., MPA, deputy director, Disability Insurance
Branch, California Employment Development Department....... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
H.R. 2339, THE FAMILY INCOME TO RESPOND TO SIGNIFICANT TRANSITIONS ACT,
AND
H.R. 2460, THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT
----------
Thursday, March 31, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lynn Woolsey
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Woolsey, Shea-Porter, Payne,
Grijalva, Hare, Sablan, Price, and Kline.
Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Jody Calemine, Genral Counsel; Lynn
Dondis, Labor Counsel, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections;
David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Jessica Kahanek, Press
Assistant; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy
Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; James Schroll, Junior
Legislative Associate, Labor; Robert Borden, General Counsel;
Cameron Coursen, Assistant Communications Director; Ed Gilroy,
Director of Workforce Policy; Rob Gregg, Senior Legislative
Assistant; Richard Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Alexa
Marrero, Communications Director; Jim Paretti, Workforce Policy
Counsel; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce
Policy; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General
Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Staff Director.
Chairwoman Woolsey [presiding]. A quorum is present. The
hearing of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections will come
to order, and the ranking member and I will present you with
our opening statements.
First, I want to thank this group that is here today. Shows
a lot of interest for this legislative hearing on H.R. 2339,
the FIRST Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions--
and we are never going to say that again; it is going to be the
FIRST Act--and H.R. 2460, the Healthy Families Act.
Today most people work outside of the home. They commute
long hours; they work long hours to put food on the table for
their families. And one of our efforts is to ensure that they
get to sit at that table and eat with their families what they
have provided for them.
But to be so worried about whether they have to take care
of their children or take care of their job is putting a stress
on working families that we would like to work on and make a
little bit easier. It is a real challenge for millions of
workers in this country.
And several years ago--I talk about this a lot. Several
years ago--40 years ago I was a working mother with four small
children, and it was a struggle to meet their needs as well as
the responsibilities of my job at the same time, so I really
understand what families are struggling with and what the
challenges are.
And early on in my career, I didn't have paid sick leave or
any sick leave at all, and I certainly didn't have family and
medical leave, but later on, as my career grew and I could
afford to take time off to care for a sick child if I had used
up my sick leave or--and certainly we still didn't have paid
family and medical leave--the pressure of the workplace was
absolutely overwhelming when I had to leave, because, you know,
when your daughter is practicing for a skating competition and
she breaks her wrist, you don't say, ``Oh, excuse me, I have to
go to an executive meeting.'' You go home. And you go home with
your heart pounding for her, your heart pounding because of
what you have left behind at the workplace.
We have to make these transitions and these
responsibilities for working--and it is not just working women;
it is working men and women--we have to make it easier all the
way around. And we are now, when I say all the way around, in
the 21st century. Workers should not have to choose between
their jobs and their families, but they are still forced to
make those choices every day, almost, in their lives.
And the recent outbreak of H1N1, the swine flu virus, was
an example to us of how exposed the problems are when workers
are told, ``Don't come in if you are ill,'' but guess what? You
don't have any paid time off. So public health officials
rightfully, during this swine flu epidemic, told workers,
``Stay home. Keep your kids home from school.'' But it was very
difficult, because not very many workers can afford to take
time off to care for themselves and/or their families.
So the answer for at least 50 million workers when they are
told to stay home without pay is ``no,'' because the U.S. lags
behind the rest of the world in providing family leave and sick
days to employers--to employees. And so you know what? This is
absolutely unacceptable that this country, the number one
economy in the world, can barely compete with developing
nations when it comes to paid leave and sick days.
The Family and Medical Leave Act that provides unpaid job
protected time off for families is a really good first step,
but it is the only national leave policy we have in this
country. I was a member of Congress when we passed FMLA.
Congresswoman DeLauro had a lot to do with getting FMLA passed,
but that was over 15 years ago.
It was, as I said, a great achievement, but over those
years we have learned a lot. And the most important thing we
have learned is that while more than 100 million leaves have
been taken under FMLA, most workers can't take advantage of its
provisions because most workers cannot afford to take unpaid
leave, and because in the case of illness, leave is permitted
only for a serious medical condition, ordinary sick leave is
not permitted under FMLA.
Representative DeLauro is here today to describe H.R. 2460,
the Healthy Families Act, and she will go into detail, but I
want to take just a few minutes to stress how critical paid
sick days are to workers. Currently, millions of workers go to
work when they are sick, as I said, because they can't afford
to stay home. They just can't afford to make that decision.
This is not only bad for workers, it is bad for the
workers' families, but it is also very bad for the employers.
Thirty years ago, when I was a human resources manager, when
people were sick we wanted them to stay home. We actually
provided 6 or 7 paid sick leave days every year because we
wanted our workers to recover from their illness before they
returned to work; we wanted them to be healthy and productive
when they got back.
And it boggles my mind that 30 years later, in the 21st
century, that any employer would rather have employees come to
work sick than provide them the time off they need to recover.
There are serious public health consequences as well because
food workers rarely have paid sick leave, but as Dr. Bhatia
will tell us in his testimony, infected and sick workers are
often a cause of food-borne disease outbreaks, which cause
thousands of people to become ill.
The Health Families Act fixes that. It provides up to 7
days of sick leave per year per worker.
The other bill we are going to consider today, as I trip
over my tongue, is my bill, H.R. 2339, the FIRST Act, which was
introduced this spring. This legislation provides grants to
states--grants to states to implement and administer their paid
family leave programs. The grants can be used for start-up
costs for new programs, or in the case of programs that are
already in operation, for such--the money can be used for
activities such as outreach and education.
Currently, only three states have paid family leave
programs--California, New Jersey, and Washington State. And a
handful of others provide temporary disability benefits, which
also provide some wage replacement for pregnancy and for
childbirth.
The FIRST Act grants will assist existing programs and will
serve as an incentive to other states to develop paid family
leave programs of their own. For a very small investment of
federal funds, we can help create and improve state programs
and help millions of workers balance their work and their
family lives, because we know that when a parent is able to
take time to bond with a new child, either through birth or
adoption, it is so much better for that child.
But you know what? It is much better for the parent as
well. And when a worker is able to take time to care for an
elderly parent, it quite often makes it possible for that
parent to stay in his or her home.
I am a strong supporter of a national policy on paid leave
and commend Representative Maloney on H.R. 626, the Federal
Employees Parental Leave Act, which passed the House and
provides 4 weeks of paid leave for federal workers. That was a
great thing we did last week.
I am also an original co-sponsor of Pete Stark's
legislation to provide paid leave on a national basis. The
FIRST Act, however, is an essential first step to achieving our
ultimate goal. Not only will the FIRST Act assist families who
desperately need paid leave and they need it now, it will also
help put in place an infrastructure for the administration of a
national paid leave program.
So we are going to hear about all of that today. We have a
great panel of witnesses, and we have two wonderful members of
Congress here. So before I introduce them, I am going to turn
the--yield to my ranking member, Dr. Price.
[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections
I want to thank everyone for coming to this legislative hearing on
``HR 2339, the FIRST (Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions) Act and HR 2460, the Healthy Families Act.''
Today, most people work outside the home and commute long hours, so
balancing work and family is a very real challenge for millions of
workers in this country.
Several years ago, I was a working mother with 4 children.
And it was a struggle to meet their needs as well as the
responsibilities of my job.
Early on I didn't have sick leave and certainly not family and
medical leave.
But when I could afford to take time off to care for a sick child,
the pressure from the workplace was overwhelming.
We are now in the 21st century, and workers should not have to
choose between their jobs or their families, but they still are forced
to make those choices.
The recent outbreak of the H1N1 virus (Swine Flu) has additionally
exposed the significant problems that are created for workers when they
and their family members need time off to deal with illness.
Public health officials rightly tell them to stay home from work
and to keep their kids home from school.
But can they afford to take time off to care for themselves and/or
their families?
The answer for at least 50 million workers is ``no.''
The U.S. lags behind the rest of the world in providing paid family
leave and sick days to employees.
It is unacceptable that this country, which is the number one
economy in the world, can barely compete with developing nations when
it comes to paid leave and sick days.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that provides unpaid job-
protected family and medical leave is virtually the only national leave
policy.
I was a new Member of Congress when we passed the FMLA over 15
years ago.
At the time it was a great achievement, and over the years we have
learned a lot.
While more than 100 millions leaves have been taken under the FMLA,
most workers can't take advantage of its provisions because they cannot
afford to take unpaid leave.
And because--in the case of illness--leave is permitted only for a
serious medical condition, ordinary sick leave is not permitted.
Representative DeLauro is here today to describe HR 2460, the
Healthy Families Act in detail, but I want to take a few minutes to
stress how critical paid sick days are to workers.
Currently, millions of workers go to work when they are sick,
because they simply cannot afford to lose pay or in some cases their
jobs.
This is not only bad for workers and their families, but also for
employers.
Thirty years ago, I was a human resource manager.
When people were sick, we wanted them to stay home so they could
recover from their illnesses and return to work feeling healthy and
productive.
It boggles my mind that 30 years later that any employer would
rather have employees come to work sick than provide them the time off
they need to recover.
There are serious public health consequences as well: food workers
rarely have paid sick days, but as Dr. Bhatia will tell us in his
testimony, infected and sick workers are often a cause of food borne
disease outbreaks, which cause thousands of people to become ill. The
Healthy Families Act fixes the problem by providing workers with up to
7 days of paid sick leave.
The other bill we are considering today is HR 2339, the FIRST Act,
which I introduced this spring.
This legislation provides grants to the states to implement and
administer their paid family leave programs.
The grants can be used for start-up costs for new programs, or in
the case of programs already in operation, for such activities as
outreach and education.
Currently, only 3 states have paid family leave programs:
California, New Jersey and Washington state.
And a handful of others provide temporary disability benefits,
which also provides some wage replacement for pregnancy and childbirth.
The FIRST Act grants will assist existing programs and will serve
as an incentive to other states to develop paid family leave programs
of their own.
For a small investment of federal funds (the act authorizes $1.5
billion), we can help create and improve state programs and help
millions of workers balance their work and family lives.
We know for example that when a parent is able to take time to bond
with his or her child, it is better for the child and for the parent as
well.
And when a worker is able to take time to care for an elderly
parent, it may enable that parent to stay in his or her home.
I am a strong supporter of a national policy on paid leave and
commend Representative Maloney on HR 626, the Federal Employees
Parental Leave Act, which passed the House and provides 4 weeks of paid
leave for federal workers.
I am also an original cosponsor of Pete Stark's legislation to
provide paid leave on a national basis.
The FIRST Act, however, is an essential step to achieving our
ultimate goal.
Not only will the first act assist families who desperately need
paid leave now; it will help put in place an infrastructure for the
administration of a national paid leave program.
Some will argue that in this economic climate we can't afford to
pay for a grant program and or put an additional mandate on employers
to provide paid sick days.
But economists tell us that this is precisely the time to act.
They tell us that these policies will be good for the national
economy and will give workers the assistance they need in uncertain
times. And we know that employers benefit financially when they support
their workers through tough times.
Again thank you for coming. I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished panel of witnesses. I now defer to Ranking Member Price
for his opening statement.
______
Dr. Price. Thank you so much, Chairman Woolsey. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing.
I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for
appearing today, and especially for our colleagues, for taking
time to join us today.
Today's hearing provides members of this subcommittee with
an opportunity to discuss the Family Medical Leave Act and the
couple of legislative proposals aimed at promoting healthy
families. At first blush, how can any member of Congress on
either side not support healthy families? If you have been here
for any length of time, you know that the titles of bills are
always wonderful, and certainly we support healthy families.
However, once you examine beyond the title of the Healthy
Families Act, it becomes clear that nearly the only thing
appealing about the bill is its title. Enacting this particular
proposal would require countless U.S. employers, even those
with as few as 15 employees, to provide paid sick leave to
every single employee for a range of medical and non-medical
conditions both great and small. By way of contrast, that is a
threshold far lower than the law currently mandates with
respect to unpaid leave for serious health conditions or the
birth of a child under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
We, on this side, are gravely concerned with the impact
that this legislation will have on the U.S. economy, on
employers, on workers, and on job creation. It represents an
intrusion--a further intrusion--of the federal government into
the benefits policies of millions of companies, both large and
small.
The most troubling aspect of the Health Families Act is
that it ultimately threatens to harm workers by way of lower
wages and fewer opportunities. If this were implemented, the
cost of government-mandated benefits would be passed on to
American workers through reduced wages and fewer jobs. At the
very moment when Americans are worried about losing their job,
this proposal undercuts job creation through higher employer
cost.
Employers around this nation see this type of legislation
right now, and many have frozen any hiring because they don't
know how severe government dictates will be. This Congress and
this administration are killing the possibility of even having
new jobs.
What we urge this committee to do is to keep facts about
the current workforce in perspective. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reports that in 2008, 93 percent of full-time
employees were provided paid time off that could be used in the
event of an illness, and 51 percent of part-time workers had
paid illness leave.
In 2008, 79 percent of low-wage workers--and by that I mean
folks making between $7.25 and $14.99 an hour--had paid illness
leave. Last year, 94 percent of large employers offered paid
leave that could be used for illness, as did 76 percent of
small businesses, meaning those with less than 50 employees.
The facts suggest that we should not be imposing costly and new
``one size fits all'' burdens on businesses based on any faulty
assumptions about the workplace.
Putting these facts aside, I am also concerned that this
proposal raises a host of unanswered questions and, indeed,
stretches far beyond the reach of what its proponents claim it
does. For instance, supporters claim that the Healthy Families
Act will have no effect on businesses that already provide paid
sick leave, but taking a closer look at the fine print makes it
clear that it is only those employers who provide leave that
meet the exact conditions and circumstances set forth in the
bill.
How many employers do we think will meet that standard
specifically, especially after bureaucrats in Washington here
draft hundreds of pages of federal regulation?
Turning to the second bill that we will examine this
morning, the Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions Act, it is sponsored by our chairwoman. Her efforts
and commitment to improving workplace environments across this
country are to be applauded.
But the proposal itself appears to put Washington in the
business of paying for sick days to the tune of about $1.5
billion over the next 4 years. At a time when we are facing
massive record budget deficits and the president has us on a
path to raising the national debt to $23.1 trillion by 2019,
this is a road that America can simply not afford. Even in the
absolute best economic climate, this is a questionable idea far
beyond the appropriate role, many believe, of the federal
government.
As I close, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses,
but I wonder if I might--if the chair might answer a process
question. This week, House Democrats released their plan to
reform America's health care system. It has been suggested that
reform of the Family and Medical Leave Act should be included
as part of that final package, and I would suggest that adding
that reform--a reform such as this--would be too important to
get tucked away into a massive overhaul and should be vetted
and debated separately on its merits, and I wonder if it is the
committee's intention to include reforms of the Family and
Medical Leave Act in the House version of the health reform
expected of later this summer?
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, I can only respond from what I
know, and I am not privy to any detail on that right now.
Dr. Price. Great. And I thank the chairwoman.
[The statement of Dr. Price follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Price, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Good morning and thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey. I would like to
begin by thanking our distinguished panel of witnesses for appearing
today. We appreciate that they have taken time out of their busy
schedules to share their expertise and experiences with us.
Today's hearing provides Members of this Subcommittee with an
opportunity to discuss the Family and Medical Leave Act and a couple
legislative proposals aimed at promoting ``healthy families.'' At first
blush, how can any Member of Congress on either side not support
``healthy families''? However, once you examine beyond the title of the
Healthy Families Act, it becomes clear that the only thing appealing
about it is its title.
Enacting this particular proposal would require countless U.S.
employers, even those with as few as 15 employees, to provide paid sick
leave to every employee, for a range of medical and non-medical
conditions great and small. By way of contrast, that's a threshold far
lower than the law currently mandates with respect to unpaid leave for
serious health conditions or the birth of a child under the Family and
Medical Leave Act.
We are gravely concerned with the impact this legislation will have
on the U.S. economy, employers, workers, and job creation. It
represents the intrusion of the federal government into the benefits
policies of millions of companies, large and small. The most troubling
aspect of the Healthy Families Act is that it ultimately threatens to
harm workers by way of lower wages and fewer opportunities. If this
were implemented, the costs of government-mandated benefits would be
passed on to American workers through reduced wages and fewer jobs. At
the very moment when Americans are worried about losing their job, this
proposal undercuts job creation through higher employer costs.
Employers around this nation see this type of legislation--right now--
and many have frozen any hiring because they don't know how severe
government dictates will be. This Congress and Administration are
killing even the possibility of new jobs.
What I urge this Committee to do is to keep facts about the current
workforce in perspective. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that
in 2008, 93 percent of full-time employees were provided paid time off
that could be used in the event of an illness, and 51 percent of part-
time workers had paid illness leave. In 2008, 79 percent of low-wage
workers, and by that I mean folks making between $7.25 and $14.99 an
hour, had paid illness leave. Last year, 94 percent of large employers
offered paid leave that could be used for illness, as did 76 percent of
small businesses, meaning those with less than 50 employees. The facts
suggest that we should not be imposing costly and new one-size-fits-all
burdens on businesses based on any faulty assumptions about the
workplace.
Putting these facts aside, I am also concerned that this proposal
raises a host of unanswered questions, and indeed, stretches far beyond
the reach of what its proponents claim it does. For instance,
supporters claim that the Healthy Families Act will have no effect on
businesses that already provide paid sick leave, but taking a closer
look at the ``fine print'' makes it clear that it's only those
employers who provide leave that meets the exact conditions and
circumstances set forth in the bill. How many employers do we think
will meet that standard, especially after Washington bureaucrats draft
hundreds of pages of federal regulations?
Turning to the second bill that we will examine this morning, the
Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act, it is
sponsored by our Chairwoman. Her efforts and commitment to improving
workplace environments across this country are to be applauded. But the
proposal appears to put Washington in the business of paying for sick
days to the tune of about one and a half BILLION dollars over the next
four years. At a time when we are facing massive, record budget
deficits and the President has us on the path to raising the national
debt to $23.1 TRILLION by 2019, this is a road we simply cannot afford.
Even in the absolute best economic climate, this is a questionable
idea--far beyond the appropriate role of the federal government.
As I close, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, but I do
close with a question for the Chairwoman. This week, House Democrats
released their plan to reform America's health care system. It has been
suggested that reform of the Family and Medical Leave Act should be
included as part of a final package. I would suggest that adding such
reforms is too important to be tucked away into a massive overhaul and
should be vetted and debated separately on its merits. Madame
Chairwoman, is it this Committee's intention to include reforms of the
Family and Medical Leave Act in the House version of health care
reform, expected to be voted on later this summer?
Thank you.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
So now, without objection, all members will have 14 days to
submit additional materials for the hearing record.
We have two panels today. I am going to introduce the first
panel, and very distinguished members of Congress, and I will
welcome you here this morning. And I don't have to tell you
that you have 5 minutes to speak. When the light turns red, you
will be tying it up. But you also know that you are esteemed
members of this House, and we aren't going to kick you out at 5
minutes and 1 second or anything like that.
So first I would like to introduce the honorable
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Congresswoman DeLauro was first
elected to Congress in 1990, and she represents Connecticut's
third district. She sits on the House Appropriations and Budget
Committees. She serves as chairwoman of the Agricultural FDA
Appropriations Subcommittee and is a member of the Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Financial Services
Appropriation Subcommittees.
Congresswoman DeLauro is a graduate of Marymount College,
where she received her B.A., with honors.
No kidding. Like you would do anything else but that.
She earned her master's in international politics from
Columbia University and studied at the London School of
Economics.
Following Congresswoman DeLauro, we have the honor of
having one of our favorite freshman, the honorable Congressman
Alan Grayson, who was elected to Congress in 2008 and serves
the 8th district of Florida. He sits on the House Financial
Services and Science and Technology Committees.
Representative Grayson received his B.A. and J.D. from
Harvard. He also holds a master's degree from the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard. Mr. Grayson is here today
because he supports the FIRST Act and the Healthy Families, and
he is going to describe his new legislation on paid vacations.
Congresswoman DeLauro?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROSA DELAURO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is a
delight to be with you. I want to thank you and Ranking Member
Price for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections today.
And Chairwoman Woolsey, I appreciate your tireless
leadership on this issue, and also Chairman Miller, who is a
co-sponsor and a vocal advocate of this bill.
This is the first legislative hearing on the Health
Families Act, which was first introduced in June of 2004, so we
are grateful to you for that. And the absence of a national
paid sick days policy today affects countless families and
workers. This hearing is an important sign of the progress on
their behalf.
There is no simple answer when it comes to strengthening
our working-and middle-class families. There are a number of
critical steps that we can take, initiatives that have proven
successful at making opportunity real for families and
children, which is why the legislation like the Healthy
Families Act is so important.
I am here today for a very simple reason: because I believe
that workers in America ought to have paid sick days. It is a
basic matter of right and wrong. And yet, almost half of all
private sector workers do not have a single paid day off that
they can use to care for themselves or for a sick family
member. These workers put their jobs on the line every time
they take a day off.
The Healthy Families Act, which I introduced with Senator
Kennedy, would correct this injustice, requiring employers with
15 or more workers to provide 7 days of paid sick leave
annually for their own medical needs or to care for a family
member. I might add that smaller employers with fewer than 15
employees are exempt from the act, and that is the same as
Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act.
Under the new rules, workers would earn one hour of paid
sick time for each 30 hours worked up to a total of 56 hours in
a calendar year. They earn these paid sick days. This is about
simply setting the floor on what we all can agree is good
corporate citizenship, about staying competitive as a nation.
And it is harder and harder to do when 57 million people in our
workforce do not have the right to take time off from work when
they are sick or when they need to stay home to care for a sick
child or elderly relative.
Nations around the world--our competitors--do not face the
same handicap and are surging ahead. It is about keeping
businesses and workers strong, helping to maintain their edge
in a tightening global economy.
We also know it is hard to stay ahead when 19 of the 20
most competitive countries in the world guarantee paid sick
days. The United States is the odd one out.
What does it say when Lesotho, Papua, New Guinea are
implementing paid sick days to give their businesses and their
entire nation a competitive edge? America still doesn't get it.
Ultimately, the issue is part of a larger health care
debate that is going on right now. It is why we named it the
Healthy Families Act. We learned from that recent H1N1
outbreak, as you pointed out, that providing paid sick days to
workers is an urgent matter of preventing the spread of
disease.
It is interesting to note, all of the health care
professionals and the president of the United States on
television saying to people, ``If you are ill, stay home. If
you are ill stay home.'' But, well, that is wonderful if you
have paid sick days and you can do it and you can afford to do
that.
And it was out of the reach of so many Americans when they
got that criteria established. Half of all private sector
workers do not have a single paid day off that they can use for
themselves or a sick family member.
While we try to recover from this economy, study after
study has pointed to cost benefits that paid sick days yield to
employers, to workers, and to taxpayers. No surprise that we
can reduce cost across the board by improving access to
appropriate care for chronic illnesses, timely treatment for
acute medical needs, while reducing the spread of contagious
diseases.
When working parents go to work sick, they risk infecting
the entire workforce. They pay a price--we all pay a price for
denying employees paid sick days, especially if they work in
health care, child care, or food service.
Indeed, well below every other major industry, only 15
percent of workers in food service have paid sick days. They
endanger hundreds--even thousands--of patrons.
Let me make a comment about working women and their
families. They bear the brunt. And it is as it is. Women have
the responsibility for caring for children. Half of all working
mothers report that they must miss work when the child is sick.
Half of them do not get paid.
When nearly a third of all working mothers fear their job
evaluation might suffer for missing work, imagine what this
legislation could do for them in terms of peace of mind. This
is about income security for our families today, and we are in
a very difficult economic situation today. We have a weak
safety net that is stretched thin.
Those who bear the brunt have a very difficult time
bouncing back. And we have a responsibility to confront that
issue. It means, in fact, it is standing the EITC, and I know
the FIRST Act, Chairman Woolsey, which you have introduced. I
commend you for the proposal. Happy to join you in supporting
it.
We need to continue to honor the work and responsibility of
the people who take on jobs seriously, who do not have any
opportunity for paid sick days, and we need to move forward in
this effort. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak
before this subcommittee this morning.
[The statement of Ms. DeLauro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Connecticut
Good morning. Chairman Woolsey, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
today. I appreciate your tireless leadership on this issue along with
Chairman Miller who is a cosponsor and a vocal advocate of this bill.
And I want to thank you for holding this first legislative hearing on
the Healthy Families Act: The absence of a national paid sick days
policy today affects countless families and workers and this hearing is
an important sign of progress on their behalf.
There is no simple answer when it comes to strengthening our
working and middle class families. But there are a number of critical
steps we can take--initiatives which have proven successful at making
opportunity real for families and children.
And that is why legislation like the Healthy Families Act is so
important. I am here today for a simple reason: because I believe
workers in America ought to have paid sick days. It is a basic matter
of right and wrong.
And yet almost half of all private sector workers do not have a
single paid day off that they can use to care for themselves or a sick
family member. These workers put their jobs on the line every time they
take a day off.
The Healthy Families Act, which I introduced with Senator Kennedy,
would correct this injustice, requiring employers with 15 or more
workers to provide 7 days of paid sick leave annually for their own
medical needs or to care for a family member. Under the new rules
workers would earn one hour of paid sick time for each 30 hours worked,
up to a total of 56 hours in a calendar year.
This is really about simply setting the floor on what we all can
agree is good corporate citizenship. This is about staying competitive
as a nation. But that is harder and harder to do, when 57 million
people in our workforce do not have the right to take time off work
when they are sick, or when they need to stay home to care for a sick
child or elderly relative. Meanwhile, nations all around the world, our
competitors--do not face the same handicap and are surging ahead.
It is about keeping our businesses and workers strong--and helping
to maintain their edge in tightening global economy. But, we also know,
it is hard to stay ahead when 19 of the 20 most competitive countries
in the world guarantee pad sick days--and the United States is the odd
one out.
What does it say when Lesotho and Papua New Guinea are implementing
paid sick days to give their businesses and their entire nation a
competitive edge, yet America still does not get it?
Ultimately this issue as part of the larger health care debate
going on right now. That is why we named it `Healthy Families Act.'' As
we have learned from the recent H1N1 outbreak: providing paid sick days
to workers is also an urgent matter of preventing the spread of
disease.
We know that infectious diseases like H1N1 can spread rapidly
throughout the country when proper precautions are not taken. We saw
how countless public health officials, and even the President, took to
the airwaves to ask folks to follow a simple guideline: If you get
sick, stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to
keep from infecting them.
And yet, following this critical advice is virtually impossible for
far too many Americans. As I mentioned, almost half of all private
sector workers do not have a single paid day off that they can use to
care for themselves or a sick family member. These workers put their
jobs on the line every time they take a day off.
With the economy still struggling to recover, study after study has
pointed to cost benefits that paid sick days yield to employers,
workers, and taxpayers. It is no surprise that we can reduce costs
across the board by improving access to appropriate care for chronic
illnesses and timely treatment for acute medical needs, while reducing
the spread of contagious illness.
When working parents must go to work sick, they risk infecting
their entire workplace, then we all pay the price for denying employees
paid sick days--especially if they work in health care, child care, or
food service. Indeed, well below every other major industry, only 15
percent of workers in food service have paid sick days--endangering
hundreds even thousands of patrons.
What is more: working women and their families, in particular,
would benefit from our bill. We all know that the brunt of the
responsibility for caring for children still falls upon women--that is
the way it is. Half of all working mothers report that they must miss
work when a child is sick--and half of them do not get paid. When
nearly a third of all working mothers fear their job evaluation might
suffer from missing work, imagine what this legislation could mean to
them: peace of mind.
Of course, while paid sick days will make a tremendous difference,
it is no silver bullet. We must embrace a comprehensive pro-family
agenda. Today, families' fortunes are increasingly tied to an ever more
volatile economy. Yet with a weak safety net stretched thin, those who
bear the brunt have a very difficult time bouncing back. We have a
responsibility to confront the unique challenges that INCOME INSECURITY
places on working and middle class families.
That means expanding the EITC, or supporting child care, pay equity
and, Chairman Woolsey, initiatives like your own Family Income to
Respond to Significant Transitions or FIRST Act to allow more workers
to take advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act. I commend you
for this proposal and am happy to join you in supporting it.
Ultimately, I believe our decisions and actions must reflect a
broader worldview that begins with equal opportunity and giving people
who strive to better themselves the tools to succeed. Thank you again
Chairman Woolsey for the opportunity to testify this morning. We must
continue to honor the work and responsibility that is the basis of our
shared community.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Congressman Grayson?
STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN GRAYSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price, and my esteemed
colleagues, thank you very much for the opportunity of allowing
me to speak today concerning the importance of time off for
America's workers. I am a co-sponsor of both H.R. 2339, the
Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act, and
H.R. 2460, the Healthy Families Act, and I believe that the
passage of those two bills will make significant gains in the
health, productivity, and well-being of our workforce and our
country.
These landmark pieces of legislation are long overdue, and
they should be passed, signed by the president, and immediately
implemented to help our constituents and their families.
Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Woolsey must be applauded
for their long-time efforts on this legislation, and thousands
of groups, ranging from business and labor to family and
medical advocacy groups should also be applauded for bringing
this bill to where it is today.
Madam Chair, many of the reasons why I introduced the Paid
Vacation Act, H.R. 2564, are the reasons why I am in favor of
H.R. 2339 and H.R. 2460. In particular, I, too, believe that a
healthy worker is a happy worker, and a happy worker is a
productive worker. Therefore, in addition to providing all
workers in the United States paid sick leave, I believe they
should also enjoy a week or more of paid vacation each year.
How many American employees never get a day off? Go ahead
and guess. The number is over 27 million. That is right. Over
27 million workers in America never get a single day off.
And half of all American employees get a week off each year
or less. No wonder that 69 percent of all Americans support our
paid vacation bill.
The Paid Vacation Act would require companies with at least
100 employees to give full-time workers 1 week of paid vacation
after a year of service. If you listen to people's comments on
our legislation, you will hear one thing over and over again:
People need time to recharge their batteries.
That is right. Study after study has shown that people are
healthier, happier, and more productive after a vacation--not
just the following week or the following month, but actually
for the whole year. The gains in productivity make up for the
time off and more.
So what kind of workforce do we need? People who are
stressed out, burnt out, and pretending to work, or people who
are rested, paying attention, and trying to get things done?
The statistics are startling. We spend more than $3,000 per
employee per year on health care for stress-related conditions.
Employers without vacations are much more likely to have a
heart attack and die. We are literally working ourselves to
death.
We have all heard the saying, ``All work and no play makes
Jack a dull boy.'' Well, it turns out that all work and no play
makes Jack a dead boy.
We are rightly proud of the fact that America leads the
world in so many areas. Add this one to the list: We lead the
world in employees who can never take a day off. Every major
country in the world has a law that provides for paid vacations
for employees. More than 140 countries have such a law. Why
don't we?
And here is another category in which we are number one:
the number of hours worked, a number that is up by 160 hours
per year since 1976. Remember that one of the most successful
ad campaigns in history told Americans, ``You deserve a break
today.'' And that is right. We do deserve a break.
Another reason why I believe this bill is important is
because of the support it provides for American tourism, one of
the few parts of our economy that actually functions quite well
right now. As many of you know, tourism is Florida's largest
business. We have more than 75 million visitors a year, and it
adds $57 billion to our state economy each year.
Madam Chairman, that means jobs, jobs, and jobs. My
colleagues from Florida, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and
elsewhere know that this bill would be great for our economy if
more people went on vacation. That is one reason why people are
talking about our Paid Vacation Act. Media from Orlando to
Fresno are talking about it because it means not only healthy
workers, but more jobs.
I will admit there are some people who tell me that they
oppose this bill, and I ask them one question: Do you get a
vacation? The answer is always yes. So it turns out that they
are not against vacations, they are just against vacations for
other people.
There is a good reason why my district, which includes
Disneyworld and Universal Orlando, is called the happiest place
on earth. It is because the happy people who visit us all have
one thing in common: they are on vacation.
Do you support family values? Then let us give the 27
million Americans who don't have a chance to be with their
families a chance to spend some more time with their families.
In conclusion, I ask the committee to support the immediate
passage of the Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions Act and the Healthy Families Act, and I would also
ask my colleagues to ask themselves this question: Why is the
United States of America the only major nation not to provide
for vacation time as well?
I encourage my colleagues to consider this important issue
and support H.R. 2564. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Grayson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alan Grayson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price, and my esteemed
colleagues, thank you for allowing me to speak today on the importance
of time off for America's workers.
I am a cosponsor of both H.R. 2339, the Family Income to Respond to
Significant Transitions Act, and H.R. 2460, the Healthy Families Act,
and I believe the passage of these two bills will make significant
gains in the health, productivity, and wellbeing of our workforce.
These landmark pieces of legislation are long overdue. They should
be passed, signed by the President, and immediately implemented to help
our constituents and their families.
Congresswoman DeLauro, and Chairwoman Woolsey must be applauded for
their long-time efforts on this legislation. And the thousands of
groups, ranging from business and labor to family and medical advocacy
groups should also be applauded for bringing this bill to where it is
today.
Madame Chair, many of the reasons why I introduced the Paid
Vacation Act, are the reasons why I am in favor of H.R. 2339 and H.R.
2460. In particular, I too believe that a healthy worker is a happy
worker. And a happy worker is a productive worker.
Therefore, in addition to providing all workers in America paid
sick leave, I also believe they should enjoy a week or more paid
vacation each year.
How many American employees never get a day off? Guess. The number
is over 27 million. That's right over 27 million workers in America
never get a single day of paid vacation. And half of all American
employees get less than a week each year. No wonder 69% of all
Americans support the paid vacation bill.
The Paid Vacation Act would require companies with at least 100
employees to give full-time workers one week of paid vacation after a
year of service.
Listen to people's comments on this legislation and you'll hear one
thing over and over--``people need time to recharge their batteries.''
They're right. Study after study has shown that people are healthier,
happier, and more productive after a vacation--not just for the
following week, or even the following month, but for the whole year.
The gains in productivity make up for the time off, and more. What kind
of workforce do we need? People who are stressed, burnt out, and
pretending to work, or people who are rested, paying attention, and
trying to get things done?
The statistics are startling. We spend more than $3000 per employee
per year on health care for stress-related conditions. Employees
without vacations are much more likely to have a heart attack and die.
We are literally working ourselves to death. We've all heard the saying
``all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.'' Well, it turns out that
all work and no play makes Jack a dead boy.
We're rightly proud of the fact that America leads the world in so
many areas. Add this one to the list--we lead the world in employees
who can never take a day off. Every major country in the world has a
law that provide for paid vacations for employees--more than 140
countries. Why don't we?
And here's another category in which We Are Number One: the number
of hours worked. A number that is up by 160 hours per year since 1976.
Remember that one of the most successful ad campaigns in history told
Americans, ``you deserve a break today.'' That's right--we do deserve a
break.
Another reason why I believe this bill is important is because of
the support it provides to American tourism.
As many of you may know, tourism is Florida's largest business. We
have more than 75 million visitors a year, resulting in $57 billion
dollars for the state economy.
Madame Chair, this means jobs, jobs, jobs. My colleagues, from
Florida, California, Hawaii, Nevada and elsewhere know that this bill
would be great for our economy if more people went on vacation.
That's one reason why people are talking about our Paid Vacation
Act. Media from Orlando to Fresno are talking about it, because it not
only means healthy workers but more jobs.
I'll admit, there are some people who tell me that they oppose this
bill. I ask them one question: ``Do you get vacation?'' Their answer
always is ``yes.'' So it turns out that they're not against vacations,
just vacations for other people.
There is a good reason why my district, which includes Disney World
and Universal Orlando, is called ``the happiest place on earth.'' It's
because the happy people who visit us all have one thing in common--
they're on vacation.
Do you support family values? Then give 27 million Americans a
chance to spend some time with their families.
In conclusion, I ask the committee to support the immediate passage
of the Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act, and the
Healthy Families Act.
I would also ask my colleagues why the United States of America is
the only major nation NOT to provide for paid vacation time. I
encourage my colleagues to consider this important issue, and support
this legislation.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Thank you, both of you, very, very much. And now we are
going to get ready for panel two.
The nice thing about being a member of Congress, you don't
get grilled.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Now I have the distinct privilege of
introducing panel two, and I don't know how many of you have
been witnesses in the past, so we will go over the rules. We
have a lighting system. When you first start to speak, you have
5 minutes, and when the yellow light goes on you have 1 minute
left. And we hope that after that yellow light you start
wrapping up your 5 minutes.
Now, the same thing goes for us. When we are through with
the entire panel of witnesses, when we have heard you all, then
we will, in order of people arriving here on the podium, we
will have 5-minute questions and answers. And our members, if
they choose to give a 5-minute speech, then they don't have any
time for your answer. So we are always hoping that the
questions are direct and you get more time while you are up
there.
We think we are not going to be voting until about 11:30,
so this is good. So I will introduce our witnesses and we will
get right onto hearing from them.
First we will have Ms. Debra Ness, who is the president of
the National Partnership for Women and Families. For over 2
decades, she has been an ardent advocate for the issues that
face women and families at home and in the workplace, serving
most recently as executive vice president of the National
Partnership for 13 years.
Ms. Ness graduated from Drew University with a bachelor's
degree is psychology and sociology. After completing graduate
work in social welfare and public health policy, she received
her master's degree of science from Columbia University's
School of Social Work.
Then we have Victoria Lipnic, who is the former assistant
secretary of labor for employment standards. Prior to Ms.
Lipnic's appointment, Assistant Secretary Lipnic served as
workforce policy council for this committee from 2000 to 2002.
She earned her B.A. in political science and history from
Allegheny University in Pennsylvania and her J.D. from George
Mason University School of Law.
Ms. Sandra O'Poole--oh. Sandra O. Poole. I am taking the
``O'' out now. Sandra Poole.
Sandra is the deputy secretary of the California Employment
Development Department disability insurance branch. Prior to
this appointment, she held the position of deputy director of
the Department of Child Support Services, DCSS, where she was
responsible for promulgating statewide policies and regulations
that ensure uniform delivery of services by 58 local child
support agencies. Ms. Poole has a bachelor's degree in
sociology from CSUS, San Bernardino, and a master's degree in
public administration from Golden Gate University.
Dr. Bhatia, you realize you are in the middle of all these
wonderful women, right? There you are.
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia is the director of Occupational and
Environmental Health Department of Public Health for the city
of San Francisco in addition to being an assistant clinical
professor of medicine at the University of California, San
Francisco. As director, he has been involved in many policy
areas, including the implementation of the California Healthy
Families Healthy Workplace Act of 2008. Mr. Bhatia received his
B.S. and M.D. from Stanford University and an MPH from the
University of California, Berkeley.
Ms. China Miner Gorman is the chief operating officer for
the Society for Human Resources Management, SHRM. Ms. Gorman
has over 25 years of experience in human resources and
workforce development, serving most recently as the president
of North America for DBM, a global human capital management and
transitions firm. She has a B.A. in English literature from
Principia College.
Ms. Deborah Frett joined BPW USA and the BPW Foundation as
CEO in May of 2005. Ms. Frett has over 27 years of experience
providing and implementing strategic direction and executive
management for associations for profit and nonprofit
organizations. Ms. Frett holds a B.A. in sociology from Quincy
University.
Wow. What a panel you are.
We will begin with you, Ms. Ness.
STATEMENT OF DEBRA NESS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR
WOMEN
Ms. Ness. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Woolsey,
Ranking Member Price, members of the subcommittee. I want to
start by thanking you for inviting all of us to talk about the
workplace policies that our nation so urgently needs.
I am Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for
Women and Families, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy
group that has been working on issues important to women and
families for almost 4 decades. I am here today to testify in
support of both the Healthy Families Act and the FIRST Act.
Both of these pieces of legislation are tremendously
important to working people across the country, especially at
this time when working families are overwhelmed by the economic
crises we are all grappling with. We urge Congress to waste no
time in passing these bills.
When workers are stretched so thin and job security is so
tenuous, taking time off for either a serious medical condition
like cancer, or something simpler like the flu, or just taking
care of a sick child, can lead to financial disaster for
families, and that is because millions of workers have no job-
protected, paid time off, as Congresswoman DeLauro made so
clear. While the Family and Medical Leave Act provides some
workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, that law was only
a first step. It does not cover all workers; it does not allow
workers to take time off for short-term illnesses or routine
medical care, like mammograms or colonoscopies; and it provides
only unpaid leave, which millions of workers cannot afford to
take.
It is time to take the next step in making this nation more
family-friendly, and the sooner we act, the better off we will
be. America needs a basic workplace standard that allows
employees to earn paid sick days that they can use to recover
from their own illness or to care for a sick family member. The
Healthy Families Act would do that by letting workers at
businesses with at least 15 employees earn up to 7 paid sick
days a year.
The recent H1N1 virus really drove home the need for this
legislation. When news broke of a possible pandemic, public
health officials and government leaders, from the president on
down, said people with signs of illness should do the
responsible thing: stay home from work and school.
But unfortunately, not everybody was able to heed that good
advice not because they were irresponsible, but because nearly
half of private sector workers and more than three-quarters of
low-wage workers do not have a single paid sick day. For them,
staying home when you are sick or have a sick child means
losing part of your paycheck or even putting your job on the
line.
Today, the National Partnership is releasing new research
that provides further evidence that paid sick days would also
be good for the nation's public health. The study we
commissioned from human impact partners and the San Francisco
Department of Public Health provides the evidence for what we
all intuitively know: The Healthy Families Act would help us
significantly reduce the spread of pandemic or seasonal flu by
enabling workers to comply with public health advice if they or
their family members show sign of illness.
We will hear more about this research in a few minutes, but
with one-third of flu cases transmitted at schools or
workplaces, the research shows that if we make it possible for
people to stay home when they are infected, we can reduce the
spread of a pandemic flu virus by up to 34 percent. The study
finds that the Healthy Families Act would go a long way toward
protecting the public from diseases carried by sick workers in
restaurants, in hotels, in nursing homes, and would help people
not get sicker, which leads to unnecessary hospitalizations and
death.
And I just want to drive home the fact, only 15 percent of
food service workers have paid sick days, and yet we know that
half of stomach flu virus outbreaks are linked to ill food
service workers. People think it is the food getting them sick.
They are also getting sick from the workers who are sick, who
are spreading their germs.
While the Healthy Families Act is needed to address the day
to day health needs of working families, the FIRST Act is also
needed to help workers make ends meet when there is a longer-
term illness or more serious illness by providing grants to
states to develop and implement their own paid family and
medical lead program.
When a serious personal or family medical crisis strikes,
workers frequently have no choice but to take unpaid leave or
quit their job. As a result, for many an illness in the family
or the birth of a child forces them into a serious downward
economic spiral.
Paid family and medical leave is essential to enable
workers to care for themselves, their children, and
increasingly, their older family members. These workers are
people like you and me, and I would bet that pretty much
everybody in this room has or will, at some point, grapple with
some of these problems. There are millions of working adults
already who are providing support to older relatives, and this
number is growing rapidly.
And there is no question that the population is getting
older, but the population that is living longer is also living
sicker, with more chronic conditions and more complex care
needs. And as a result, the care-giving challenges that our
families face are enormous. And so, as a nation, as employers,
as workers, we need to face this reality: Within the next 5
years, half of the labor force--half of the labor force--will
be caregivers for elder relatives.
This is a 21st century problem, and we need 21st century
solutions. And as a nation, we ignore the imperative to adopt
these policies at our peril.
So, we all have the economy very much on our mind these
days. I want to say that it is especially during these times
that workers need these protections.
And I will end by saying that I am here representing not
just the National Partnership for Women and Families, but also
the broad-based coalitions that are leading these efforts to
help working families through enacting passage of both the
Healthy Families Act and the FIRST Act. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Ness follows:]
Prepared Statement of Debra L. Ness, President, the National
Partnership for Women & Families
Good morning, Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price, members of
the Subcommittee and my distinguished fellow panelists. Thank you for
inviting us to talk about the policies this nation's workers urgently
need.
I am Debra Ness, President of the National Partnership for Women &
Families, a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy group dedicated to
promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care, and
policies that help workers meet the dual demands of work and family. I
am here to testify in support of the Healthy Families Act and the FIRST
Act, groundbreaking pieces of legislation that are tremendously
important to working people across the nation. Congress should waste no
time in passing these bills, especially at a time when working families
are overwhelmed by personal economic crises caused by the recession.
The historic pace at which our economy is shedding jobs is
devastating millions of working families--shaking the financial ground
beneath their feet. Last week, the unemployment rate rose to 9.4
percent--the highest level since 1983. The unemployment rate for
African Americans and Hispanics is even higher.
That means millions of families that once relied on two incomes are
struggling to manage on one income, or no income at all. Access to
employer-provided health insurance has declined, and family wealth is
disappearing at a record pace. In fact, in the 18-month period ending
in December 2008, total family wealth decreased by $15 trillion--the
fastest decline in any 18month period since the government began
collecting such data. One in nine mortgages is delinquent or in
foreclosure, and credit card defaults continue to rise.\1\
When workers are stretched so thin, having to take time off for the
flu or a strep throat, treatment for a serious medical condition, or to
care for a new child can lead to financial disaster for families.
That's because millions of workers have no job protected, paid time
off. We need to change that, especially now because in this economic
climate, basic workplace standards of paid family and medical leave and
paid sick days can prevent workers from being forced to choose between
their health or the health of their family, and their paycheck or even
their job. Simply put, we need these workplace policies to prevent
working families from falling further down an economic rabbit-hole.
The FMLA was Only a First Step
The typical American family has changed dramatically in recent
decades. More families have two parents working, fewer families have
full-time caregivers at home, and more workers are responsible for the
care of aging relatives. Our nation's workplace policies have not
addressed these changes. Currently, only one federal law helps our
nation's workers meet the dual demands of work and family: the Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It provides unpaid, job-protected leave
for up to 12 weeks a year for covered workers to care for a newborn,
newly adopted or foster child, to care for a seriously ill family
member, or to recover from their own serious illness. The FMLA provides
essential job protections that can allow workers to take the time off
they need without losing their jobs.
Laws like the FMLA could not be more important during an economic
downturn, and more workers need access to the protections the FMLA
affords. However, I want to address two main weaknesses of this law,
both of which would be addressed by the legislation this Subcommittee
is considering.
First, the FMLA does not address many workers' day-to-day health
needs. FMLA coverage for illnesses is limited to serious, longer-term
illnesses and the effects of long term chronic conditions. The law does
not offer time off to deal with common illnesses that do not meet the
FMLA standard of ``serious'' illness. It also does not offer time off
for routine medical visits.
Second, the FMLA offers unpaid leave. Millions of workers cannot
afford to take the unpaid leave the FMLA provides. Without some form of
wage replacement, the FMLA's promise of job-protected leave is out-of-
reach for millions of women and men. In fact, in one survey 78 percent
of employees who qualified for FMLA leave and needed to take it did not
do so because they could not afford to go without a paycheck.\2\ More
than one-third of the men and women who use the FMLA (34 percent)
receive no pay during leave, and another large segment of the
population has a very limited amount of paid leave available.\3\
Workers Need Paid Sick Days
The recent H1N1 virus outbreak highlighted the need for paid sick
days. We all agreed it was sound advice when officials at the Centers
for Disease Control & Prevention warned, ``This is a serious event * *
* If you have a fever and you're sick or your children are sick, don't
go to work and don't go to school.'' But nearly half of private-sector
workers (48 percent) do not have access to paid, job-protected sick
days.\4\ Seventy-nine percent of low-income workers--the majority of
whom are women--do not have a single paid sick day.\5\ For them,
staying home when sick means going without pay and perhaps risking
their jobs.
Giving workers advice they cannot afford to take is ineffective at
best. Focusing entirely on workers, without stressing that employers
also have a responsibility to make it possible for sick workers to take
time off, is a recipe for disaster if a virulent, contagious pandemic
strikes.
The problem is particularly acute for working women, who are
disproportionately affected by our failure to enact a minimum standard
of paid sick days because they are more likely to work part-time (or
cobble together full-time hours by working more than one part-time
position) than men. Only 16 percent of part-time workers have paid sick
days, compared to 60 percent of full-time workers.\6\
Women also have primary responsibility for meeting family care
giving needs. Almost half of our nation's working mothers report that
they must miss work when a child is sick--but 49 percent of those
mothers do not get paid when they miss work to care for a sick
child.\7\
Paid sick days may actually reduce health care costs. Studies have
shown that when parents are able to be involved in their children's
health care, children recover faster.\8\
Our failure to guarantee a minimum standard of paid sick days is a
significant public health concern, as we witnessed during the H1N1
virus outbreak. Many of the workers who interact with the public every
day are among the least likely to have paid sick days. Only 22 percent
of food and public accommodation workers have any paid sick days, for
example. Workers in child care centers, retail clerks, and nursing
homes also disproportionately lack paid sick days.\9\ If a lack of paid
sick days means that they must work when they are ill, their coworkers
and the general public are at risk of contagion.
Today, I am pleased to release powerful new research assessing the
health impact of the Healthy Families Act. Conducted by Human Impact
Partners, a non-profit project of the Tides Center, and the San
Francisco Department of Public Health, this study was commissioned by
the National Partnership for Women & Families and funded by the Annie
E. Casey Foundation. It finds that providing employees with paid sick
leave benefits will significantly improve the nation's health.
The new study finds that guaranteed paid sick days would reduce the
spread of pandemic and seasonal flu. More than one-third of flu cases
are transmitted in schools and workplaces. Staying home when infected
could reduce by 15--34 percent the proportion of people impacted by
pandemic influenza. Without preventive strategies, more than two
million people in this country could die in a serious pandemic flu
outbreak.
It also finds that, if all workers had paid sick days, workers
would be less likely to spread food borne disease in restaurants and
there would be fewer outbreaks of gastrointestinal disease in nursing
homes.
Paid sick days may be associated with less severe illness and a
reduced duration of disability due to sickness, because workers with
paid sick days are 14 percent more likely to visit a medical
practitioner each year, which can translate into fewer severe illnesses
and hospitalizations.
Finally, the study finds that parents who had paid time off are
more than five times more likely to care for their sick children. This
indicates that parents who lack paid sick days are having to make
terrible choices--such as sending a sick child to school or day care.
I hope you will look at the full report, posted on
www.nationalpartnership.org and www.humanimpact.org/PSD.
Even without considering the public health, the lack of paid sick
days is a concern for millions of workers. One in six workers report
that they or a family member have been fired, suspended, punished or
threatened with being fired for taking time off due to personal illness
or to care for a sick relative, according to a 2008 University of
Chicago survey commissioned by the Public Welfare Foundation. To put a
face on some of those statistics, I'd like to share with you a few
stories from working people:
Heather from Cedar Crest, New Mexico explained to us: ``In
October, I got very sick with diverticulitis. My doctor put me on bed
rest for two weeks. While I was out, my boss hounded me to come back,
but I was way too sick. I told him I would be back as soon as I could.
I was not receiving sick pay at all. When I did go back to work early,
he fired me and told me he needed someone he could count on. I worked
for this man for two years. I was shocked. Sometimes things happen and
you get sick. How are you to foresee these things?''
Noel from Bellingham, Washington wrote to us: ``I had to
work while having bouts of awful bronchitis and walking pneumonia. I
got no time off at all even when I was in severe pain, coughing up
phlegm or vomiting. Instead I had to act like I wasn't sick, and keep
up the same standards and smiling face * * * I couldn't take unpaid
days off from work because I couldn't afford to do that. I needed the
money to pay for things like rent and food. When my quality of work
suffered substantially from having to go to work while so sick, I was
fired from my job because according to my then-supervisor, I did not
create a happy environment for the customers.''
As our population ages and more workers care for elderly parents,
we expect the number of workers risking their jobs to only increase.
Caregiving takes a financial toll on working people, especially when
they have to take unpaid time off from work. More than 34 million
caregivers provide assistance at the weekly equivalent of a part-time
job (more than 21 hours), and the estimated economic value of this
support is roughly equal to $350 billion.\10\ Among caregivers, 98
percent reported spending on average $5,531 a year, or one-tenth of
their salary, for out-ofpocket expenses.\11\ Those costs are compounded
when they must forfeit pay to provide care.
At present, no state requires private employees to provide paid
sick days. San Francisco, the District of Columbia and Milwaukee have
passed ordinances requiring that private-employers provide paid sick
days. More than a dozen cities and states are working to pass paid sick
days laws to ensure that this basic labor standard becomes a right for
all workers. But illness knows no geographic boundaries, and access to
paid sick days should not depend on where you happen to work.
Paid sick days is a basic labor standard like the minimum wage--and
as with the minimum wage, there should be a federal minimum standard of
paid sick days that protects all employees, with states free to go
above the federal standard as needed to address particular needs of
their residents. The Healthy Families Act would create just that: a
federal floor that allows workers to earn up to seven paid sick days a
year to recover from short-term illness, to care for a sick family
member, for routine medical care or to seek assistance related to
domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.
Workers Need Paid Family and Medical Leave
While the Healthy Families Act would help address the day-to-day
health needs of working families by guaranteeing paid, job-protected
time off for common illness and short-term caregiving needs, it is not
meant to offer wage replacement for long-term or serious medical needs,
or to provide care for a newborn or newly adopted child.
When such personal or family medical crises strike, workers
frequently have no choice but to take unpaid leave or quit their jobs.
As a result, for many workers, the birth of a child or an illness in
the family forces them into a cycle of economic distress. Twenty-five
percent of all poverty spells begin with the birth of a child.\12\ The
lack of paid family and medical leave hits low-income workers hardest:
almost three in four low-income employees who take family and medical
leave receive no pay, compared to between one in three middle income
employees and one in four upper income employees.
Providing paid family and medical leave helps ensure that workers
can perform essential caretaking responsibilities for newborns and
newly-adopted children. Parents who are financially able to take leave
are able to give new babies the critical care they need in the early
weeks of life, laying a strong foundation for later development.
We heard from a woman in Colorado whose experience illustrates the
devastation of not receiving wages while on leave. She explained: ``I
needed to take FMLA when I was pregnant. My job didn't offer paid leave
when I gave birth to my daughter. Because of FMLA I was guaranteed time
off when I was put on bed rest. Because it was unpaid, I had to work
from my bed and go back to work before my daughter was ready for me to
go back. Financially I needed to go back to work. My daughter was four
weeks old and on oxygen. I had to make special arrangements for a
family friend to watch her instead of the childcare facility because of
her age and special needs.''
Paid family and medical leave also would help the fast-growing
number of workers who are caring for older family members. Thirty-five
percent of workers, both women and men, report they have cared for an
older relative in the past year.\13\ Roughly half of Americans 65 years
of age and older participate in the labor force. Many require time away
from work to care for their own health and the health of a family
member.\14\
In 2003, experts estimated that 44 million adults in the United
States over age 18 provided support to older people and adults with
disabilities who live in their communities.\15\ They need job supports
today, and even more workers will need them in the future, because so
many adults are in the workforce and because people are living longer
and with more chronic conditions. Half of the labor force will be
caregivers within the next five years.\16\
Nearly 58 million working-age adults reported having at least one
of seven major chronic conditions\17\ in 2006--an increase of 25
percent from 1997. That increase reflects rising rates of chronic
disease prevalence among nonelderly adults, as well as an overall
increase in the adult population.\18\ The population of Americans age
65 and older will double during the next 25 years. By 2030, there will
be 71 million older adults, accounting for roughly 20 percent of the
U.S. population.\19\ Older adults are more likely to have more than one
chronic condition. Here are the figures:
91.5 percent of adults older than 65 years old are living
with at least one chronic condition, and 76.6 percent have at least
two.\20\
77.3 percent of adults between the ages of 55 and 64 are
living with at least one chronic condition, and 57 percent have at
least two.\21\
58.2 percent of adults between the ages of 35 and 54 are
living with at least one chronic condition, and 33.4 percent have at
least two.\22\
36.4 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 34 are
living with at least one chronic condition, and 14.4 percent have at
least two.\23\
26 percent of adults below the age of 19 are living with
at least one chronic condition, and 6 percent have at least two.\24\
The combination of more people living longer, and more of them
facing one or more chronic conditions, translates into more caregiving
responsibilities for workers.
The Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions (FIRST) Act
is groundbreaking, badly needed legislation that would provide states
with grants to develop and implement their own paid family and medical
leave programs. It gives states the flexibility to develop programs
based on the needs of working families in their states. In the absence
of a national paid family and medical leave insurance program, the
FIRST Act would support those states that have policies in place and
provide incentives to those states that do not so they can to develop
their own programs.
States have already been in the forefront of developing innovative
paid family and medical leave programs. Five states with temporary
disability programs (California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island) and Puerto Rico provide wage replacement for women during the
period of disability due to pregnancy. Additionally, California and New
Jersey have enacted paid family leave for caregiving purposes, and
Washington state passed a law that will offer working parents paid time
off for the birth or adoption of a new baby.
In 2004, California became the first state to provide wage
replacement while a worker is on family leave. The most comprehensive
of its kind, the law has given more than 13 million California workers
(nearly one-tenth our country's workforce) access to partial income
replacement (roughly 55 percent of wages) while they take time off to
care for a new child or seriously ill family member. Premiums for the
program are paid entirely by workers and are incorporated into the
state's temporary disability fund. Critically, the wage replacement
program covers all California workers who pay into the system; it is
not limited to those who are covered by the federal or state family and
medical leave act. Thus, the program reaches workers who may need it
the most--those who are not covered because they work for small
businesses or do not have a long tenure at their current job.
In 2007, Washington State became the second state to enact a paid
parental leave program. Washington's program will provide $250.00 per
week for five weeks to new parents who are staying home with their
child. Although not as expansive as California's, Washington's program
also covers more workers than the FMLA and provides job-protected leave
for employees who work in establishments with more than 25 employees.
The FIRST Act would allow Washington State to begin the implementation
of its program as the state, given the current budget crisis, has been
unable to secure funding for the start up costs of the program.
In 2008, New Jersey became the third state to enact paid family
leave legislation. Its program will extend the state's existing
temporary disability insurance system to provide workers with six weeks
of paid family leave to care for seriously-ill family members or to
bond with newborn or newly adopted children. The small premiums for the
program are paid by workers.
Where We Stand Compared to Other Countries
The United States stands alone among industrialized nations in its
complete lack of national policies to ensure that workers are
financially able to take time off for day-to-day medical needs, serious
illness or to care for a new baby.
Out of 173 countries, the U.S. is one of just four that fails to
provide paid maternity or paternity leave.\25\ The others are Liberia,
Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland.
According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the
United States is the only one of 22 countries ranked highly for
economic development that fails to guarantee workers paid time off for
serious illness, such as to undergo a 50-day cancer treatment.
It also is one of just three countries that do not provide paid
sick days for workers who miss five days of work due to the flu.\26\
Businesses Benefit from Paid Leave Policies
Research confirms what working families and responsible employers
already know: when businesses take care of their workers, they are
better able to retain them, and when workers have the security of paid
time off, they demonstrate increased commitment, productivity and
morale, and their employers reap the benefits of lower turnover and
training costs. Furthermore, studies show that the costs of losing an
employee (advertising for, interviewing and training a replacement) is
often greater than the cost of providing short-term leave to retain
existing employees. The average cost of turnover is 25 percent of an
employee's total annual compensation.\27\
Paid sick days policies also help reduce the spread of illness in
workplaces, schools and child care facilities. In this economy,
businesses cannot afford ``presenteeism,'' when sick workers come to
work rather than stay at home. ``Presenteeism'' costs our national
economy $180 billion annually in lost productivity. For employers, this
costs an average of $255 per employee per year and exceeds the cost of
absenteeism and medical and disability benefits.\28\
Paid family and medical leave programs help business owners by
enabling them to offer policies that help their employees meet the dual
demands of work and family, particularly if they could not afford to
provide such leave on their own. Additionally, paid leave programs
would help smaller businesses level the playing field with larger
businesses, making it easier for them to compete for the best workers
by offering similar workplace policies.
Conclusion
Now more than ever, with families struggling and jobs scarce,
workers need policies like paid family and medical leave and paid sick
days. Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when they get sick or a family member needs them. It's time to put
family values to work by adopting policies that expand the FMLA,
guarantee a basic workplace standard of paid sick days, and establish
paid family and medical leave programs.
Our nation has a history of passing laws to help workers in times
of economic crisis. Social Security and Unemployment Insurance became
law in 1935; the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor
Relations Act became law in 1938, all in response to the crisis the
nation faced during the Great Depression. Working people should not
have to risk their financial health when they do what all of us agree
is the right thing--take care of a family member who needs them.
The National Partnership for Women & Families leads broad-based
coalitions that support the Healthy Families Act and the FIRST Act.
These coalitions include children's, civil rights, women's, disability,
faith-based, community and anti-poverty groups as well as labor unions,
health agencies and leading researchers at top academic institutions.
They include 9to5, ACORN, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
the AFL-CIO and SEIU, the National Organization for Women and dozens of
other organizations. Together, we urge Congress to pass the Healthy
Families Act and the FIRST Act immediately.
Chairwoman Woolsey and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for
the opportunity to participate in this important discussion.
endnotes
\1\ Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/2009/05/econ--snapshot--0509.html, May 2009.
\2\ DOL 2000 Report at 2-16.
\3\ Id. at 4-5--4-6.
\4\ Vicky Lovell, Institute for Women's Policy Research, Women and
Paid Sick Days: Crucial for Family Well-Being, 2007.
\5\ Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage Issue Guide, 2007,
www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides--minwage.
\6\ Vicky Lovell, Institute for Women's Policy Research, No Time to
be Sick, 2004.
\7\ Kaiser Family Foundation, ``Women, Work and Family Health: A
Balancing Act,'' Issue Brief, April 2003.
\8\ Palmer S.J., Care of sick children by parents: A meaningful
role. J Adv Nurs. 18:185, 1993.
\9\ Vicky Lovell, Institute of Women's Policy Research, Valuing
Good Health: An Estimate of Costs and Savings for the Healthy Families
Act, 2005.
\10\ Gibson, Mary Jo and Houser, Ari, ``Valuing the Invaluable: A
New Look at the Economic Value of Family Caregiving.'' AARP, June 2007.
\11\ Jane Gross, ``Study Finds Higher Costs for Caregivers of
Elderly,'' New York Times, 11/19/07.
\12\ The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 2001. The Future of
Children: Caring for Infants and Toddlers. Richard Behrman, ed. Los
Altos, California:11(1).
\13\ Families and Work Institute, Highlights of the 2002 National
Study of the Changing Workforce, 2002.
\14\ AARP Public Policy Institute, Update on the Aged 55+ Worker,
2005.
\15\ Family Caregiver's Alliance: Caregiving and Retirement: What
Happens to Family Caregivers Who Leave the Workforce (2003).
\16\ AARP, How Employers Can Support Working Caregivers, July 30,
2007, http://www.aarp.org/states/nd/articles/how--employers--can--
support--working--caregivers--1.html (accessed June 9, 2009).
\17\ The definition of ``chronic condition'' can vary, however,
generally, a chronic health condition is one of long duration, often
slow progression, and is generally incurable. Chronic conditions limit
what an individual can do in his or her normal life. Conditions such as
heart disease, asthma, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and depression are
clear examples of chronic conditions.
\18\ Eroding Access among Nonelderly Adults with Chronic
Conditions: Ten Years of Change, (Kaiser Family Foundation) (2008).
\19\ The State of Aging and Health in America 2007, CDC/Merck
Company.
\20\ Machlin, S, Cohen, J, Beauregard, K. Health Care Expenses for
Adults with Chronic Conditions, 2005. (May 2008).
\21\ Machlin, S, Cohen, J, Beauregard, K. Health Care Expenses for
Adults with Chronic Conditions, 2005. (May 2008).
\22\ Machlin, S, Cohen, J, Beauregard, K. Health Care Expenses for
Adults with Chronic Conditions, 2005. (May 2008).
\23\ Machlin, S, Cohen, J, Beauregard, K. Health Care Expenses for
Adults with Chronic Conditions, 2005. (May 2008).
\24\ Anderson, Gerard. Chronic Conditions: Making the Case for
Ongoing Care (2007).
\25\ Jody Heymann, et al., Project on Global Working Families and
the Institute for Health and Social Policy at McGill University, The
Work, Family, and Equity Index: How Does the United States Measure Up?,
2007, http://www.mcgill.ca/files/ihsp/WFEI2007.pdf (accessed June 9,
2009).
\26\ Jody Heymann, et al, Center for Economic and Policy Research,
Contagion Nation: A Comparison of Paid Sick Day Policies in 22
Countries, May 2009, www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/
contagion-nation:-acomparison-of-paid-sick-day-policies-in-22-
countries/
\27\ Employment Policy Foundation 2002. ``Employee Turnover--A
Critical Human Resource Benchmark.'' HR Benchmarks (December 3): 1-5
(www.epf.org, accessed January 3, 2005).
\28\ Ron Goetzal, et al, Health Absence, Disability, and
Presenteeism Cost Estimates of Certain Physical and Mental Health
Conditions Affecting U.S. Employers, Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, April 2004.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much. You were very
smart to put the FIRST Act last, because you see, I had a hard
time not wanting to hear all of that. But thank you, Ms. Ness.
Ms. Lipnic?
STATEMENT OF VICTORIA LIPNIC, ESQ., FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR
Ms. Lipnic. Good morning, Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking
Member Dr. Price, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you
very much for inviting me to be back to the committee today.
My name is Victoria Lipnic. As you mentioned, I served as
the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards,
where I was responsible for, among other things, the
administration of the Family and Medical Leave Act. I have also
served as council to this committee and have practiced labor
and employment law for about 16 years.
I am appearing before you today on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce to discuss H.R. 2460, the Healthy Families
Act. My testimony today is confined only to H.R. 2460, and does
not address the FIRST Act.
My testimony is based on both my personal and professional
experience, and I guess I would note that when Dr. Price said
that bills get turned over to government bureaucrats to write
the regulations, I have been one of those government
bureaucrats, so I know firsthand what it means to take the
legislative language and turn it into the very real practical
rules that employers and employees have to live with every day
in their workplaces.
I have seen the consequences of those rules, both intended
and unintended, and what they can mean to a workplace. I have
also seen cases in which terms which are believed to be
perfectly well defined by the Congress, well intended, even
perfectly well defined by the regulators, leave more questions
than they actually answer.
Let me offer a few general comments about the bill before I
address some of the specifics of the bill's provisions. First,
it is certainly true that the Healthy Families Act has laudable
goals.
During the past few years when the Department of Labor
revised the family and medical leave regulations and created,
most recently, the implementing regulations for the military
family leave provisions, I read and studied the more than
20,000 comments to the public record from employers, health
care providers, employers, interest groups, and academics. The
concern of everyone--employers and employees--over how to deal
at the same time with the demands of work and an employee or a
family member of the employee who has an illness was palpable.
Secondly, it is also true, however, that the Healthy
Families Act would impose a new federal mandate of
unprecedented scope on very small business establishments. It
would do so at a time of serious economic stress and severe
continued job losses. It would come with a cost in the form of
reduced wages and job opportunities.
It would come at a time when employers are considering
every option available to them, including reducing hours,
shifts, benefits, contributions to retirement funds, to avoid
either any or further layoffs. And it would do so in the face
of evidence that a majority of employees in the United States
can access paid leave when they have an illness.
A February, 2009 report by economists from the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, published in the monthly labor review,
provides important new information and insights that are
critical to the debate about whether a federal mandate to
require paid sick leave is needed. In that new report, the BLS
economists found that when looking at leave benefits that are
provided in combination--not just paid sick leave, but vacation
leave, paid time off, personal leave--for which employees can
use the leave if they have an illness or to visit a doctor, 83
percent of workers in private industry have access to illness
leave. This is despite the fact that paid vacation leave,
holidays, and sick leave are among the most expensive benefits
offered to employees in private industry.
I would respectfully suggest to the committee that it would
be useful to have the BLS provide further information about
their study of these combinations of paid benefits and what
they are now terming their ``use-oriented analysis'' as the
committee considers legislation that mandates new or additional
benefits.
Third, the Healthy Families Act is inexplicably punitive
and burdensome on employers who already offer paid leave
benefits. The HFA removes the discretion of employers to design
benefits which best meet the needs of their employees and their
operations. Employers provide paid leave benefits as a
recruiting and retention tool, as a market differentiator, as
part of a total compensation total rewards package, but have
the ability to take into account how the benefits are
structured.
Under the HFA, employers who are already providing these
benefits would be subject to a new regulatory regime,
additional compliance and record-keeping costs, and litigation
for alleged violations of the law. They would be subject to
liquidated damages that are awarded in an unprecedented fashion
as a matter of course with no good faith defense and no
discretion from the court. This is for the people who are
already providing the benefit.
Finally, we know from years of experience, commentary, and
observation about the use of the FMLA that different workplaces
experience the use of leave very differently. In some
workplaces, it may be essential that everyone be there on time
in order to start the shift or run a particular piece of
machinery. The loss of one person to that shift may be critical
to the start of an entire production line or transportation
system.
And the one thing that I would note is that the HFA makes
no allowance for the differences among industries or workplaces
as to their operational needs.
Is my time up? I just want to check on that.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, you can finish your thought----
Ms. Lipnic. Okay.
Chairwoman Woolsey [continuing]. And finish your----
Ms. Lipnic [continuing]. Since this is a legislative
hearing, just a couple of points I will make in particular
about some of the specifics about the bill. First is that while
the bill itself sets the employee threshold at 15 employees, I
think if you read the bill it actually works out to be
employers who would have less than 15 employees who would be
covered, and that is partly because the leave carries over from
year to year and it does not take into account the ability of
small businesses to absorb those costs from one year to
another.
Another, I think, unanswered question is whether the
Healthy Families Act would also--whether that leave would also
be designated and counted as family and medical leave. It
would, as I would read it, for some employees in the workplace,
and you would then end up with a--two different standards in
the workplace for employees who are covered by the FMLA and the
HFA at the same time as the FMLA. I mentioned earlier about the
liquidated damages provision, which, I don't know if that is an
oversight or if that is deliberately left out of the bill.
And two other questions that I think are significant to the
discussion of the bill: First is, what medical conditions are
actually covered? And then secondly, who is covered? And the
bill has a very broad application to that.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Lipnic follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Victoria A. Lipnic, on Behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment
Standards, U.S. Department of Labor
Good morning Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking member Price and members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before the
subcommittee today. My name is Victoria Lipnic. I am an attorney, and
have practiced labor and employment law for nearly 16 years in many
forums. I most recently served as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Employment Standards at the U.S. Department of Labor, where I was
responsible for, among other things the administration and enforcement
of the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. I
have also served as counsel to this committee and in practice, have
litigated employment cases and counseled clients on numerous employment
issues.
I am appearing before you today on behalf of the U. S. Chamber of
Commerce to discuss H.R. 2460, the ``Healthy Families Act''
(hereinafter ``HFA'' or ``H.R. 2460.'') My testimony today is confined
only to H.R. 2460 and does not address the other bill being discussed
today, H.R. 2339, the ``Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions Act.'' The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest
business federation, representing more than three million businesses
and organizations of every size, sector, and region. My testimony today
is based on my personal and professional experience; especially having
most recently served as the head of one of the largest federal
regulatory enforcement agencies. I know firsthand what it means to take
legislative language and turn it into the very real practical rules
employers and employees must live by in their workplaces every day. I
have seen the consequences of those rules--both intended and
unintended--and what they can mean to a workplace. I have also seen
cases in which terms, believed to be perfectly well-defined and
extremely well-intended by legislators and regulators, raise more
questions than they answer, and result in an unsatisfactory answer to
the human resource administrator, lawyer, manager, or employee or
worse, in costly litigation. Let me offer a few general comments about
the bill before I address specifics about some of the bill's
provisions. First, it is certainly true that the Healthy Families Act
has laudable goals. During the past few years when the Department of
Labor revised the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations and
created the implementing regulations for the military family leave
provisions, I have read and studied the more than 20,000 comments to
the public record--from employees, health care providers, employers,
interest groups, and academics. The concern of everyone--employees and
employers over how to deal, at the same time, with the demands of work
and an employee or family member of the employee who has an illness--
was palpable.
Secondly, it is also true, however, that the Healthy Families Act
would impose a new federal mandate of unprecedented scope on very small
business establishments. It would do so at a time of serious economic
stress and severe, continued job losses. It would come with a cost in
the form of reduced wages and job opportunities.\1\ It would come at a
time when employers are considering every option available to them,
including reducing hours, shifts, benefits, contributions to retirement
funds, to avoid either any or further layoffs.\2\ And it would do so in
the face of evidence that a majority of employees in the United States
can access paid leave when they have an illness. A February 2009 report
by economists from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, published in
the Monthly Labor Review, provides important new information and
insights that are critical to the debate about whether a federal
mandate to require paid sick leave is needed. In that new report, the
BLS economists found that when looking at leave benefits provided by
employers in combination--that is, not just paid sick leave, but
including other types of paid leave (such as personal leave) for which
employees can use the leave for their illness or to visit a doctor--83
percent of workers in private industry have access to illness leave.\3\
This is despite the fact that paid vacation leave, holidays, and sick
leave are among the most expensive benefits offered to employees in
private industry.\4\ To quote from that Monthly Labor Review article:
Current NCS [National Compensation Survey] publications report, for
example, that 61 percent of private industry workers have access to
paid sick leave. But they do not report that 83 percent of workers have
access to the more broadly defined illness leave. Nor do they report
that only 22 percent of workers have access to comprehensive illness-
leave benefits. In some contexts, paid sick leave alone does not tell
the whole story. Some benefits are close substitutes, and others are
complements. A complete picture of access to benefits should present
not just benefits in isolation, but benefits in combination.\5\
Emphasis added.
I would respectfully suggest to the committee that it would be
useful to have the Bureau of Labor Statistics provide further
information about their study of the combinations of benefits and their
``use-oriented'' analysis as the committee considers legislation that
mandates new or additional benefits. Third, the HFA is inexplicably
punitive on employers who already offer paid leave benefits. The HFA
removes the discretion of employers to design benefits which best meet
the needs of their employees and their operations. Employers provide
leave benefits as a recruiting and retention tool, as a market
differentiator, as part of a total compensation/total rewards package,
but have the ability to take into account how the benefits are
structured. Under the HFA, employers who are already providing these
benefits would be subject to a new regulatory regime, additional
compliance and recordkeeping costs and litigation for alleged
violations of the law. They would be subject to liquidated damages that
are awarded, in an unprecedented fashion, as a matter of course, with
no good faith defense and no discretion from the courts. This is for
people who already provide paid leave benefits.
Finally, we know from years of experience, commentary and
observation about the use of the Family and Medical Leave Act that
different workplaces experience the use of leave very differently. In
some workplaces it may be essential that everyone be there on time in
order to start the shift or run a particular piece of machinery. The
loss of one person to that shift may be critical to the start of an
entire production line or transportation system. That is very different
than a workplace setting where the start time of an individual or
individuals is not critical to the completion of that day's work or
project.\6\ Those issues have downstream effects on other employees and
services. Just as under the FMLA, the HFA makes no allowance for
differences among industries or workplaces as to their operational
needs. Since this is a legislative hearing, let me turn to some
comments about specific provisions in the bill. I recognize that H.R.
2460 makes a number of changes as compared to prior versions of the
same titled bill introduced in the 110th Congress, H.R.1542 and S. 910,
not the least of which is now including coverage for victims of
domestic violence. Nevertheless, there remains a number of ambiguities,
inconsistencies, and problematic areas in H.R. 2460. The HFA will cover
businesses even smaller than those with 15 employees and makes no
differentiation between small and large businesses and their ability to
deal with the business cycle.
The HFA provides that a ``covered employer'' is one ``who employs
15 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more
calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.\7\ The
bill also allows for the carry-over of unused accumulated leave,
although an employer is not required ``to permit an employee to accrue
more than 56 hours of earned paid sick leave at a given time.'' \8\
Given these provisions, a small business which has 15 employees one
year, but due to business conditions, may have only five employees the
next year, would be in a position where it had to provide potentially
56 hours of paid leave, to an employee in the year when it had as few
as five employees. That would be after it laid off 10 other people. The
ability of that small business to absorb those costs are far different
than for an employer who has over 1,000 employees and Congress should
give that great consideration as it considers this legislation. Paid
sick leave under the HFA will also be designated and counted as Family
and Medical Leave Act leave for some employees in the workplace. One of
the foremost unanswered questions is does the paid sick leave
contemplated under the HFA constitute leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as well, or is it intended as an additional
benefit over and above the twelve weeks of unpaid leave provided by the
FMLA? And, how are the two statutes to be reconciled? There will be
different answers for different employees in the workplace. Certainly
there are significant differences in coverage and eligibility between
the HFA and the FMLA. The HFA applies to a much broader group of
employers (50 employee threshold for coverage under the FMLA; 15
employee threshold for coverage under the HFA); a broader group of
employees who can take leave (employees must meet an eligibility
requirement under the FMLA of having worked for the employer for 12
months and 1250 hours; there is no eligibility requirement under the
HFA), as well as a broader group of individuals for whom the employee
can take leave in order to care for that individual (under the FMLA
leave can be taken for a spouse, son, daughter or parent who has a
serious health condition, as well as additional family members, such as
``next of kin'' who are blood relatives, for purposes of military
family leave; under the HFA employees can take paid sick leave to care
for ``children, spouse, parents, and parents-in-law, and other children
and adults for who they are caretakers'' and/or ``any other individual
related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee
is the equivalent of a family relationship''). Despite these
differences, the HFA and the FMLA crossover in significant ways,
particularly because the bar is set fairly low for what constitutes a
``serious health condition'' under the FMLA.
For example, assume you are an employee who takes leave under the
HFA for ``an absence resulting from a physical or mental illness,
injury or medical condition'' of the employee.'' \9\ Such an absence
would easily meet the standard for an FMLA-eligible employee who has a
certified chronic health condition and is absent from work due to his
or her medical condition.\10\ In such a case, the paid sick leave would
be counted as FMLA leave. The same would apply for the employee who is
sick for more than three days and visits a health care provider and
receives a prescription for treatment.\11\ This would also be counted
as FMLA leave. In both of these cases there will be two different
standards in the workplace for individuals covered and eligible under
both the FMLA and those only covered under the HFA creating additional
inequities and compliance quagmires for employers and employees.
Intermittent leave and the time increment by which paid sick leave is
used--what is it? The use of intermittent leave, particularly
unscheduled intermittent leave has long been documented as one of the
most significant unintended consequences of the FMLA and continues to
be one of the most vexing issues under the FMLA. Employers have long
advocated for a change to the time increment in the use of intermittent
FMLA leave which they have found to be both administratively burdensome
and, in many cases depending on the industry, wreaking havoc on their
operational needs.\12\ The revised FMLA regulations restated the ``one
hour is dispositive'' rule and eliminated confusing and conflicting
references to the employer's payroll systems and recordkeeping systems,
but the time increment is still determined by ``an increment no greater
than the shortest period of time that the employer uses to account for
use of other forms of leave provided that it is not greater than one
hour and provided further that an employee's leave entitlement may not
be reduced by more than the amount of leave actually taken.'' \13\
The HFA does not address the time increment directly. (Previous
versions of the bill did address it directly although they imported the
same problems as under the FMLA.) For example, in Section 4--
``Definitions'' of the bill at paragraph (7) ``Paid Sick Time''--is
defined as ``an increment of compensated leave that can be earned by an
employee for use during an absence from employment for any of the
reasons described * * *''. Compare that to Section 5--``Provision of
Paid Sick Time'' of the bill at paragraph (a) ``Accrual of Paid Sick
Time'' (1) An employer shall permit each employee employed by the
employer to earn not less than 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30
hours worked * * *'' Read together, presumably that means that one hour
is the minimum ``increment'' by which an employee can take leave, since
that is the increment at which he or she is earning it. But, what if an
employer allows an employee to earn leave in an increment smaller than
one hour? What if it is in six minute increments? Must he allow the use
of paid sick leave in that same amount? If left to the regulators would
they follow the ``shortest period of time'' rule from the FMLA
regulations? If that is the case you would then again be importing one
of the most problematic areas from the FMLA. Congress should consider
the allowing employers to set the time increment for use according to
their operational needs even if that is above one hour. At the very
least, the HFA should make clear, that one hour is minimum time
increment by which the leave is both earned and used. What medical
conditions are covered?
The HFA provides extraordinarily broad and not entirely consistent
definitions for the medical conditions that are covered. In Section 2
of the ``Findings'' at paragraph (2) the bill refers to: ``* * *
medical treatment and recovery in response to short and long-term
illnesses and injuries.'' In contrast, Section 3 of the ``Purposes'' at
paragraph (5)(A) refers to paid sick time being made available for
``eligible medical reasons.'' ``Eligible medical reasons'' is not
defined anywhere in the bill. Finally, Section 5 of the bill
``Provision of Paid Sick Time'' at paragraph (b) ``Uses'' provides that
paid sick time earned under this section may be used by an employee for
any of the following: (1) an absence resulting from a physical or
mental illness, injury, or medical condition of the employee; (2) an
absence resulting from obtaining professional medical diagnosis or
care, or preventive medical care, for the employee.'' Presumably,
everything is covered. Does that include if the doctor says ``take a
day off?'' Who exactly is covered? The Healthy Families Act provides
coverage for employees and individuals to use paid sick leave for a
seeming limitless group of family and friends. Individuals can use
leave for ``an absence for the purpose of caring for a child, parent, a
spouse, or any other individual related by blood or affinity whose
close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family
relationship.'' \14\ Who will decide what the ``equivalent of a family
relationship'' is?
Employers can use their existing leave policies--sort of. Unlike
previous versions of the HFA, H.R. 2460 recognizes that employers may
have existing paid leave policies or paid time off banks (rather than
designated sick leave) and allows employers to essentially substitute
their existing paid leave policy for the requirements of this bill.\15\
This is an improvement over previous versions of the bill which did not
take into account existing employer policies and, on its face, seems
like it offers greater flexibility to employers. But, employers must
provide the same amount of leave as provided under the HFA and allow
for its use under exactly the same terms and conditions as outlined in
the bill. When combined with the certification requirements and
restrictions on those certifications provided by the HFA, which may
include disregarding employer procedural requirements for requesting
leave and employer call-in procedures (that is unclear under the bill),
along with the fact that the legislation seems to prohibit the use of
``any absence control policy'' in relation to the use of this leave, it
seems there is little regard given to employers' existing leave
policies. H.R. 2460 is especially punitive in awarding liquidated
damages. Section 7(B)(i)(III) in its discussion of liability and
damages provides that an employee or other individual can recover ``an
additional amount as liquidated damages.'' The liability/damages
provisions in Sec. 7 in the bill for the most part track with the
damages provisions of the FMLA. But, the HFA inexplicably eliminates
the good faith defense of employers and the discretion of the court in
awarding liquidated damages.\16\ Instead, the HFA applies liquidated
damages as a matter of course without question or review. Job
applicants can sue even though they will not have ``earned'' the
benefit of the bill. The HFA emphasizes that ``any individual''
including ``job applicants'' cannot be subject to any retaliation for
exercising, or attempting to exercise any right provide under the
Act.'' Therefore, job applicants could bring suit under this
legislation even though the benefits under this act are based on the
accrual and earning of leave.\17\ While there is no eligibility
requirement before an employee can use leave under the Act, as there is
with the FMLA, damages would be available to job applicants under the
bill even though they would not yet have accrued or earned any leave.
Presumably, an example of this would be where a job applicant asks
during an interview, ``I have a son who has asthma. I have to take him
to the doctor every Friday morning for a treatment for about an hour.
Will that be a problem?'' Theoretically, an employer could discriminate
against that applicant by not hiring him or her, because of the need to
take leave on a weekly basis. This would be an extraordinarily
difficult case to prove. This raises the question as to what is the
value of creating such a federal cause of action given the potential
recovery for that applicant and the commensurate litigation costs for
the employer? I would be remiss not to also note that one additional
provision that should be considered should the Committee decide to
proceed in moving this legislation. This provision would strengthen the
ability of small businesses to recoup attorneys' fees and expenses when
they successfully defend themselves from meritless charges by the
government. Unfortunately, questionable claims are made all too
frequently and the Equal Access to Justice Act has not been effective
at discouraging such claims by the government. The least that can be
done is to pay the costs of small businesses that successfully defend
themselves from unmeritorious claims.
Conclusion
Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee, these are just some
of the concerns of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce about H.R. 2460, the
Healthy Families Act. Above all, the Chamber is particularly concerned
about moving forward with such legislation at a time of severe economic
distress when businesses are doing everything they can to preserve
jobs. We look forward to working with you as the Committee gives
further consideration to this legislation. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
endnotes
\1\ There is a consensus among economists that the costs of
employer mandates are passed on to workers in the form of lower wages
and reduced job opportunities. See Katherine Baicker and Helen Levy,
Employer Health Insurance Mandates and the Risk of Unemployment,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13528, October
2007; and other citations in that research. See also Linda Levine,
Leave Benefits in the United States, CRS Report for Congress, June 5,
2009, 19: ``If Congress were to pass [the HFA] * * * one would expect
the compensation costs of employees to increase * * * Because employees
generally are no more valuable (i.e. productive) to businesses after
imposition of a benefit * * * they have no economically sound reason to
raise their workforce's overall total compensation as a result * * *
Economists therefore theorize that firms will try to finance the added
benefit cost by reducing or slowing the growth of other components of
compensation.''
\2\ See, Raymund Flandez, Small Businesses Work Hard to Prevent
Layoffs,'' The Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2009.
\3\ See, Iris S. Diaz and Richard Wallick, ``Leisure and illness
leave: estimating benefits in combination,'' Monthly Labor Review,
February 2009, p. 30, ``The unduplicated total of paid vacation, paid
sick leave, paid family leave, and paid personal leave is 83 percent.
Therefore, 83 percent of workers in private industry have access to
illness leave.'' The full article can be found at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/
2009/02/art3full.pdf.
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id. at p. 33.
\6\ See, ``Specific Industries Report Difficulties With Unscheduled
FMLA Leave,'' Family and Medical Leave Act Regulations: A Report on the
Department of Labor's Request for Information, 72 Fed Reg 35550,
35632--35638, citing to report from Criterion Economics: ``A regulation
that reduces labor productivity for example, will have a larger impact
on economic welfare in industries where production requires `fixed
proportions' of capital and labor (e.g. air transport, which requires
at least one pilot and one co-pilot per airplane) than in industries
where capital can easily be substituted for labor * * * Further, in
some industries, employee absenteeism will have a relatively small
effect on firms' overall ability to operate, and therefore entail a
relatively modest financial impact. In other sectors, absenteeism
hinders production substantially by, for example, diminishing the
productivity of other workers and equipment.''
\7\ Healthy Families Act, H.R. 2460, 11th Cong. Sec. 4(4)(B).
\8\ Id. at Sec. 5(a)(3).
\9\ See H.R. 2460 Sec. 5 (b)(1).
\10\ See 29 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 825.115(c) and (f).
\11\ See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 825.115(a)(2).
\12\ See Family and Medical Leave Act Regulations: A Report on the
Department of Labor's Request for Information, 72 Fed Reg 35550, 35553:
``* * * it is precisely the use of unscheduled (or unforeseeable)
intermittent leave for chronic conditions that presents the most
serious difficulties for many employers in terms of scheduling,
attendance, productivity, morale, and other concerns. With respect to
employer comments, no other FMLA issue even comes close.''
\13\ See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 825.205(a).
\14\ See H.R. 2460 Sec. 5(b)(3).
\15\ See Id. at Sec. 5(a)(5) and Sec. 5(d)(2).
\16\ The FMLA at Sec. 107 (a)(1)(A)(iii) provides for damages equal
to: ``an additional amount as liquidated damages equal to the sum of
the amount described in clause (i) and the interest described in clause
(ii), except that if an employer who has violated section 105 proves to
the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission which violated
section 105 was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable
grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of
section 105, such court may, in the discretion of the court, reduce the
amount of the liability to the amount and interest determined under
clauses (i) and (ii) respectively; and * * *'' (Emphasis added).
\17\ See H.R. 2460 Sec. 7(a) and (b).
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Ms. Poole?
STATEMENT OF SANDRA POOLE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISABILITY
INSURANCE BRANCH, CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Ms. Poole. Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member
Price, and the distinguished members of this subcommittee, for
the invitation to speak with you today regarding California's
Paid Family Leave program. My name is Sandra Poole, and I am
the deputy director of the Employment Development Department
State Disability Insurance program.
Approximately 13 million California workers are covered by
the State Disability Insurance program. There are two
components of the program. One is disability insurance, and the
second component is the Paid Family Leave program.
The State Disability Insurance program is worker-funded and
is an economic safety net for eligible workers. The Disability
Insurance program provides benefits to workers who are unable
to work due to non-work-related illness, injury, or pregnancy
and has been provided in California since 1946.
In 2002, legislation extended disability compensation to
individuals who take time off of work to care for a seriously
ill child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a
new minor child. Employee contributions for this program, known
as Paid Family Leave, began in January 2004, and the department
began paying benefits in July of 2004.
Since July 2004, approximately 740,000 California taxpayers
have received benefits from the Paid Family Leave program.
Initially, some employers expressed concern that the program
would be rife with fraud, employees would file claims when they
weren't actually providing care or bonding, and employees would
use the program as an excuse to be away from work, leaving the
employer understaffed. To address this concern, the department
implemented several fraud deterrence and detected activities,
and to date only a couple of claims have been referred for
investigation of suspected fraudulent activity.
Paid Family Leave customers overwhelmingly support the
program, and in a recent survey, 81 percent expressed
satisfaction with the entire claim filing process. While I can
certainly provide you with statistics and data related to Paid
Family Leave, I believe the benefit of the program to our
customers is best expressed in their own words.
Let me share just a portion of one story which portrays an
example of a real life experience of one of our customers. I
will call her Mrs. V to protect her privacy.
As her mother, Barbara, was dying, Mrs. V was at her side.
She would say to me, ``Don't you have to go to work?'' Mrs. V
recalled, and would say, ``It is okay, Mom. I can stay here
with you.''
``She didn't understand about Paid Family Leave, but that
is why I could do all that I could for her,'' Mrs. V says. Mrs.
V was on Paid Family Leave for the last weeks of her mother's
life. She says that, ``It was really comforting for her just to
hear my voice. She was at peace and she was never alone.''
Being able to be with her mother during those last days, in
her words, ``helped me to accept her death. I was truly
blessed. I know that I did the best that I could, and I have no
regrets.''
While the Paid Family Leave program in California is
working well, the federal assistance provided by H.R. 2339
would help California in several ways. First, funds are
available for outreach and education. In California, advocacy
groups interested in work and family issues continue to meet
with our department regarding a concern that workers are not
aware of the program and thus not utilizing the program.
In addition, the FIRST Act--under the FIRST Act, funds can
also be used for administrative costs as well. Because
California was the first in the nation to implement a paid
family leave program, there was no data to rely upon for
anticipating claim volumes. Also, there was insufficient time
to fully develop the automation system to capture demographic
data that researchers often request.
Despite the barriers that California's program has faced,
it is a very successful program that helps workers balance work
and family. I hope other states will follow California's lead,
and the grants provided under the FIRST Act will be of
invaluable assistance to them as they implement their programs.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Poole follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandra O. Poole, MPA, Deputy Director, Disability
Insurance Branch, California Employment Development Department
Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price and Members of
the Subcommittee for the invitation to speak to you today regarding
California's Paid Family Leave program.
My name is Sandra O. Poole and I am the Deputy Director of the
Employment Development Department's (EDD) State Disability Insurance
program. Approximately 13 million California workers are covered by the
SDI program. There are two components of the SDI program in California:
1) Disability Insurance; and 2) Paid Family Leave program. California
is one of five states (California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York,
Hawaii, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) that currently provide
disability insurance for their workforce. As a worker-funded program,
the State Disability Insurance program contributes to the economic
security of California by providing affordable benefits to eligible
workers. The Disability Insurance program provides benefits to workers
who are unable to work due to non work-related illness, injury, or
pregnancy and has been provided in California since 1946.
July 2009 will mark the 5th Anniversary of California paying
benefits under the Paid Family Leave program. In 2002, legislation
extended disability compensation to individuals who take time off work
to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, domestic partner, or
to bond with a new minor child. Employee contributions (withholdings)
for this program, known as Paid Family Leave (PFL) began January 1,
2004, and the department began processing PFL claims on July 1, 2004.
Since July 2004, approximately 740,000 California taxpayers have
received benefits from PFL. The average weekly benefit amount paid in
2008 was $464.00. During this same period over 4 billion dollars in
benefits were paid to claimants. Approximately 87% of these claims were
for bonding with a minor child and 13% were to provide care for an
injured or ill relative.
Business concerns expressed at the time of enactment have not been
realized. The small business community voiced concerns that the PFL
program would encourage employees to take off work and they could not
afford to do business if a worker was absent from work. The EDD has not
received any information that these predictions did in fact occur. In
addition, employers expressed concern the program would be rife with
fraud; employees would file claims when they weren't actually providing
care or bonding and employees would use the program as an excuse to be
away from work leaving the employer understaffed. To address this
concern, the department implemented several fraud deterrence and
detection activities, and to date, only a couple of claims have been
referred to EDD Investigations Division to investigate suspected
fraudulent activity in the PFL program.
PFL customers overwhelmingly support the program, and in a recent
survey 81% expressed satisfaction with the entire Paid Family Leave
claim filing process. While I can certainly provide you with more
statistics and data related to the claimants served, benefits paid,
administrative costs etc, I believe that the benefit of the PFL program
to our customers is best expressed in their own words. Let me share
just one story which portrays an example of a real life experience of
one of our customers a year after the PFL program began. I will call
her Mrs. V to protect her privacy.
As her mother, Barbara was dying; Mrs. V was at her side:
``She would say to me, `Don't you have to go to work?'' Mrs. V
recalls, ``and I'd say, It's OK, Mom, I can stay here with you.''
``She didn't understand about Paid Family Leave, but that's why I
could do all that I could for her.'' Mrs. V. says. ``It was stress
free. I didn't have to worry about how we could pay for it.''
Last July Barbara's health began to fail quickly. ``One day she was
walking fine. The next day she would need a cane, then a walker. She
had a tumor and it was spreading rapidly.''
The Paid Family Leave program began providing benefits in July 2004
but Mrs. V had not heard of the new program. Then her father gave her a
newspaper article about it. Mrs. V. an employee of a Bank in California
called the Employment Development Department and applied for Paid
Family Leave.
She was on Paid Family Leave for three and a half weeks, the last
weeks of her mother's life. Barbara was receiving hospice care in her
home, but her daughter knew she needed more than medical attention. ``I
was there as early as 8 in the morning and I'd leave at 8 in the
evening when she was going to sleep. ``Mrs. V. says. ``It was really
comforting for her just to hear my voice. She was at peace. She was
never alone.''
Being able to be with her mother during those last days ``helped me
to accept her death. I was truly blessed. I know that I did the best I
could. I have no regrets.''
While the PFL program is working well, the Federal assistance
provided by the HR 2339, the FIRST Act would help California in a
myriad of ways. First, funds are available under HR 2339 for outreach
and education. In California, advocacy groups interested in work and
family issues began ongoing dialogue with legislators and the EDD prior
to the inception of the program (2002) and continue to meet with the
EDD regarding a concern that workers are not aware of the program and
thus not utilizing the program. A one-time marketing campaign was
conducted in 2004 to educate the public about the launch of the worker-
funded PFL program July 2004. Subsequent studies have indicated that
many employees are still unaware of the PFL program and benefits it
provides.
In addition, under HR 2339, funds can be also used for
administrative costs as well. Because California was the first in the
nation to implement a Paid Family Leave program, there was no data to
rely on for anticipating claim volumes. Also, because there was
insufficient time to fully develop the automation system, reporting
functionality was never tested. The current claim form and automation
system do not capture demographic information such as nature of
employment (industry) or current income information.
Despite the barriers California's PFL program has faced, it is a
very successful program that helps workers balance work and family. I
hope other states follow California's lead, and the grants provided
under the FIRST Act will be of invaluable assistance to them as they
implement their programs.
Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Mr. Bhatia?
STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV BHATIA, DIRECTOR, OCCUPATIONAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Dr. Bhatia. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price, and
members of the committee for asking me to testify today. I
really appreciate the committee's interest in the public health
issues of the Healthy Families Act.
I have been involved in conducting research on the health
impacts of paid sick days since 2006 and have coauthored two
comprehensive health impact assessments of the paid sick days
legislation. Almost all of the data and evidence I have
reviewed is consistent with the premise that a requirement for
paid sick days would protect the health of all Americans.
I want to articulate a few facts with this regard to the
committee's interest. First, I think it is important to note
that workers with paid sick days are actually more likely to
take time off work when they are ill. We know--and a number of
studies have demonstrated this--we know that the average number
of days missed from work for those with paid sick days is
higher than those without paid sick days. I think it is
important to note that this is--the factor here is workers with
paid sick days policies, not paid time off policies or other
types of policies.
A second important point is that these workers are not
taking time off sick not because they are not sicker. The
workers without paid sick days are actually sicker and have
more dependent and medical needs.
Workers without paid sick days are more likely to have a
child with asthma, for example. Workers without paid sick days
are also more likely to have a lack of health insurance. Low-
income workers without paid sick days have vulnerability to
environmental exposures and a whole set of other conditions.
The second point is one that is being raised--has been
raised previously, is that effective strategies for influenza
prevention require compliance with recommendations that keep
workers and students home from sick, and paid sick days
legislation would enable this compliance. As we know, about 5
to 20 percent of the population gets influenza every year, and
about 36,000 people die. This is from seasonal influenza, not a
pandemic.
In a pandemic, the number of people suffering could reach
70 percent of the population, and the number of sick
individuals could reach 100 million. As we have noted, 37
percent of the transmission of influenza occurs in community
settings such as schools and workplaces, and 33 percent in
additional community settings.
We have modeled influenza spread and strategy--and the
effectiveness of strategies for prevention. We know that these
strategies to keep people home from places they can communicate
the disease can reduce influenza spread by 15 to 34 percent,
depending on the studies.
Every one of those studies models a certain degree of
compliance. It assumes that people actually will follow these
rules. We don't have the enabling structures in our society to
have people follow the rules, and that is why I think this bill
is so important.
This issue is important for communicable diseases other
than influenza, the one, I think, that everyone has been paying
attention to recently. I think it is even more striking in the
situation of food-borne illnesses.
We have about 76 million food-borne illnesses every year,
resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations every year. More than
half of food-borne disease outbreaks, where you have two or
more infections from a common food source, occur in
restaurants.
Food safety codes tell employers they have to exclude sick
workers from workplaces when they are sick. However, we know
this is not happening today.
We, as public health, rely on voluntary compliance with
these exclusion policies, yet the data from the CDC will tell
us that up to 14 percent of food-borne outbreaks are associated
with a food worker who is sick and working. One study that
looked at outbreaks involving food workers found that almost
all of them were ill at the time of the outbreak.
Each one of these outbreaks can be quite significant. In
2006, a restaurant worker without paid sick days infected over
350 customers with norovirus at a restaurant in Lansing,
Michigan.
The fourth point I want to make is that workers with paid
sick days are more likely to take care of their children and
dependents and ensure their regular contact with medical
providers. For dependents, including children and elders,
having access to an adult is more than a convenience; it can be
a matter of life and death.
Children left at home may be unable to see physicians for
diagnosis. Children need to receive medicines or emergency help
if their conditions worsen.
The presence of parents at home can reduce hospital stays
by 31 percent. Parents who have sick days are five times more
likely to take care of their children. We know that families
without paid sick days are more likely to experience delayed
care for their children.
In San Francisco, we adopted paid sick days in 2007. We are
at the early phases of implementation. However, I think it is
pretty clear from--I regulate 6,000 food businesses--we have
not had an outburst or issues from our businesses. Most of the
businesses in San Francisco seem to be implementing this law
without problem. Anecdotal evidence from business leaders
suggests the same.
I am going to conclude. I think a fundamental purpose of
government is to ensure the day to day living conditions are
healthy. We need to remember that laws like labor laws are
fundamentally public health laws. These were the laws that
improved our life expectancy in the 20th century, and labor
laws like paid sick days are still public health laws today.
The U.S. spends over $6,000 per person per year on health
care costs, yet we are last in the world among our peers in
life expectancy. Something is amiss. Most of the other
countries that have good life expectancies have safety net
policies like sick days that take care of people and prevent
illness before they are sick. I think it is time for us to join
that crowd.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Bhatia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rajiv Bhatia, M.D., MPH, Director, Occupational
and Environmental Health, San Francisco Department of Public Health
I am Rajiv Bhatia, and I currently serve as the Director of
Occupational and Environmental Health for the San Francisco Department
of Public Health. I earned a Medical Doctorate from Stanford University
and a Masters Degree in Public Health from the University of California
at Berkeley, and I have practiced medicine and environmental health
since 1992. I am an Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the
University of California at San Francisco, and I teach a graduate
course in health impact assessment of public policy at the University
of California at Berkeley. I also serve as the scientific director for
the non-profit group Human Impact Partners.
I deeply appreciate the committee's interest in the public health
impacts of the Health Families Act. I have been involved in conducting
research on the health impacts of paid sick day policies since 2006 and
have co-authored comprehensive health impact assessments of the paid
sick day legislation currently being considered in the California
legislature as well as the legislation currently being considered today
by the House of Representative (Bhatia 2008; HIP 2009). In conducting
research for these health impact assessments, I and others have
critically reviewed available published health research literature on
paid sick days, analyzed data from State and National health surveys,
reviewed disease statistics for communicable diseases and food borne
disease outbreaks, conducted focus groups and surveys with workers, and
interviewed and surveyed public health officials responsible for
communicable disease control. I have also been involved in the
implementation of San Francisco's Paid Sick Days Law through outreach
and training to San Francisco businesses. I have provided evidence and
analysis on the health impacts of paid sick day legislation to
stakeholder groups, and I have testified previously on paid sick day
legislation both at local and state hearings and on a prior version of
the bill in the US Senate.
Almost all available data and evidence I have reviewed is
consistent with the premise that a requirement for paid sick days would
protect the health of all Americans. The evidence provides substantial
support for the following six conclusions:
Workers that have greater need for sick leave, such as
those with families, are less likely to have paid sick days.
Workers with paid sick days are more likely to take time
off work when they become ill.
A substantial burden of food borne disease outbreaks are
connected to food service workers working with a communicable illness
despite laws that should exclude sick workers from work.
Effective strategies for influenza prevention require
compliance with recommendations that keep workers and students at home
when sick; paid sick day legislation would enable compliance with these
strategies.
Workers with paid sick day are more likely to care for
their sick children and ensure their regular contact with medical
providers.
Workers with paid sick days are more likely to access
timely medical care.
Access to paid sick days in relation to need
Almost 60 million workers--48% of the workforce--in the country
currently do not have the ability to earn and use paid sick days when
ill or when a family member needs care (Lovell 2006). Moreover, the
availability of paid sick days varies among subpopulations with less
availability of paid sick day benefits among those populations with a
greater need for medical and dependent care.
Over 70% of workers in the highest income quartile receive paid
sick days compared to about 20% of those in the lowest income quartile
(Hartmann 2007). Disparities in access to paid sick days by income are
important because lower income confers greater vulnerability to illness
and disease, both through the experience of absolute and relative
poverty and through exposure to adverse neighborhood and workplace
conditions.
Disparities in access to paid sick days also correlate with
disparities in access to health insurance. Based on data from the 2007
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), those who had paid sick days
were more likely to have health insurance coverage, compared to those
without paid sick days (95.3% vs. 68.0%) (HIP 2009).
Furthermore, those who have access to paid sick day also have
better health status. Analysis of 2007 NHIS data revealed that a higher
proportion of working adults who rated their health as excellent, very
good, or good had paid sick days compared to those who viewed their
health as fair or poor (61.2% vs. 48.3%) (HIP 2009).
Mothers with children with relatively poor health are also less
likely to have access to paid sick days. Heymann and others (1996)
found that 40% of mothers whose children had asthma and 36% of mothers
whose children had chronic conditions lacked sick leave during a five-
year period. Similarly, Heymann and Earl (1999) found that mothers of
children with chronic conditions are more likely to lack sick leave.
Clemens--Cope (2007) found that, among children in low-income working
families, 30% of children in fair/poor health lived in families that
had access to paid sick leave for the entire year compared to 37% of
children in good, very good or excellent health.
Sick Leave among workers with and without paid sick days
A number of studies have demonstrated that workers without paid
sick days are less likely to take sick leave when ill. One recent
survey of U.S. workers found that among employed adults aged 19-64, 42%
without paid sick days did not miss work because of illness in contrast
to 28% of workers with paid sick day benefits. The relationship was
even stronger after adjusting for chronic health problems,
disabilities, age and wages; employed adults without paid sick days
were only half as likely to take time off for illness (Davis 2005).
In our analysis of the 2007 NHIS data, among workers who missed no
more than nine work days due to sickness (i.e., those who did not have
a prolonged illness), the average number of missed work days in the
past 12 months was higher for workers with paid sick days than for
those without (1.39 days per year vs. 0.92 days per year) (HIP 2009).
Others have found a similar difference for California workers using
data from the 2006 NHIS (1.8 days per year, versus 1.4 days per year)
(Lovell 2008). These findings suggest that substantial numbers of ill
workers without paid sick days are going to work when sick. In fact, in
one survey on paid sick days, the majority (64%) of respondents
reported having gone to work sick at least once because of a lack of
sufficient paid sick days (Bhatia 2008).
Workers who take sick time off without the benefit of a paid sick
leave policy may face real and perceived consequences of their choices,
such as being reprimanded, the loss of wages, good shifts, or even a
job. Surveys and focus groups with workers without paid sick days also
have identified factors that may discourage workers from taking sick
leave. For example, in one focus group, a participant described going
to work with the flu and being feverish while at work (HIP 2009). While
her employer recognized her illness, she was not instructed to go home.
According to a recent poll (Smith 2008), one in six workers reported
that they or a family member had been fired, suspended, punished, or
threatened by an employer due to needing time off for illness.
Collectively, these factors suggest that paid sick day policies could
support a workplace culture that is more likely to accept and
accommodate employee absence for illness.
Working when sick and the spread of communicable disease
Many common infectious diseases are transmitted in workplaces,
schools, and other public institutions through simple casual contact.
These diseases include influenza, food borne diseases such as
salmonella and norvirus, and the common cold. For these common
infections, keeping a sick worker out of their workplace and sick
children out of school will help stop infections from spreading.
Influenza
Each year in the United States, 5% to 20% of the population gets
the flu; more than 200,000 people are hospitalized from flu
complications; and, about 36,000 people die from flu (CDC 2008).
Transmission of influenza occurs through the generation of aerosol
droplets by infectious individuals and through contact with infectious
individuals. An estimated 30% of influenza transmission occurs in
homes, 37% in schools and workplaces, and 33% in other community
settings (Ferguson 2006).
Substantial attention and public health planning is focused on the
prevention of worldwide pandemics due to a novel strain of influenza.
Research has shown that the emergence of a highly infectious novel
influenza strain as a pandemic could result in 68% of the population
being affected and 34% suffering a clinical infection, potentially
translating into 100 million sick individuals in the United States
(Ferguson 2006). According to researchers who have studied prevention
strategies to limit transmission of influenza, a combination of
effective strategies including pharmacological strategies (e.g.,
vaccines, prophylaxis) and non-pharmacological strategies (e.g.,
quarantine, isolation, school closure) are necessary to effective
control an influenza pandemic (Halloran 2008).
Strategies to minimize social contacts between people can be highly
effective in controlling the spread of influenza but require people to
take leave from work when they or their family members are potentially
infectious (USDHHS 20007). Pandemic infectious disease modeling studies
are consistent in predicting a reduction in the cumulative incidence of
clinical infections with modest measures to reduce contacts among
individuals, but estimates vary between models and scenarios (Halloran
2008). Glass (2006) estimated that from a moderately infectious
pandemic strain requiring that all sick persons stay at home when
symptomatic could result in a 22% reduction of the cumulative attack
rate in a hypothetical U.S. small town. Ferguson (2006) estimated that
50% compliance with policy of household quarantine would result in a
15% reduction in the cumulative attack rate for infected individuals
and household members with a somewhat more infectious strain of
influenza in the United States.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explicitly
advises people with influenza: ``stay home from work and school when
you are sick'' (CDC 2008). The modeling studies, combined with
understanding that having paid sick days enables taking leave from
work, provide a strong rationale for access to paid sick day as a
strategy both for community prevention of seasonal influenza and for
the management of an influenza pandemic. Legislation requiring
universal paid sick day policies would enable and increase compliance
with both voluntary and mandatory social distancing strategies,
including the home isolation of sick individuals and related household
members and school closure
Foodborne Disease Outbreaks
Some workplaces are priority sites for prevention of communicable
disease transmission because workers have direct and regular contact
with the public. Restaurants and other places where workers prepare
food consumed by the public are particularly important because of their
role in the transmission of food borne diseases.
Foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses,
325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each
year (Mead 1999). Outbreaks refer to two more cases of a food borne
illness linked to a common food source. More than half of all U.S.-
reported foodborne illness outbreaks are associated with restaurants
(Jones 2006).
Food safety codes typically require the exclusion of a food service
worker from a restaurant if the employee is diagnosed with an
infectious agent, symptomatic, and still considered infectious. Public
health officials rely on workers to recognize the illness and their
employers to self-enforce requirements that protect the public. In
reality, expecting voluntary compliance is not realistic. A worker may
recognize a symptom but may not associate it with a food borne illness
requiring work exclusion. Also, food worker may not want to take unpaid
time to obtain a diagnosis or may defer care until the symptom worsens,
potentially infecting co-workers and patrons in the meantime. Paid sick
days along with clear workplace policies for their use could enable
appropriate leave for food service workers; however, 85% of workers in
the food service industry do not have access to paid sick days (Lovell
2008).
Unfortunately, in the current workplace environment, sick food
service workers are commonly the source of restaurant food borne
disease outbreaks. Guzewich and Ross (1999) reviewed published
scientific literature for reports of food borne disease believed to
have resulted from contamination of food by workers, finding 81
published outbreaks involving 14,712 infected persons. Eighty-nine
percent (n=72) of the outbreaks occurred at food service
establishments, such as restaurants, cafeterias and catered functions.
Hepatitis A and Norwalk-like viruses accounted for 60% (n=49) of
outbreaks. Ninety-three percent of these outbreaks involved food
workers who were ill either prior to or at the time of the outbreak.
According to data from Centers for Disease Control's Electronic
Foodborne Outbreak Disease Report System (eFORS), there were 5754
foodborne disease outbreaks between 2003 and 2007 nationally, with
121,948 related cases of illness (HIP 2009). The majority of these
outbreaks (71%) and cases (61%) occurred in institutional and workplace
settings including schools, day care settings, restaurants or delis,
workplace cafeterias, grocery stores, hospitals, and jails. In these
settings, workers with a communicable disease have a significant
potential to contribute to a communicable disease outbreak if they work
when ill. Of the 4,079 outbreaks occurring in the specific settings
listed above, for 14% of outbreaks (n=586) and 24% of cases (n=18,030),
food handling by an infected person or carrier of a pathogen was
identified as a contributing cause.
A survey of local health officers in California that I conducted
this year also provides similar findings on significance of ill food
service workers as a cause of disease outbreaks. For example, in San
Francisco and Los Angeles counties, about 11-12% of outbreaks involve
an ill food service worker working.
The public health impact of a single disease outbreak with food
borne disease can be significant. For example, in 2006, a restaurant-
worker without paid sick day benefits infected over 350 customers (MMWR
2007) with norovirus at a restaurant in Lansing, Michigan. In 2007 in
Santa Cruz, a dishwasher working at a hotel was implicated as the
likely source of a norovirus outbreak affecting 134 people through a
resort hotel.
Outbreaks in Health Care Facilities
Nursing homes are another important setting for infectious disease
outbreaks and outbreaks may be traced back to both residents and staff.
For example, according to the CDC, 23% of all norovirus outbreaks occur
in nursing homes (CDC 2006). In one year in California, nursing home
outbreaks accounted for 6,500 patient illnesses, 120 hospitalizations,
and 29 deaths (CDPH 2008). The vast majority of patients will recover
from norovirus illness within a few days, but an estimated 10%
experience more serious symptoms, including acute dehydration that
ultimately requires hospitalization (Calderon-Margalit 2005).
Paid sick days may play an important role in nursing home-based
disease outbreaks. About a quarter of nursing home workers nationally
do not have paid sick day benefits. These workers may be more likely to
come to work sick, thus putting patients and co-workers at risk of
contracting illness. While this question has received only limited
attention, one study of New York State nursing homes conducted in 1993
found that risk of respiratory and gastrointestinal infectious disease
outbreaks was significantly less for nursing homes with paid sick leave
policies (Li 1996).
Parental Care and Health Care in Dependents
Employed workers in households with children are among those with
the greatest need for paid sick days due to responsibilities for the
care of children. Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics
recommends excluding sick children from schools and childcare settings
for a number of specific conditions and symptoms (Copeland 2006). In
2006, 70% of mothers with children under 18 were in the workforce (BLS
2006).
Unfortunately, care for sick children competes for the time and
labor of parents and other caregivers. When a child is not well,
parents might reasonably view staying home to care for a child as
jeopardizing their ability to earn income to pay for essential health
services, food, or housing.
For dependents, including children and elders, having access to an
adult caregiver can be a matter of life and death. Children left home
alone may be unable to see physicians for diagnoses, receive needed
medications, or emergency help if their conditions worsen. The presence
of parents has also been found to shorten children's hospital stays by
31% (Taylor and O'Connor 1989). Even when adults receive support from
family members when sick, they recover faster and more fully from
conditions such as heart attacks and strokes (Gorkin et al 1993;
Tsouna-Hadjis et al 2000).
Clemens-Cope and others (2007) analyzed determinants of taking sick
leave among the families of a sample of 10,790 children in low-income
families using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Only 36%
of the children in working families had access to paid sick days for
the entire year. Employees with paid sick days were much more likely to
miss work to care for family members (44% vs. 26%).
Heymann and colleagues (1999b) analyzed data in the Baltimore
Parenthood Study to assess what factors affected parents' decisions to
care for sick children. The study found that parents who had either
paid sick or vacation leave were 5.2 times as likely to care for their
children when they were sick. In this study, half of the parents who
cared for their own sick children reported that paid leave enabled them
to miss work. Similarly, in recent study of Chicago and Los Angeles
parents with children who have special care needs, Chung and colleagues
(2007) found that parents with paid leave benefits had 2.8 times
greater odds than other parents of taking time off work for their
child.
In another study evaluating the relationship between maternal
employment conditions and children's medical visits, Pimoff and
Hamilton (1995) found that working mothers had fewer sick child visits
than non-working mothers. However, mothers who could use sick leave for
doctor visits had 27% more sick-child visits than those without this
benefit.
Our analysis of 2007 NHIS data also suggest that the lack of paid
sick days may be a factor in delayed medical care for family members
(HIP 2009). Based on NHIS, 17.2% of working adults were likely to have
at least one family member whose medical care was delayed or who was
not able to get needed medical care. A higher proportion of working
adults who did not have paid sick days were likely to have family
members who had delayed medical care or who had not received care they
needed compared to those with paid sick days (23.7% vs. 12.9%).
Notably, among those health insurance, those with paid sick days also
experienced less delayed care (15.8% vs. 11.2%).
Timely health care in working adults
Timely primary care provides opportunities for disease prevention
as well as early detection and management of health problems (IOM
1996). Timely primary care can potentially prevent the need for the
unnecessary use of emergency rooms, hospitalization, complications, or
more severe disease (AHQR 2004). For example, patients may be
hospitalized or seek acute hospital care for avoidable reasons
including misdiagnosis or a failure to detect the condition,
inappropriate management including the lack of patient adherence to
treatment recommendations, or failure by the patient to interpret
symptoms as important (AHRQ 2004).
Timely ambulatory care is dependent on a number of factors
including income and health insurance (Billings 1996; Newacheck 1998).
Little research has explored the relationship between access to paid
sick days specifically and primary care utilization. Based on 2007 NHIS
data, we found that those with paid sick days were about 15% more
likely to have a medical visit controlling for other potential
predictors of medical visits (HIP 2009). The 2007 NHIS data also
reveals that those who had paid sick days may be likely to visit an
emergency room (ER) in the past year than those who did not have paid
sick days (15.7% vs. 17.7%) particularly for those with health
insurance.
San Francisco's experience with paid sick day legislation
In November 2006, San Francisco became the first city in the United
States to require employers to provide paid sick days. Over 60% of
voters in San Francisco supported this legislation. While formal
studies of the laws implementation and impact are still underway,
implementation to date has been largely unproblematic. One small survey
found that ``most employers were able to implement the paid sick leave
ordinance with minimal to moderate effects on their overall business
and their bottom line'' (Boots 2009). An analysis did not find evidence
of loss of jobs in San Francisco in the year after the policy was
implemented (Lovell & Miller 2008). Anecdotal assessments of the paid
sick day law reported by several of the city business leaders also
suggest there has been little to no impact on businesses.
Conclusions
A fundamental purpose of government is to ensure that day-to-day
living and working conditions support health and welfare. Labor and
occupational safety laws, including limits on child labor, the minimum
wage, and work-time rules, were essential contributors to the dramatic
gains in life expectancy in the 20th century. It is equally important
today to think of labor policies as public health policies.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, the U.S. spends $6,102 per person on health care
services--15% of our GDP and more than any other country the world
(OECD 2006). Despite outspending our peers, life expectancy in the
United States is a full year less than in Canada and England and three
years less that Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. One reason these other
countries may be outperforming the US with respect to health is that
they tend to pay more attention standards of healthy living and working
conditions for all residents.
Overall, based on the research I and others have conducted, paid
sick day legislation would be a practical and evidence-based public
health policy to prevent communicable disease and to enable timely,
preventative care for ourselves, our children and our elders.
Guaranteeing the right to earn and use a minimum number of paid sick
days may foster a workplace culture that is more conducive to
appropriately taking time off when sick. Paid sick days would
facilitate existing workplace policies designed to prevent food borne
disease outbreaks. Adopting paid sick days would eliminate the
perplexing contradiction between our strategies for containing new
strains of influenza and labor laws. Finally, a paid sick day law has
potential to reduce health disparities and control health care costs.
I thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
references cited
1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2004) Prevention
quality indicators overview. Available at http://
www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/pqi--overview.htm.
2. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm.
3. Bhatia R, Farhang L, Heller J, Capozza K, Melendez J, Gilhuly K,
Firestein N. A Health Impact Assessment of the California
Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act of 2008. (2008)
Oakland, California: Human Impact Partners and San Francisco
Department of Public Health.
4. Billings J, Anderson GM, Newman LS. (1996) Recent findings on
preventable hospitalizations. Health Affairs 15:239-49.
5. BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2006) Employment characteristics
of families in 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Labor. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/
famee.pdf.
6. Boots SW, Martinson K, Danziger A. (2009) Employers' perspectives on
San Francisco's paid sick leave policy. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/publications/
411868.htm
7. Calderon-Margalit, R, et al. (2005) A large-scale gastroenteritis
outbreak associated with Norovirus in nursing homes. Epidemiol
Infect. 133(1):35-40.
8. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). (2008) U.S. Key
Facts about Seasonal Flu. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/
keyfacts.htm.
9. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). (2006) U.S.
norovirus technical fact sheet. Available at: http://
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/revb/gastro/norovirus-factsheet.htm.
10. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). (2008b)
Preventing the spread of influenza (the flu) in child care
settings: Guidance for administrators, care providers, and
other staff Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/
infectioncontrol/childcaresettings.htm.
11. CDHS (California Department of Health Services) / Surveillance &
Statistics Section. (2008). Available at: http://
www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/CD--Tables.aspx.
12. CDPH (California Department of Public Health). (2006)
Recommendations for the prevention and control of viral
gastroenteritis outbreaks in California long-term care
facilities. Richmond, CA: California Department of Health
Services.
13. Chung PJ, Garfield CF, Elliott MN, Carey C, Eriksson C, Schuster
MA. (2007) Need for and use of family leave among parents of
children with special health care needs. Pediatrics
119(5):e1047-55.
14. Clemens-Cope L, Perry CD, Kenney GM, Pelletier JE, Pantell M.
(2007) Access to and use of paid sick leave among low-income
families with children. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
15. Copeland KA, Harris EN Wag NY, Cheng Tl. (2006) Compliance with
American Academy of Pediatrics and American Public Health
Association illness exclusion guidelines for child care centers
in Maryland: Who follows them and when. Pediatrics. 118:1369-
1380.
16. Davis K, Colins SR, Doty MM, Ho A, Holmgren AL. (2005) Health and
productivity among U.S. workers. Washington D.C.: The
Commonwealth Fund.
17. Ferguson NM, Cummings DA, Fraser C, Cajka JC, Cooley PC, Burke DS.
(2006) Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature.
442:448-52.
18. Germann TC, Kadau K, Longini IM Jr, Macken CA. (2006) Mitigation
strategies for pandemic influenza in the United States. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:5935-40.
19. Glass RJ, Glass LM, Beyeler WE, Min HJ. (2006) Targeted social
distancing design for pandemic influenza. Emerging Infectious
Diseases. 12:1671-81.
20. Gorkin L, Schron EB, Brooks MM, Wiklund I, Kellen J, Verter J,
Schoenberger JA, Pawitan Y, Morris M, Shumaker S. (1993)
Psychosocial predictors of mortality in the Cardiac Arrhythmia
Suppression Trial-1 (CAST-1). American Journal of Cardiology.
71:263-267.
21. Guzewich J, Ross M. (1999) Evaluation of risks related to
microbiological contamination of ready-to-eat food by food
preparation workers and the effectiveness of interventions to
minimize those risks. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/
?ear/rterisk.html.
22. Halloran ME, Ferguson NM, Eubank S, Longini IM Jr, Cummings DA,
Lewis B, Xu S, Fraser C, Vullikanti A, Germann TC, Wagener D,
Beckman R, Kadau K, Barrett C, Macken CA, Burke DS, Cooley P.
(2008) Modeling targeted layered containment of an influenza
pandemic in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
105:4639-44.
23. Hartmann HI. (2007) The Healthy Families Act: Impacts on workers,
businesses, the economy, and public health. Testimony before
the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. February 13, 2007.
24. Heymann SJ, Earle A, Egleston B. (1996) Parental availability for
the care of sick children. Pediatrics. 98:226-30.
25. Heymann SJ, Earle A. (1999a) The impact of welfare reform on
parents' ability to care for their children's health. American
Journal of Public Health. 89(4):502-5.
26. Heymann SJ, Toomey S, Furstenberg F. (1999b) Working parents: what
factors are involved in their ability to take time off from
work when their children are sick? Arch Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine. 153:870-4.
27. Human Impact Partners and San Francisco Department of Public Health
(HIP). (2009) A Health Impact Assessment of the Healthy
Families Act of 2009. Oakland, California.
28. Institute of Medicine (IOM). (1996) Primary care America's health
in a new era. Washington D.C.: National Academic Press.
Available at: http://uclibs.org/PID/103619
29. Jones TF, Angulo FJ. (2006) Eating in restaurants: a risk factor
for foodborne disease? Clinical Infectious Diseases. 43:1324-8.
30. Li JH, Birkhead GS, Strogatz DS, Coles FB. (1996) Impact of
institution size, staffing patterns, and infection control
practices on communicable disease outbreaks in New York State
nursing homes. American Journal of Epidemiology. 143(10):1042-
9.
31. Lovell V. (2006) Washington DC.: Institute for Women's Policy
Research.
32. Lovell V. (2008) Valuing good health in California: The costs and
benefits of the Healthy Families, Healthy Workplaces Act of
2008. Washington D.C.: Institute for Women's Policy Research.
33. Lovell V, Miller K. (2008) Job growth strong with paid sick days.
Washington D.C.: Institute for Women's Policy Research.
Available at: http://www.paidsickdaysca.org/pdf/IWPR--CA--
report.pdf.
34. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C,
Griffin PM, Tauxe RV. (1999) Food-related illness and death in
the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5:605-625.
35. Newacheck PW, Stoddard JJ, Hughes DC, Pearl M. (1998) Health
insurance and access to primary care for children. New England
Journal of Medicine. 338:513-9.
36. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health
Data) 2006 Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/
0,2340,en--2825--495642--2085200--1--1--1--1,00.html
37. Pimoff and Hamilton (1995) The Time and Monetary Costs of
Outpatient Care for Children. The American Economic Review. 85:
117-121.
38. Smith T. (2008) Paid sick days: A basic labor standard for the 21st
century. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center,
University of Chicago. Available at http://news.uchicago.edu/
news.php?asset--id=1433.
39. Taylor M. and P. O'Connor. (1989) Resident parents and shorter
hospital stay. Archives of Disease in Childhood 64: 274-276.
40. Tsouna-Hadjis E., K.N. Vemmos, N. Zakopoulos, & S. Stamatelopoulos.
(2000) First-stroke recovery process: The role of family
support. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
81:881-887.
41. USDHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) (2007) U.S.
Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation.
Available: http://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/community/
commitigation.html#V.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Ms. Gorman?
STATEMENT OF CHINA MINER GORMAN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGERS (SHRM)
Ms. Gorman. Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Dr. Price,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is China
Gorman, and I am the chief operating officer of the Society for
Human Resource Management.
There we go. Now you can hear me.
I am the chief operating officer of the Society for Human
Resource Management, or SHRM. Representing more than 250,000
individual members, SHRM is the world's largest association
devoted to serving the needs of the human resource
professionals and to advancing the H.R. profession.
In light of time constraints, I ask that my written
statement be entered into the record, but in that statement we
explain our specific concerns with the proposed Healthy
Families Act, H.R. 2460, and with the FIRST Act. In short, SHRM
believes these bills will create more confusion and inequity in
the workplace. Instead, SHRM believes we need to adopt a
different approach to all leave policies, an approach that
reflects the needs of today's more mobile, diverse, and
flexible 21st century workforce.
And here is why we think a new way of thinking is
necessary: Human resource professionals are responsible for
administering employer benefit plans, including paid time off
programs. Our members are constantly looking for ways to design
workplace policies that improve employee morale and retention
to essential elements in developing and maintaining a
productive workforce.
Our members know that offering a solid benefits program
makes it easier for their organizations to attract and retain
great and productive employees. Unfortunately, what currently
exists is a set of laws and regulations that are based on an
Industrial Age workforce that no longer exists. These well-
intentioned statutes attempt to anticipate every circumstance
in every organization in every sector.
This has resulted in hundreds of pages of rules that seek
to prescribe how, when, and under what circumstances leave must
be requested, granted, documented, and used. For example, since
enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993, H.R.
professionals have struggled to interpret various provisions of
this important law. What began as a fairly simple 12-page
employer mandate has become over 200 pages of complex
regulations.
This is what H.R. professionals have to interpret every day
as they make judgments about what is appropriate, what is fair,
what is legal, and how it will affect employee morale,
productivity, and work schedules. To make matters worse, a
patchwork of state and local leave requirements, each with
their own set of complex regulations, makes it more difficult
for H.R. professionals to balance the needs of employees who
take leave, employees who need to pick up those added
responsibilities, and employers who are simply seeking
predictability in their workforce.
It is also difficult to ensure fairness among employees who
are employed by the same company but who work in different
states or cities that have different leave requirements. Today,
many employers are already voluntarily providing paid sick,
personal, vacation, and maternity leaves for their employees.
According to a 2008 SHRM survey, 81 percent of our
respondents reported that their organization offered some form
of paid sick leave. Recently, more employers have begun to
offer paid time off, or PTO plans, in lieu of other employer-
sponsored leave--paid leave programs because this is what
today's employees and organizations want.
These plans typically combine all common leave benefits--
vacation, sick leave, holidays, and personal days--into one
leave program that can be used in any circumstance by the
employee. According to the SHRM survey, 42 percent of employers
are now offering PTO programs.
Based on our years of experience on the front lines of
implementing leave statutes like the FMLA and others, we
believe Congress should build on this progress by offering
incentives for employers to do more, not risk the unintended
consequences of another government mandate. In essence, we
believe that all employers should be encouraged to provide paid
leave for illness, vacation, and personal days to accommodate
the needs of employees and their families, as Chairman Woolsey
so eloquently described in her opening remarks. In return for
meeting a minimum eligibility requirement, employers who choose
to provide paid leave would be considered to have satisfied
federal, state, and local requirements and would qualify for a
statutorily-defined safe harbor.
SHRM has developed a set of five principles to help guide
the creation of this new type of leave policy, and the written
statement describes these in detail, but briefly stated, they
are: First, SHRM believes a new workplace leave policy must
meet the needs of both employers and employees. Second,
employers should be encouraged to voluntarily provide paid
leave to help employees meet work and personal life obligation
to a safe harbor leave standard.
Third, a new policy should encourage maximum flexibility,
creativity, and innovation for both employees and employers.
Fourth, the policy must avoid a mandated one size fits all
approach, and instead recognize that paid leave offering should
accommodate the increasing diversity in workforce needs and
environments. And finally, the policy must support a variety of
work options, such as telecommuting, flexible work
arrangements, job sharing, and compressed or reduced work
schedules.
SHRM is committed to working with members of Congress to
craft new workplace leave legislation that will leave more
organizations to offer the type of paid leave and other
benefits that make the most sense for their employees and their
families. It is time to create a 21st century workplace leave
policy that meets the needs of our 21st century workforce
without more rigid mandates, without more pages of conflicting
regulations, and without causing employers to stop offering
valuable existing benefits.
SHRM welcomes the opportunity to work with this
subcommittee on this new approach. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Gorman follows:]
Prepared Statement of China Miner Gorman, Chief Operating Officer,
Society for Human Resource Management
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, my name is China Miner Gorman. I am the Chief
Operating Officer of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM),
the world's largest association devoted to serving the needs of human
resource professionals and to advancing the HR profession. On behalf of
our more than 250,000 members, I thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the Subcommittee to examine proposals for expanding
workers' access to paid family and sick leave.
SHRM and its members believe the United States must have a 21st
Century workplace flexibility policy that reflects the nature of
today's workforce, and that meets the needs of both employees and
employers. It should enable employees to balance their work and
personal needs while providing predictability and stability to
employers. Most importantly, such an approach must encourage employers
to offer greater flexibility, creativity and innovation to meet the
needs of their employees and their families.
The collective membership of SHRM represents the professionals who
develop and implement human resource policies in organizations
throughout the country and, as such, are responsible for administering
employee benefit plans, including paid time-off programs. Our members
are also constantly looking for ways to adapt and design workplace
policies that improve employee morale and retention--two essential
elements in developing and maintaining a productive workforce. It just
makes sense that offering a solid benefits program makes it easier for
organizations to attract and retain great employees. Given the
practical experience SHRM and its members possess, we believe we are
uniquely positioned to provide insight on a sensible federal leave
policy that ensures fairness and balance for employees and employers.
For instance, while the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has
helped millions of employees and their families since its enactment in
1993, key aspects of the regulations governing the statute's medical
leave provisions have drifted far from the original intent of the Act,
creating challenges for both employers and employees.
Family and Medical Leave Act
The FMLA provides unpaid leave for the birth, adoption or foster
care placement of an employee's child, as well as for the ``serious
health condition'' of a spouse, son, daughter, or parent, or for the
employee's own medical condition.
From the beginning, HR professionals have struggled to interpret
various provisions of the FMLA. What began as a fairly simple 12-page
document has become 200 pages of regulations governing how the law is
to be implemented.
This is the result of a well-intentioned, but counter-productive
attempt to anticipate and micro-manage every situation in every
workplace in every industry--without regard for the evolving and
diverse needs of today's workforce or the new operations and
technologies that organizations employ to stay competitive.
Among the problems associated with implementing the FMLA are the
definitions of a serious health condition, intermittent leave, and
medical certifications. In fact, 47 percent of SHRM members responding
to the 2007 SHRM FMLA and Its Impact on Organizations Survey reported
that they have experienced challenges in granting leave for an
employee's serious health condition as a result of a chronic condition
(ongoing injuries, ongoing illnesses, and/or non-life threatening
conditions). Vague FMLA rules mean that practically any ailment lasting
three calendar days and including a doctor's visit, now qualifies as a
serious medical condition. Although we believe Congress intended
medical leave under the FMLA to be taken only for truly serious health
conditions, SHRM members regularly report that individuals use this
leave to avoid coming to work even when they are not experiencing
serious symptoms. This behavior is damaging to employers and fellow
employees alike.
For example, during the Department of Labor's request for
information on organizations' experiences with the FMLA in 2007, a
major airline carrier described how its employees are able to misuse
FMLA leave. One of the airline divisions has historically high FMLA
usage during the month of December, with peak usage the day before
Christmas and the day after. However, FMLA absences plummet on
Christmas Day when employees in this division are eligible for triple
overtime.
In addition to problems interpreting the federal statute equitably,
states and cities are also passing laws with additional (and sometimes
contradictory) employer mandates. In 2002, California became the first
state to provide up to six weeks of partial paid leave to employees for
family and medical leave issues. Recently, the states of Washington and
New Jersey as well as the cities of San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and
Milwaukee enacted laws to provide paid leave to employees for similar
situations. Several states have either considered or are currently
considering enacting their own paid leave laws. In Ohio, a paid sick
leave mandate similar to the Healthy Families Act was slated for
consideration on the 2008 ballot, but was ultimately pulled after
Democratic Governor Strickland opposed the proposal, saying: ``We
believe that this initiative is unworkable, unwieldy and would be
detrimental to Ohio's economy, and we will be opposing it and asking
Ohioans to oppose it as a result.''
However well-intended the original FMLA legislation was, our
experience shows that while a federal policy is far preferable to a
patchwork of city and state regulations--proscriptive attempts to
micro-manage how, when and under what circumstances leave must be
requested, granted, documented and used are counter-productive to
encouraging flexibility and innovation. This is an especially important
lesson when attempting to meet the evolving needs and desires of
today's diverse, flexible and mobile workforce. We therefore urge this
Subcommittee not to impose additional mandates and regulations on
organizations.
Healthy Families Act
Specifically, SHRM has strong concerns with the one-size-fits-all
mandate encompassed in
H.R. 2460, the ``Healthy Families Act'' (HFA). As others have
noted, this bill would require public and private employers with 15 or
more employees for 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or
preceding year to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours
worked. Under the HFA, an employee begins accruing the sick time upon
commencement of employment and is able to begin using the leave after
60 days. The paid sick time could be used for the employee's own
medical needs or to care for a child, parent, spouse, or any other
blood relative, or for an absence resulting from domestic violence,
sexual assault or stalking.
We share the goal that employees should have the ability to take
time off to attend to their own or a close family member's health, and
that the leave should be paid. However, at a time when employers are
facing unprecedented challenges, imposing a costly paid leave mandate
on employers could easily result in additional job loss or cuts in
other important employee benefits. While the HFA presents a host of
practical concerns, I would note four significant challenges with this
bill from an HR professional's perspective.
First, the HFA, like the current FMLA, prescribes a series of vague
and ill-defined qualifying events that may trigger leave eligibility
for the employee. Under the current FMLA, employers and employees alike
must make a determination if the requested leave is eligible for
coverage as a qualifying event. While in many instances this
determination of leave eligibility under the FMLA can be made easily,
in others it requires the employer and employee to make a rather
subjective, sometimes intrusive determination to determine leave
eligibility--often leaving both parties frustrated and distrustful of
each other. Unfortunately, we anticipate that employers and employees
will have a similar experience under the HFA in trying to determine
leave eligibility.
Second, although it may not be the intention of the bill sponsors,
the HFA would disrupt current employer paid leave offerings. For
example, if an employer's existing paid leave policy fails to meet all
the requirements of the Act, the employer's plan would need to be
amended to comply with the HFA requirements. HR professionals are best
situated to understand the benefit preferences of their workforce, not
the federal government.
Third, the HFA specifically states that the Act does not supersede
any state or local law that provides greater paid sick time or leave
rights, thus forcing employers to comply with a patchwork of varying
federal, state and/or local leave laws--as well as their own leave
policies. As it stands now, employers consistently report challenges in
navigating the various conflicting requirements of overlapping state
and federal leave and disability laws. The HFA would only add to the
already complex web of inconsistent but overlapping leave obligations
under federal and state laws.
Finally, the HFA's inflexible approach could cause employers to
reduce wages or other benefits to pay for the leave mandate and
associated compliance costs, thereby limiting employees' benefit and
compensation options. This is because employers have a finite pool of
resources for total compensation. If organizations are required to
offer paid sick leave, they will likely ``absorb'' this added cost by
cutting back or eliminating other employee benefits, such as health or
retirement benefits, or forgo wage increases, a potential loss to
employees who prefer other benefits rather than paid sick leave.
SHRM believes the federal government should encourage paid leave--
without creating new mandates on employers and employees. As has been
our experience under the FMLA, these proscriptive attempts to micro-
manage how, when and under what circumstances leave must be requested,
granted, documented and used are counter-productive to encouraging
flexibility and innovation. As a result, the focus is on documentation
of incremental leave and the reasons for the leave, rather than on
seeking innovative ways to help employees to balance the demands of
both work and personal life. Another rigid federal mandate would be
more of the same.
Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act
The Subcommittee is also considering H.R. 2339, the ``Family Income
to Respond to Significant Transitions (FIRST) Act.'' This legislation
provides grants to states to implement programs that provide partial or
full wage replacement for those taking leave for birth or adoption, or
those who are taking leave to care for themselves, their child(ren),
spouse or parent with a serious health condition, as defined by the
FMLA.
Under H.R. 2339, states could provide wage replacement for
employees out on FMLA leave through a state unemployment compensation
benefit program. As you may know, the federal-state unemployment
insurance (UI) system is a form of social insurance that was created in
1935 as part of the Social Security Act and was intended to provide a
temporary source of income to unemployed individuals. Unemployment
insurance is administered by each state and is funded through employer
taxes.
While SHRM would welcome dialogue on positive ways to encourage
financial support for parents who take leave following the birth or
adoption of a child, we believe the FIRST Act is the wrong approach. HR
professionals are particularly concerned with policy proposals that
would further spend down unemployment insurance reserves for the
entirely unrelated purpose of compensating leave takers--ultimately
risking the safety net for unemployed workers.
During the present economic recession, with elevated levels of
unemployment claims, it is critical that unemployment funds are
available for the unemployed in order to fulfill the original purpose
of the UI program. Therefore, we would encourage policymakers not to
use unemployment compensation programs to provide paid leave. With UI
funds severely strained, an expansion of the UI program at this time
would likely lead to increases in employer payroll taxes at a time when
employers can least afford it.
New Approach
SHRM and the 250,000 human resource professionals it represents
believe it's time to give employees choices and give employers more
predictability when it comes to a federal leave policy. We believe
employers should be encouraged to provide the paid leave their
workforces need--and let employees decide how to use it.
From our perspective, a government-mandated approach to providing
leave is a clear example of what won't work--particularly during a time
of economic crisis. Congress should refrain from pursuing additional
employer mandates--rather, employers need to be unencumbered from
proscriptive government rules, so that they can create innovative and
more flexible ways to meet the needs of their employees. SHRM advocates
an alternative approach--a 21st Century workplace flexibility policy--
that for the first time reflects different workers' needs and different
work environments, union representation, industries and organizational
size.
In fact, many employers are already voluntarily providing paid
sick, personal, vacation and maternity leave for employees. According
to the SHRM 2009 Examining Paid Leave in the Workplace Survey, 81
percent of responding SHRM members reported that their organization
offered some form of paid sick leave while 88 percent offered paid
vacation leave. In the 2008 SHRM Employee Benefits Survey, 15 percent
of respondents indicated their organization offered paid maternity
leave outside of what is covered by a short-term disability benefit.
More employers have begun to offer Paid Time Off (PTO) plans in
lieu of other employer-sponsored paid leave programs because these
types of plans are preferred by employees and employers. These plans
typically combine all common leave benefits (vacation, sick leave,
holidays and personal days) into one leave program that can be used in
any circumstance by the employee. According to the SHRM 2009 Examining
Paid Leave in the Workplace Survey, 42 percent of employers offer PTO
plans to their employees. Congress should build on the progress that is
already being made by offering incentives for employers to do more--not
risk the unintended consequences of an onerous government mandate that
could very well result in decreased benefits and fewer new jobs.
SHRM has developed a set of five principles to help guide the
creation of a new workplace flexibility statute. In essence, SHRM
believes that all employers should be encouraged to provide paid leave
for illness, vacation and personal days to accommodate the needs of
employees and their family members. In return for meeting a minimum
eligibility requirement, employers who choose to provide paid leave
would be considered to have satisfied federal, state and local
requirements and would qualify for a statutorily defined ``safe
harbor.'' I have outlined our principles below:
SHRM's Principles for a 21st Century Workplace Flexibility Policy
Shared Needs--SHRM envisions a ``safe harbor'' standard where
employers voluntarily provide a specified number of paid leave days for
employees to use for any purpose, consistent with the employer's
policies or collective bargaining agreements. A federal policy should:
Provide certainty, predictability and accountability for
employees and employers.
Encourage employers to offer paid leave under a uniform
and coordinated set of rules that would replace and simplify the
confusing--and often conflicting--existing patchwork of regulations.
Create administrative and compliance incentives for
employers who offer paid leave by offering them a safe-harbor standard
that would facilitate compliance and save on administrative costs.
Allow for different work environments, union
representation, industries and organizational size.
Permit employers that voluntarily meet safe harbor leave
standards to satisfy federal, state and local leave requirements.
Employee Leave--Employers should be encouraged voluntarily to
provide paid leave to help employees meet work and personal life
obligations through the safe harbor leave standard. A federal policy
should:
Encourage employers to offer employees with some level of
paid leave that meets minimum eligibility requirements as allowed under
the employer's safe harbor plan.
Allow the employee to use the leave for illness, vacation,
personal and family needs.
Require employers to create a plan document, made
available to all eligible employees, that fulfills the requirements of
the safe harbor.
Require the employer to attest to the U.S. Department of
Labor that the plan meets the safe harbor requirements.
Flexibility--A federal workplace leave policy should encourage
maximum flexibility for both employees and employers. A federal policy
should:
Permit the leave requirement to be satisfied by following
the policies and parameters of an employer plan or collective
bargaining agreement, where applicable, consistent with the safe harbor
provisions.
Provide employers with predictability and stability in
workforce operations.
Provide employees with the predictability and stability
necessary to meet personal needs.
Scalability--A federal workplace leave policy must avoid a mandated
one-size-fits-all approach and instead recognize that paid leave
offerings should accommodate the increasing diversity in workforce
needs and environments. A federal policy should:
Allow leave benefits to be scaled to the number of
employees at an organization; the organization's type of operations;
talent and staffing availability; market and competitive forces; and
collective bargaining arrangements.
Provide pro-rated leave benefits to full-and part-time
employees as applicable under the employer plan, which is tailored to
the specific workforce needs and consistent with the safe harbor.
Flexible Work Options--Employees and employers can benefit from a
public policy that meets the diverse needs of the workplace in
supporting and encouraging flexible work options such as telecommuting,
flexible work arrangements, job sharing and compressed or reduced
schedules. Federal statutes that impede these offerings should be
updated to provide employers and employees with maximum flexibility to
balance work and personal needs. A federal policy should:
Amend federal law to allow employees to balance work and
family needs through flexible work options such as telecommuting,
flextime, part-time, job sharing and compressed or reduced schedules.
Permit employees to choose either earning compensatory
time off for work hours beyond the established work week, or overtime
wages.
Clarify federal law to strengthen existing leave statutes
to ensure they work for both employees and employers.
Conclusion
SHRM is committed to working with this subcommittee and other
Members of Congress to craft a workplace leave policy that provides
flexible paid leave for employees in a manner that does not threaten
existing benefits or create unnecessary and counterproductive
regulations. It's time to pursue a new approach to this issue absent of
rigid, unworkable mandates. It's time to give employees greater
flexibility and to give employers more predictability. It's time to
encourage paid leave--without stifling existing innovative benefits or
hindering job creation. Thank you.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Ms. Frett?
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH FRETT, CEO, BPW USA, BPW FOUNDATION
Ms. Frett. Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, and my fellow
panelists, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on
behalf of Business and Professional Women's Foundation in
support of two important work-life bills, the FIRST Act and the
Healthy Families Act.
Business and Professional Women's Foundation works with
women, employers, and policymakers to create successful
workplaces that practice and embrace diversity, equity, and
work-life balance. We have a network of supporters which
includes both employers and employees across the country, and
both our employee and employer members support paid sick days
and paid parental leave because they know it is good for
business and it is good for workers.
We submitted written remarks, which you all have. Today I
would just like to highlight a few key points.
One of the most significant trends of the past 50 years has
been the movement of women, especially mothers, into the paid
labor force and the growth of women-owned businesses. Achieving
a sustainable work-life balance is of paramount concern for
working women and their families. Many women business owners
say they left their previous employer to start their own
business to have greater work-life balance, and they are more
likely to offer that same exact flexibility to their employees.
The American family has also changed dramatically in the
last 50 years. Employee benefits should reflect the way we live
now. Today, two-thirds of families with children have either
two employed parents or a single employed parent, most of who
now work full time.
Business and Professional Women's Foundation strongly
supports the goals of the FIRST Act and the Healthy Families
Act because they are important and necessary steps toward
achieving work-life balance for employees and helping employers
create a successful workplace.
BPW Foundation supports paid parental leave because not all
families can afford to take the unpaid leave provided by the
Family and Medical Leave Act. As more working families struggle
to make ends meet during the current economic downturn, it is
especially important to ensure that workers are not forced to
choose between their mortgage and their new children.
Providing paid leave is good for business. The
congressional Joint Economic Committee estimates that it costs
nearly three times as much to replace an employee than to
provide them with 4 weeks of paid parental leave. In addition
to reducing turnover, paid parental leave can lead to increased
productivity, better morale, and reduced absenteeism.
The FIRST Act is the first step to provide paid leave to
working families. This reliance on a public-private partnership
assures that the burden of providing a much-needed benefit does
not fall solely on business. The FIRST Act sets the stage for a
national paid leave policy.
BPW Foundation is particularly supportive of the provisions
in the FIRST Act that allow workers to take time off to care
for an injured servicemember or to deal with a family member's
deployment. BPW Foundation provides support to women veterans,
and we have conducted primary research on their workplace needs
as they return from active duty, and family leave options is an
important one to them.
Military families serve along with their servicemembers.
Paid parental leave not only provides important benefits to
military families, it also recognizes their sacrifices.
BPW Foundation supports the Healthy Families Act and its
goal to guarantee full-time workers 7 paid sick days each year.
Currently, there are no state or federal laws that guarantee
all workers the minimum number of paid sick days. The lack of
this benefit has forced millions of Americans to choose between
their paychecks and their health or the health of a family
member.
The lack of paid sick days hurts working women, men, and
families. It hurts moms and dads, kids and grandparents, and
singles. Everyone gets sick.
Unpaid time impacts the entire household because of the
lost income. Without paid sick days, workers and families face
financial difficulty in cases of illness or family health
emergencies.
Paid sick days are good for business. Companies that
provide paid sick days and leave tend to have lower job
turnover rates, lower recruitment and training costs, lower
unnecessary absenteeism, and a higher level of productivity
than firms that do not offer this benefit.
The Healthy Families Act also contains important
protections for business. To meet the concerns of small
businesses, companies with 15 employees or less are exempted,
and if a company already provides paid sick days, nothing
changes. In addition, paid sick days will be calculated using
an accrual method, so an employee will earn the leave.
In conclusion, BPW Foundation believes in the three-pronged
approach to creating a successful workplace: one, legislation,
like the Healthy Families Act and the FIRST Act; two, working
with businesses to proactively implement and update their own
workplace policies; and three, empowering women through
education.
Paid sick days and paid parental leave are important to the
health and wellbeing of women, families, and workplaces. The
Healthy Families Act and the FIRST Act will start us on the
road toward successful workplaces for employers and employees.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Ms. Frett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deborah L. Frett CEO, Business and Professional
Women's Foundation
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Price and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on
behalf of Business and Professional Women's Foundation in support of
two important work-life bills--the FIRST Act (H.R. 2339) and the
Healthy Families Act (H.R. 2460).
Business and Professional Women's Foundation (BPW Foundation) works
with women, employers and policymakers to create successful workplaces
that practice and embrace diversity, equity and work-life balance.
Through our groundbreaking research and our unique role as a neutral
convener of employers and employees, BPW Foundation leads the way in
developing and advocating for policies and programs that ``work'' for
both women and businesses. A successful workplace is one where women
can succeed and businesses can profit.
BPW Foundation has a network of supporters in every community
across the country which includes both employers and employees. Both
our employee and employer members support paid sick days and paid
parental leave because they know it's good for business and workers.
The Changing Workforce
One of the most significant trends of the past 50 years has been
the movement of women, especially mothers, into the paid labor force
and the growth of women-owned businesses. Women now make up nearly half
of the U.S. workforce and are projected to account for 49 percent of
the increase in total labor force growth between 2006 and 2016.\1\
Women-owned firms represent 30% of all U.S. businesses and between 1997
and 2004, the number of women-owned firms increased by 17% nationwide,
and twice the rate of all firms.\2\
Achieving a sustainable work-life balance is of paramount concern
for working women and their families. One-third (\1/3\) of women
believe that the difficulty of combining work and family is their
biggest work-related problem, and nearly three-fourths (\3/4\) think
the government should do more to help.\3\ Many women business owners
say they left their previous employer to start their own businesses to
have greater work-life balance, and therefore they are more likely to
offer that flexibility to their employees. Women-owned firms in the
United States are more likely than all firms to offer flex-time,
tuition reimbursement, and profit sharing to their employees.\4\
Despite the current economic downturn, there is ample evidence that
we are headed toward a workforce shortage. There will be more jobs than
workers and the jobs of the future are going to call for more
education, more critical thinking and more compassion--all skills at
which women excel. The number of jobs requiring either an associate's
degree or a post secondary vocational credential will grow by 24.1%
during this decade. By 2020 it is estimated that there will be 15
million new U.S. jobs requiring college preparation; yet at the current
rates there is the potential for 12 million unfilled skilled jobs.\5\
The make-up of the workforce has changed. Women account for 51% of
persons employed in management, professional and related occupations
categories; 63% of sales and office occupations; and, 45% of workers in
public administration.\6\ Other data shows that businesses with more
women in senior positions are more profitable, women make a majority of
the buying decisions within a family and younger workers are demanding
more flexibility in their workplaces.\7\ Investing in policies that
support working women is simply good for business.
The increasing work commitment of American families and the
changing workforce is putting new pressure on employers and
policymakers to address the problem of work-life balance. BPW
Foundation believes that greater attention to work-life policy
initiatives is good for business and will result in improved employee
retention, positive human capital outcomes, a more productive work
force and healthier and happier families.
BPW Foundation supports the goals of the FIRST ACT (HR 2339) and
the Healthy Families Act (HR 2460) because they are important and
necessary steps towards achieving work-life balance.
FIRST ACT (H.R. 2339)
The aptly named Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions
or FIRST ACT is an essential step to help employers and working women
begin achieving a successful workplace by supporting work-life balance.
The FIRST Act will provide grants to the states so they can provide
paid leave to working families for the birth or adoption of a child, to
recover from serious illness or to care for a seriously ill family
member.
Business and Professional Women's Foundation strongly supports paid
parental leave because not all families can afford to take the unpaid
leave provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Seventy-
eight percent of workers who need leave do not take it because they can
not afford it.\8\ As more working families struggle to make ends meet
during the current devastating economic downturn, it is especially
important to ensure that workers are not forced to choose between their
mortgage and their new children.
FMLA has been extremely successful. Under the FMLA, eligible
workers are allowed twelve weeks of unpaid leave. Since FMLA passed in
1993, working people have been able to take job-protected time off more
than 100 million times to recover from their own serious illness, to
care for a seriously ill family member or to bond with a new child.\9\
BPW Foundation worked hard to pass the FMLA but we knew even at that
time that unpaid leave was a compromise and was not going to be
sufficient for all families.
The success of FMLA shows that businesses will not collapse if they
provide time off to their employees. In fact 15 years after its
passage, business leaders have good things to say about FMLA. A 2000
U.S. Department of Labor study found that a vast majority of employers
report that FMLA has a positive or neutral effect on productivity (83
percent), profitability (90 percent), and growth (90 percent).\10\
Providing paid leave is good for business. The Congressional Joint
Economic Committee estimates that it costs nearly three times as much
to replace an employee than to provide them with four weeks of paid
parental leave. In addition to reducing turnover, paid parental leave
can lead to increased productivity, better morale, and reduced
absenteeism.
BPW Foundation is particularly supportive of the provisions in the
FIRST ACT that allow workers to take time off to care for an injured
service member or to deal with a family member's deployment. BPW
Foundation has a history of supporting women veterans. We have
conducted groundbreaking research on the unique needs of women veterans
transitioning from active duty to the civilian workforce and understand
the strain on today's military families.
Women are a growing and important part of the military--currently,
women comprise 15% of active-duty military, 10% of deployed forces and
20% of new recruits. These women are also a growing and important part
of the U.S. labor force. Women veterans comprise 8% of the current U.S.
veteran population and 18% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. In a 2007
study conducted by BPW Foundation, women veterans told us they desire
workplaces that offer fair compensation, opportunities for advancement,
training and professional development opportunities, family leave
options, health/dental insurance, flexible work schedules, retirement
plans and paid vacations.\11\
Military families serve along with their service members. No family
should have to choose between paying the bills and caring for a
seriously ill or wounded service member. No parent or guardian should
be denied the opportunity to visit their child's school or attend an
important event while a service member is deployed. Paid parental leave
not only provides important benefits to military families, it also
recognizes their sacrifice.
The FIRST Act is a cautious approach to paid leave. We realize that
there are serious and legitimate concerns about the feasibility of paid
leave. The modest amount of federal grant funding for the FIRST Act
will allow states to start new programs or to bolster existing paid
leave programs, while providing states with the flexibility to develop
their own programs based on their priorities. The grant funds can be
used by states that have programs in place, for outreach and education,
administrative costs, and incentives to small businesses to provide
job-protected leave. This reliance on a public-private partnership
assures that the burden of providing a much-needed benefit does not
fall solely on business.
Healthy Families Act (H.R. 2460)
BPW Foundation supports the Healthy Families Act and its goal to
guarantee full-time workers seven (7) paid sick days each year to
recover from an illness, care for a sick family member, seek routine
medical care, or seek assistance related to domestic violence.
Women make up nearly half of the U.S. workforce. Currently there
are no state or federal laws that guarantee all workers a minimum
number of paid sick days. Nearly half (48%) of private-sector workers
don't have a single paid sick day to care for their own health or that
of a family member.\12\ The lack of this benefit has forced millions of
Americans to choose between their paychecks and their health or the
health of a family member.
The lack of paid sick days particularly hurts working women, who
still bear a disproportionate responsibility for care of the family.
According to the National Compensation Study, more than 22 million
working women self report that they do not have paid sick days.\13\
Half of all working mothers report that they have had to miss work to
care for an ailing child and of those half reported that they lost
wages in the process.\14\
The following story was shared with us on the condition of
anonymity. The author is a mother who works as a security guard for a
large corporation and feared recrimination just for talking about her
struggles due to a lack of paid sick leave.
I would love to have paid sick leave. I'm a mother of two girls, 3
and 13. When I was pregnant with my first child I had no clue what to
expect. Being pregnant, you have to go to the doctor a lot. My job
didn't provide any leave at all. If you do not work, you do not get
paid. Every time I had a doctor's appointment, I had to check my
calendar and make sure I could afford to take off. I worked up to my
32nd week and it took three months to get back to work. In that time
with no income I had to go on welfare and food stamps.
With a child, I had to leave work for emergencies more frequently
because any problem with your child is top priority. It would be great
to be able to take leave to handle such things and not feel guilty or
scared about missing work!
With my second child I was a little more prepared, but it was the
same story: miss work and you don't get paid. Well, this time around I
was put to the test; I had rent, electric, gas and transportation
bills. I lost my apartment because I had no income while out with a new
child. I'm not saying that having paid sick leave would have saved my
apartment, but I would have had better options and managed my time off
better. I currently work M-F 7am-3pm and overtime whenever possible. If
I need to take my children to annual check ups, I have to take unpaid
leave. There would be a lot less stress in those situations if I had
time I could take with no reprimand.
Being a single mother is hard enough. A few days of sick leave
could mean a great deal to anyone out here trying to raise a family and
be a responsible parent.
The lack of paid sick days also hurts men. Thirty percent of
working fathers report having had to take unpaid leave to care for
themselves or a family member.\15\ More than two million fathers are
the primary caregivers of children under 18, a 62% increase since
1990.\16\ Due to lingering stereotypes about gender roles, some men
report having been denied leave to care for a family member.
The lack of paid sick days hurts families. It hurts moms and dads,
kids and grandparents and singles--everyone gets sick. Unpaid time
impacts the entire household because of the lost income. And not taking
sick time impacts your health and ability to do preventive and wellness
care. Without paid sick days, workers and families face financial
difficulty in cases of illness or family health emergencies.
The American family has changed dramatically in the last 50 years.
Employee benefits should reflect the way we live now. In the 1960s, the
overwhelming majority--70%--of American families with children had a
mother who stayed home to provide around-the-clock childcare. Today,
that statistic is reversed: two-thirds of families with children have
either two employed parents, or a single employed parent, most of whom
now work full-time.\17\
If we are really committed to the American family, leave policies
must be created so that everyone can achieve the work-life balance that
is so frequently talked about. It is not enough for a few companies to
offer paid sick days; it must be widely recognized as key to a
successful workplace. In this economic climate many working women are
backing off from their flexible work schedules and not taking sick days
for fear of losing their jobs. A benefit that employees are afraid to
take advantage of is no benefit. If we are truly interested in
fostering a strong and productive workforce and strong families, then
we must ensure that there are workplace policies that support employee
success. And paid sick days is such a policy.
Paid sick days are good for business. The lack of paid sick days
leads to what is known as ``presenteeism.'' Presenteeism is the
practice of employees coming to work sick, being unproductive and
infecting their co-workers. That is bad for business. Ultimately, it
costs businesses less to allow a sick person to stay home with pay than
it does if the sick worker causes the illness of others in the
workplace. The American Productivity Audit and studies in the Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the Employee Benefit News,
and the Harvard Business Review show that presenteeism is a large drain
on productivity--larger than that of either absenteeism or short-term
disability.
Companies that provide paid sick days and leave tend to have lower
job turnover rates, lower recruitment and training costs, lower
unnecessary absenteeism, and a higher level of productivity than firms
that do not offer this benefit.\18\ The stock market is showing
favorable signs to support work-life policies as well. A recent Harvard
Business article cited a research study of stock market reaction to the
announcement of Fortune 500 firms adopting work-family programs. The
results showed a positive swing of the stock--on average 0.48%.\19\
The Healthy Families Act also contains important protections for
business. To meet the concerns of small businesses, companies with 15
employees or fewer are exempted. And if a company already provides paid
sick days, nothing changes. In addition, paid sick days will be
calculated using an accrual method so an employee will earn those days
over time rather than getting them all at once. At first glance, many
business owners thought that offering paid sick days would be a burden,
but the numerous who have initiated this benefit have found that it is
an easy adjustment and the pay-offs in productivity and happy employees
are well worth it.
Business research firms have calculated the ROI (Return on
Investment) of companies who execute work-life effectiveness policies
to those that do not and found that there are positive business profits
for those who do. For example, companies on ``best companies to work
for'' lists (e.g. excellent HR practices) produced four times the
bottom line gains as compared to other indexes such as the S&P 500.\20\
Conclusion
BPW Foundation believes in a three pronged approach to creating a
successful workplace.
1. Legislation like the Healthy Families Act and the FIRST Act
2. Working with businesses to proactively implement and update
their own workplace policies and
3. Empowering women through education.
Paid sick days and paid parental leave are important to BPW
Foundation because they are important to the health and well-being of
women, families and workplaces. The Healthy Families Act and the FIRST
Act will start us on the road toward successful workplaces for
employers and employees.
Thank you.
endnotes
\1\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Employment and Earnings, 2008 Annual Averages and the Monthly Labor
Review, November 2007.
\2\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Employment and Earnings, 2008 Annual Averages and the Monthly Labor
Review, November 2007.
\3\ Families and Work Institute, ``National Study of the Changing
Workforce,'' 2002.
\4\ Business and Professional Women's Foundation, ``101 Facts on
the Status of Working Women,'' October 2007.
\5\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Occupational Outlook Handbook,''
2002-2003 Edition.
\6\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Employment and Earnings, 2008 Annual Averages and the Monthly Labor
Review, November 2007.
\7\ Roy D. Adler and Ron Conlin, ``Profit Thy Name is * * *
Woman?'' Miller-McCune, com, February 27, 2009, http://www.miller-
mccune.com/business--economics/profit-thy-name-is-woman-1007; Business
and Professional Women's Foundation, ``101 Facts on the Status of
Working Women,'' October 2007.
\8\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Balancing the Needs of Families and
Employers: Family and Medical Leave Surveys 2000 Update,'' 2000.
\9\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``The Family and Medical Leave Act
Regulations: A Report on the Department of Labor's Request for
Information 2007 Update,'' June 2007, p. 129.
\10\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``A Workable Balance: Report to
Congress on Family and Medical Leave Policies, 2000''
\11\ Business and Professional Women's Foundation, ``Understanding
the Complexity of Women Veteran's Transitions,'' October 2007.
\12\ Vicky Lovell, Institute for Women's Policy Research, ``Women
and Paid Sick Days: Crucial for Family Well-Being,'' 2007.
\13\ Institute for Women's Policy Research analysis of the March
2006 National Compensation Survey, the November 2005 through October
2006 Current Employment Statistics, and the November 2005 through
October 2006 Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey.
\14\ Kaiser Family Foundation, ``Women, Work and Family Health: A
Balancing Act,'' Issue Brief, April 2003.
\15\ Kaiser Family Foundation, ``Women, Work and Family Health: A
Balancing Act,'' Issue Brief, April 2003.
\16\ Business and Professional Women's Foundation, ``The State of
Work-Life Effectiveness,'' June 2006, pp 4 & 20.
\17\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``America's Families and Living
Arrangements: 2006,'' http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/
cps2006/tabFG1-all; Bond, et al, ``Highlights of the National Study of
the Changing Workforce.,'' 2002.
\18\ Jane Waldfogel, ``The Impact of the Family Medical Leave
Act,'' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 18, Spring 1999;
Christine Siegwarth Meyer, Swati Mukerjee, and Ann Sestero, ``Work-
Family Benefits: Which Ones Maximize Profits?'' Journal of Managerial
Issues,13(1):28-44, Spring 2001; Families and Work Institute, Business
Work-Life Study, 1998, available at http://www.familiesandwork.org/
summary/worklife.pdf; Children's Defense Fund, ``Minnesota, Parental
Leave in Minnesota: A Survey of Employers,'' Winter 2000; and ``Limits
of Family Leave,'' Chicago Tribune, May 4, 1999.
\19\ Freek Vermeulen, ``The Case for Work/Life Programs,'' Harvard
Business blog, April 2009.
\20\ Business and Professional Women's Foundation, ``The State of
``Work-Life Effectiveness,'' June 2006, pp 2 & 12.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Thank all of you. This has been a very informative panel.
First of all, I have to get it out that as a human
resources manager from 1969 to 1980, a company that started
with 12 engineers and myself, and 10 years later we had over
800 employees, so you know we were very busy hiring and putting
policies together and all of that, but we had paid sick leave
at that time, and we would bend over backwards if one of our
employees had a family need and had to leave for a length of--a
period of time. We didn't have, you know, family and medical
leave then, but we actually did have it.
I guess I was too busy at the time to even think about
joining SHRM--whatever, why don't you say it again?
Ms. Gorman. SHRM. S-H-R-M.
Chairwoman Woolsey. That doesn't say anything to me.
But anyway, I didn't join it, and I kind of wonder what
your answer is when 8 percent of workers in this nation have
access to paid family leave--8 percent. I mean, I thought my
job--and I knew it was, actually, as the human resources
person--was to work for the employees and to help them through
management get what they needed, actually, to balance work and
family. So what do you think human resources people are all
about?
Ms. Gorman. Well, first and foremost, human resources
people are all about ensuring that they have an active,
productive workforce that is able to sustain an employer's and
a business' and an organization's mission.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, where does paid family leave and
sick leave fall into that?
Ms. Gorman. Our members are very clear that providing paid
time off for their employees, whether it is to cover illness,
to cover caring for elderly parents, to cover caring for sick
children, is an important part of an employee's total
compensation plan.
Chairwoman Woolsey. But you don't want a level playing
field for----
Ms. Gorman [continuing]. What we don't want is a one size
fit all mandated highly-regulated approach that----
Chairwoman Woolsey. Right.
Ms. Gorman [continuing]. Doesn't take into account
differences in employee populations----
Chairwoman Woolsey. Okay. Well, then I am going to
interrupt you, because hence, 8 percent of the workforce have
any kind of paid family leave, because it is all left up to the
employers.
Dr. Bhatia, tell me--congratulations, San Francisco. You
know, you do a good job. Tell me if the H1N1 swine flu had
turned into a pandemic, people would have left the workforce if
they were ill. What kind of workforce would you have left? I
mean, would it have been worse if they had stayed and more
people would get ill?
I mean, I think the fear is that everybody will leave and
then there will be no workforce. How do you see that?
Dr. Bhatia. If an influenza--if a novel strain of influenza
emerges that is viral and it, you know, it kills people, if it
is--and it spreads quickly, public health is going to issue
orders that are, you know, that are either local, regional, or
nationwide to have people stay home from work, stay home from
school, and depending on the situation. I think in the
situation we recently saw with swine flu, the recommendations
evolved and adapted very, actually, productively, you know, and
quickly, as we learned more about it.
What will happen really--I mean, I think it will depend
on--the seriousness of the infection will affect how people
react probably more than anything else. What we would like to
see is 100 percent compliance with recommendations.
We are putting these recommendations out in order to
protect the health of everybody. People not complying with the
recommendations are going to break that system down--break that
system down.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Okay. I need to interrupt you, because
I have to ask Ms. Poole one question, but thank you. That is
good information for us.
Would the state of California take advantage of these
grants to--even though the state of California already has
programs in place for paid family leave?
Ms. Poole. As I----
Chairwoman Woolsey. No. Turn it on. Thank you.
Ms. Poole. California could certainly benefit from grants,
particularly in the area of education outreach. Currently, the
utilization rate of the Paid Family Leave compared to the
covered population is only 1.5 percent, and that has been a
source of criticism from the advocacy groups for our program,
so that would be an area that we could utilize the grants.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Okay. Thank you so much.
Dr. Price?
Dr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is so often that we are comparing apples and oranges in
these discussions, and so statistics get amusing and sometimes
very confounding. I would, however, like to, for the record,
introduce--ask unanimous consent to introduce the February 2009
Mumford Labor Review that has leisure and illness leave
estimating benefits in combination, and two letters, one from
the International Franchise Association and one from a group of
businesses regarding these bills.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
June 11, 2009.
Hon. Lynn Woolsey, Chair; Hon. Tom Price, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Chairwoman Woolsey and Ranking Member Price: On behalf of the
International Franchise Association (IFA), I am writing to express our
strong concerns and urge your opposition to H.R. 2460, the Healthy
Families Act of 2009. This legislation will create an inflexible
mandate on franchised small businesses during a time of extraordinary
economic challenges.
As the largest and oldest franchising trade group, the IFA's
mission is to safeguard the business environment for franchising
worldwide. IFA represents more than 85 industries, including more than
11,000 franchisee, 1,200 franchisor and 600 supplier members
nationwide. According to a 2008 study conducted by
PricewaterhouseCoopers, there are more than 900,000 franchised
establishments in the U.S. that are responsible for creating 21 million
American jobs and generating $2.3 trillion in economic output.
Franchise business leaders understand that employees need time off
to address personal or family health issues, which is why the vast
majority of employers voluntarily offer paid leave benefits. At the
same time, employers face economic realities and must balance leave
benefits with other compensation offered to employees, such as wages
and health benefits. The Healthy Families Act (HFA) would require
employers with 15 or more employees to offer a one-size-fits-all
package mandating 56 hours of paid sick time annually to every
employee. A paid sick leave mandate would limit an employer's
flexibility in designing a benefits package that meets the needs of
their unique workforce, resulting in significant costs for employers as
well as a potential loss to employees who prefer other benefits rather
than paid sick leave.
Unfortunately, the HFA incorporates some of the FMLA concepts that
have caused the most significant problems in managing workplace
operations, namely the ability to use this paid sick leave on an
unscheduled basis, with little or no notice of an absence. Franchise
businesses provide important services to every local community--from
auto repair to professional services such as child care--and have
customers that rely on these services. The HFA would inhibit the
ability of franchise business owners to adequately manage their
workforce so that these services to the community can continue to be
provided in a reliable and timely manner.
Again, we urge you to oppose the Healthy Families Act and during
the current recession avoid placing a harmful and costly mandate that
will stifle economic recovery efforts. Please do not hesitate to
contact myself or Jason Straczewski, IFA's Director of Government
Relations at (202) 662-0797 should you have any questions.
Thank you for your consideration in this manner.
Sincerely,
David French,
Vice President, Government Relations.
______
June 10, 2009.
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the signatories and our
contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and employees across
the nation, we are writing to express our opposition to the Healthy
Families Act (H.R. 2460/S.1152). Due to the burdensome and adverse
impact it will have on small businesses, we urge you to oppose this
legislation.
The Healthy Families Act (HFA) would require employers with 15 or
more employees to offer a one-size-fits-all paid sick leave package
mandating 56 hours--approximately 7-8 days--of paid sick leave to all
``full-time'' employees (those working 1680 hours a year or more--and
average of 32 hours a week), and a pro-rated amount of leave to part-
time employees--regardless of how few hours they work per week (workers
would accumulate 1 hour of leave of every 30 hours worked). A paid sick
leave mandate would drastically limit an employer's flexibility in
designing a compensation package that meets the needs of their unique
workforce, resulting in significant costs for employers as well as a
potential loss to employees who prefer compensation or other benefits
rather than paid sick leave.
The HFA's one-size-fits-all approach threatens an employer's
ability to provide the benefits that best fit the needs of their
workforce. The unique nature of the construction industry demands that
the benefits reflect the reality of the industry workforce. The HFA
allows employees to take leave by the hour or in the smallest increment
of time available under the employer's payroll system without notifying
their employer. Experience with this provision under the Family Medical
Leave Act has shown that allowing employees to take leave on an
intermittent basis, without prior notice or documentation (e.g.,
doctor's note), invites unscheduled absences, tardiness and misuse of
leave. When employees take intermittent leave with little or no notice,
employers must cover the absent employee's workload by reallocating the
work to other employees or the work goes undone.
The economic hardships facing our nation have acutely impacted the
construction industry. Our industry has seen historic highs in job
losses over the last year, with more than 126,000 jobs lost in our
industry in March 2009, and more than 1.3 million jobs lost since
January 2007. At a time when employers are struggling to avoid layoffs
and business closures, imposing paid leave mandates on employers is
unwise policy that threatens jobs and the viability of many of the
nation's small businesses.
Employers of all sizes understand that employees need time off to
address personal or family health issues, which is why the vast
majority of employers currently offer paid leave benefits. At the same
time, employers face economic realities and must balance leave benefits
with other compensation offered to employees, such as wages and health
benefits. Small businesses across the country are struggling to keep
their doors open in these trying times and mandating paid leave will
only aggravate this already fragile situation. For this reason and the
reasons stated above we urge you to oppose the Healthy Families Act.
Sincerely,
Air Conditioning Contractors of America,
Associated Builders and Contractors,
Associated General Contractors,
Independent Electrical Contractors,
National Association of Home Builders,
National Roofing Contractors Association,
National Utility Contractors Association,
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association.
______
Dr. Price. In an effort to try to correct a little bit of
the record, I know we are in the habit these days in this
Congress of not believing that anything in our nation is worth
anything, and especially the health care. We beat folks around
the head and neck about what they are doing for health care.
The comment, doctor, that you made about life expectancy,
and I think it was that we were the lowest of our peers--if, in
fact, you look at disease-specific criteria, in fact, we have
some of the greatest medical treatment in the world. If you
take out violent deaths and MVAs, our life expectancy in this
nation exceeds all of our peers. So I think it is important to
make certain that we are talking about real information and
real criteria. It may not be in the wonderful world of the
Northeast and Harvard, but it is, if you look at the actual
data.
Ms. Gorman, I would--the chairwoman has said that, ``8
percent--only 8 percent of employees have paid family leave.''
Is that true?
Ms. Gorman. I don't have the specific statistic according
to our membership, and we can certainly get that, but our
statistics would show it as a higher level. What is more
important is that the majority of employers do provide time off
for sick days, and many of them are quite generous, the point
being, the points that we have all made here that healthy
workers are productive workers and support the health of the
nation.
Dr. Price. And I appreciate that. In fact, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics that is charged with determining who has paid
time off and the like, in 2008 93 percent of full-time
employees were provided with paid time off that could be used
in the event of an illness, 51 percent of part-time. So I think
it is important that we talk about real statistics and real
facts here.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Could the gentleman yield? I am talking
about family and medical leave, not sick leave.
Dr. Price. You want to extend my time, or----
Thank you very much.
One of the concerns that I have, and I know many people
have, and you have held up the list of regulations--200 pages
of regulations--the Healthy Families Act claims it will have no
effect on business at all. Do any of you know how many
businesses or what percentage of businesses already meet the
standards of the Healthy Families Act? Anybody know?
So in fact, it may be that it affects every single
business, and that--if, in fact--Ms. Lipnic, I may ask you--if,
in fact, it affects a given business, what are the consequences
to that business in terms of wages or new jobs or the like?
Ms. Lipnic. And the question is if the Healthy Families Act
would apply to a business who already has a paid leave program,
for example?
Dr. Price. Or who may not comply with every single jot and
tittle of the regulation that is sure to come.
Ms. Lipnic. Well, if they don't comply and if the Healthy
Families Act was signed into law, then they would have to
comply with that and they would end up complying with a set of
regulations similar to the ones that promulgated under the
Family and Medical Leave Act. So they would have to, as you
have said, comply with every dot and tittle of what the
regulations would say.
Dr. Price. And that might, in fact--as businesses have said
and we have introduced evidence to that--might, in fact,
decrease the number of jobs?
Ms. Lipnic. Well, there is absolutely a compliance cost in
having to comply with the regulatory scheme. I mean, it is both
a regulatory scheme and an enforcement mechanism. So those
costs would come from somewhere, and presumably they would
either come out of reduced benefits for employees or reduced
jobs.
Dr. Price. And reduced benefits--it could be reduced wages?
Ms. Lipnic. Yes.
Dr. Price. Ms. Gorman has outlined five specific
recommendations, and I wonder if any of the other panelists
have had an opportunity to look at that or if you have any
thoughts about any of those recommendations, I think, that are
so helpful--that anybody--with which anybody disagrees?
Dr. Bhatia?
Dr. Bhatia. I think I want to just make a point on the
distinction between a sick days policy and a flexible paid time
off policy. I mean, in general, if one has a bucket of days to
take off for whatever purpose vacation, one has maybe a natural
tendency to, you know, ``I am planning a vacation to Disneyland
with my family. I need to save that--my vacation for that.''
There is a reason, there is a specific rationale to have
paid sick days, I think, separate, that you are--that you use
it when you are sick and when you don't use it you won't accrue
it--you won't accrue it forever. You want people to be able--
you want people to use--take that time off and not have a
competing need overwhelming that----
Dr. Price [continuing]. Ms. Gorman's recommendations that--
--
Dr. Bhatia. I think that speaks to one of the general
principles that she was----
Dr. Price. I would ask the panelists if I may, Madam Chair,
to address Ms. Gorman's recommendations in writing to us and
comment as to whether or not you have any disagreement with
them. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Mr. Hare?
Mr. Hare, just a minute, before. We have a vote on, and we
are going to go through everybody before--oh, we don't? What
were those bells? Oh, I didn't count them. Oh, good. Well, let
us go.
Mr. Hare. Am I on?
Madam Chair, I wonder if I could insert this for the
record. The Center for Economic and Policy Research quoting
that was issued today, by John Schmitt and some other folks,
quoting from it, ``We find no statistically significant effect
of mandated paid sick days or leave on national unemployment
rates.'' If I could insert that for the record, I----
Chairwoman Woolsey. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Mr. Hare. Thank you.
You know what I find interesting whenever we have these
hearings and we hear from our friends on the other side about,
you know, how much this is going to cost, I would bet--I could
be wrong--but I think every member of this subcommittee has
paid sick days and vacations. I think every member of this
committee, subcommittee, and members of Congress, their staff,
has vacations and sick days.
So I find it interesting that if it is good enough for us,
it ought to be good enough for you. But then we get into the
whole question of, how are we going to afford it? We always
find a way to afford it for us, but for people who need it and
need it badly, there is always this question of, ``Oh my gosh,
we are just going to break the bank doing this.'' So I find
that kind of interesting.
I would like to ask the panel a question. I was going to
ask just specifically--and I am not being facetious when I say
this, because I worked at a factory, by the way, where we cut
lining for men's suits. We had no paid sick days. Women were
given 6 weeks of maternity leave unpaid and told if they didn't
come back on that day after the sixth week they were terminated
immediately even with a doctor's excuse, which I thought was
really benevolent of the employer.
I found people coming to work on piecework terribly sick,
and they were losing--actually losing money and making other
people sick standing next to them working, including myself.
And I would say, ``Why don't you stay home?'' And they would
say, ``Well, I would like to, but I have kids, and I am not
going to get paid.''
I would like to ask the panel, just how many of you--you
know, I know you came in here and I appreciate it. How many of
you would be willing to eat at a restaurant if you absolutely
knew for certain that the person that was handling your food
was sick, if that would cause any discomfort for you or would
you find no problem with that whatsoever?
See, my point here is that this is happening every single
day, and you may not even know it. And the person in the back
that is preparing the food may be ill. And the fact of the
matter remains, you don't want that person handling your food,
you don't want them reporting to work. And productivity is
going to go down. And food service workers, as you know, are
not the highest-paid people in the land.
I often ask myself too, I wonder for that mother or for
that father, and you were reading a case, Ms. Poole--excuse
me--of a person who went to take care of their parent. I wonder
what price we would put on that. You know, what dollar amount
do we put on that person being able to spend time with a dying
child, a dying parent, a dying spouse?
And then having to come back to work and not getting paid
for the time that you are off--you are given the time, you just
don't get paid. And the trauma that is involved among that--
with that illness, it is bad enough in itself. Now you have to
lose money in the process in a lousy economy.
And listen, I have said this many times: I am not out to
punish businesses, but I think that we have a moral obligation
to take care of people.
Ms. Gorman, you said that reduced wages or other benefits
start--let me just read this to you. You said that many
employers are voluntarily providing paid sick, personal,
vacation, maternity leaves. However, the doctor has indicated
extensive study of this issue providing evidence today that
workers who have greater need for sick leave, such as those
with families or who have lower incomes don't get it. What
would you reply--what would your answer be?
Ms. Gorman. Well, I can talk specifically about the 250,000
H.R. professionals who are members of the Society for Human
Resource Management. Eighty-two percent of them provide a full
range of paid--of time off, paid and non-paid, for all types of
occurrences in their lives, sick leave being one of those. And
so I can speak to those statistics.
H.R. people want a healthy workforce. They want a
productive workforce. They know that healthy workers are
productive workers. And so what we are really talking about is
looking at a new way of looking at paid leave and letting
employees and employers together determine what is right for
their business and what is right for them so that if out of
their paid time off bucket, that year they are dealing with
illness issues of an elderly parent, they may, in fact, elect
to take their time to deal with that and not go to Disneyland.
Mr. Hare. Let me, if I could, because I know my time is
short, I want to ask you one last question, Ms. Gorman. You
said in your testimony that a federal paid sick leave policy
could cause employers to reduce wages or other benefits. I
wonder how accurate this argument would be considering the
statistics that have been brought forward today showing that
when employees come to work sick, productivity severely
decreases and additionally, sick workers who come to work often
infect their coworkers, which is, again, going to reduce
productivity.
So we hear a lot about this whole question of wages, but if
you are sick as a dog and you are coming to work because you
have to come to work because you know you are not going to get
paid, the productivity, it seems to me, instantly drops, and
then you are getting your coworkers that sit next to you. How
can that possibly not have an effect on workers?
Ms. Gorman. Well, I think it is a fair point, and that is
why we want to change the conversation entirely and look at the
full range of needs for paid time off, not just singularly look
at one and a whole raft of one size fits all across all
employers expensive kind of mandate, but rather, look at all
the needs for this new 21st century workforce that requires
more flexibility, that requires different kinds of employee
experiences, and who, frankly, want more control over their
lives and the decisions that they are making about the totality
of their life so that they can make decisions about sick time
and other kinds.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Kline?
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today, for your
testimony, and for your forthright answers to the questions. I
am almost tempted to take Mr. Hare up on his bet about every
staff member having paid sick leave. My guess is that many have
paid time off, which is a little broader program than Ms.
Gorman has, but that would be hard to settle, and so I won't
take the bet.
Mr. Hare. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Kline. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Hare. Well, I know in my office I provide sick leave
and vacation leave for the people that work for me, because
they work very hard. And my assumption was that every member of
Congress would do that.
Mr. Kline. So we know that \1/440\th has got it. Thank you.
Reclaiming my time, I am often concerned that in Congress
we pass legislation that is, again, well-meaning, and then, as
Ms. Lipnic said, it is turned over to people who actually write
the regulations, and then too often it is turned over to
lawyers to litigate it and fight it out. So I think it is
important that we understand what is in this legislation before
we pass it and get the statute as accurate as we can.
And to that end, I have got a couple of questions, if time
allows, for Ms. Lipnic, reliant on your expertise in both the
legislative and executive branches. And I want to get a couple
of things cleared up.
Could you explain to us how the certification process works
under the Healthy Families Act? What can an employee ask for?
What must an employer provide? And what problems this might
pose--can you take a minute or 2?
Ms. Lipnic. Sure.
Mr. Kline. Thank you.
Ms. Lipnic. Well, my understanding of the way the bill is
written, employers would, after an employee had been absent for
3 days, be entitled to ask for a certification that explains
what the absence was about, for medical reasons. Now, of
course--and this is similar to in the FML--family and medical
leave context--you know, the certification is coming after the
fact.
There is a provision in the bill, since the bill allows for
people to take leave for doctor's appointments or preventative
medical care that is described in the bill, that if the leave
is foreseeable and the employee knows at least 7 days in
advance that they are going to be absent, that there is a
requirement that they have to notify the employer at least
within that 7 days. The other standard is, as soon as
practicable.
I can tell you that standard, as soon as practicable,
caused fits to the Department of Labor in trying to define
exactly what that means and how that standard works in the
workplace.
The point about the employer can request the certification
after someone has been absent for 3 days--the first point I
would make about that is, that is set--that is setting a
federal standard that that is when an employer is able to ask
for a doctor's note, essentially. So if an employer who has as
few as 15 employees--if their standard in their workplace right
now is that they request a doctor's note after someone has been
absent for 2 days, that is out the window. It would now be for
3 days.
The other thing, as I understand from the bill, is that the
employee then has 30 days to provide that note to--the doctor's
note, the certification--to the employer. So this is 30 days
after the absence, which, you know, we are talking about sick
leave. I mean, by and large that is going to be what the case
would be. But this would be after the time had been paid, so,
you know, there may be employers who have some concern about
whether 30 days is too lenient a standard, whether they should
be--for example, if their policy is now, if you are absent for
more than 3 days you have got to give us a doctor's note as
soon as you come back to work, that would be gone too because
the standard that is set by the bill is a 30-day standard.
There are also questions about sort of what constitutes a
sufficient certification, and I guess, you know, the last point
I would make about it is--and I used to say this related to the
Fair Labor Standards Act at the Department of Labor--you would
think that it can't be this hard to pay people, and in fact, it
is, and that is all a creature of the regulations. The same
thing would apply here. You would think, you know, it cannot be
this hard to be sick and call in sick, but, you know, once this
gets turned into the actual rules and regulations, it becomes a
whole different story.
Mr. Kline [continuing]. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. It is called push.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is very
enlightening.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Earlier there was a discussion regarding the--I know Dr.
Bhatia--I didn't want to do like Ms. Woolsey did and say it
wrong.
Dr. Bhatia, there was a discussion regarding the life
expectancy and you--I looked at your face. You sort of--would
you want to elaborate what you would have said if you had an
opportunity?
Dr. Bhatia. We are 29th in the world in life expectancy. We
are several years behind Japan, Sweden, and Spain, I think most
of the countries we would consider, you know, peers. This isn't
due to injuries, gun violence. The main causes of death in our
country are heart disease, chronic diseases.
It is differences in life expectancy from all causes that
account for this difference. I think the point is, we are
spending a lot of money on health care. We are spending little
money on ensuring that everybody in this country has a
certain--the conditions that they need to be healthy, whether
those are employment conditions, land-use conditions,
environmental conditions, and other countries do a lot better
job at maintaining sort of that minimum standard of
environmental and occupational conditions.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Also, I was looking at some of the footnotes, and it talks
about workplace--170 countries in the world--found that the
United States was one of four countries. I mean, we are in
pretty good shape--Papua, New Guinea, Swaziland, and Liberia,
that do not have paid leave for new mothers.
Let me ask, since I think Ms. Lipnic--I came in late--and
Ms. Gorman seem to have a problem, do you--what do you think
about those two areas? Do you feel that United States of
America maybe should break out of that category and provide
this? Just your personal opinion or your organization's
opinion. And maybe, Ms. Gorman, you can also respond.
Ms. Gorman. Well, the question at hand is whether these
leaves are mandated, whether they are across the board,
government-regulated, mandated leaves.
Mr. Payne. And you are opposed to mandating?
Ms. Gorman. We are opposed to mandating.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Well, how do you get it done, since we are
with four of the 166 other--because evidently, you know, I
mean, tell me then, maybe, why don't you give us how you get it
done, then, since you don't want to mandate it and since nobody
does it, maybe you could--and then we put it in the law.
Ms. Gorman. SHRM's new approach to looking at leave and
paid leave, in particular, builds on what is already being
done. Eighty-three percent of employees, according to the BLS,
have access to some kind of paid leave right now. Those are
coming voluntarily from employers who know it is important to
have a competitive range of benefits to attract and retain a
productive workforce.
What we are proposing is to encourage employers to build on
this level of success by looking at leaves in a whole new way
and providing a safe harbor if they meet a certain standard of
paid leave that can be used, as the chairwoman was so eloquent
in expressing, the needs of caring for elderly parents, the
needs of caring for children, the need for taking care of
your--for your own health, including coaching your kid's soccer
team, if that is how you choose to use this kind of paid leave.
Employees want to have control over how they spend their
time and how they use this paid leave, and our suggestion is to
provide a standard against which employers would be encouraged
to provide for, and if they hit that standard, they would reach
a safe harbor. If they didn't reach that standard, they would
be liable to, just as they are today, to meet all local, state,
and federal requirements around leave.
Mr. Payne. Okay. All right. That is good.
Just one other question. I think, Ms. Lipnic, you indicated
that you are not satisfied with the way that the Healthy
Families Act defines what medical conditions should be covered.
So maybe let me ask you, what suggestions do you have on what
should be covered?
Ms. Lipnic. Congressman, if I could just respond to your
earlier question also----
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Ms. Lipnic [continuing]. The point about the study that you
mentioned about the comparison of the United States to other
countries around the world in terms of paid maternity leave,
and I have seen that study cited so many times. One point that
I think gets lost in all of the citations of that study is,
that study looked at, do other countries have a mandate for
paid leave?
They don't look at--there was no comparison done as to
whether or not those countries actually implement that. It is
just, is there a mandate on the books? And in fact, the United
States does have significant amounts of paid maternity leave. I
realize we are talking about paid sick leave here today, but I
think that is an important point that is lost every time I see
that study cited.
And the other thing that I would mention about that study
is, it only looked at, in comparison to other countries, the
standards in the formal economy. So in many countries around
the world, there is an informal economy, and much of the
economy actually may take place in an informal economy, not in
the formal economy. So I think, you know, as Dr. Price
mentioned, we sometimes are comparing apples and oranges.
To quickly answer your other question, though, in terms of
what medical conditions, the point that I was making in my
testimony that I think is important for the committee to look
at is, what are you defining as medical conditions, and define
it somehow consistently throughout the bill. It is a very, very
broad standard right now. I mean, it is essentially, if you
have a medical condition, whatever that is, it is covered.
Now, you can, you know, define that in terms of condition,
you can define it in terms of days of absence, which is what
happens under the FMLA. I would just make the point that it
ought to be consistent and it ought to be defined in the bill.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired, but I
think just--if I might take a half second--that every country
has laws that are unenforced. Every country has informal
societies. And you can't extrapolate on the--extrapolate
violent deaths and so forth, then our life expectancy would be
longer. You know, that is like saying if you take short people
out of the height of the country they would all be taller. I
mean, you can't--you know, you have what you have.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Are you finished?
I have some more questions. Do you want--just short. We
have about 10 minutes before we are going to go vote. I would
like----
Yes. Well, it is up to me. You don't have to ask questions,
but I am going to, and then have closing remarks.
Dr. Price. Madam Chair, with all due respect, it is not up
to the chair.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Oh yes?
Dr. Price. We operate by rules in this House of
Representatives. At least we used to. I don't know whether we
still do----
Chairwoman Woolsey [continuing]. All right. Would you like
to ask--I am going to ask a question. You have--I would offer
you the same opportunity I have.
Dr. Price. Please proceed.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Ms. Ness, we have sort of left you sitting there with all
kinds of looks on your face, so I want to offer you time to
respond to some of what you have been hearing. And I would
like, if any of you would like to respond to the very fact that
we know that a child--a baby's brain at birth and the first few
months, and then, of course, the first 3 years, is the most
important time. And would you weave a little bit of the need
for bonding with parents--the child to the parent, but the
parent to the child as well--in your remarks?
Ms. Ness. Sure. Well, we--just to respond to that
immediately, we have a good body of research which shows that
giving parents the opportunity to bond with their newborn
children or newly-adopted children is critical not just to the
parents, but also to the child and to their long-term future
development. And there are all sorts of ramifications in terms
of how children then evolve into healthy adults, whether it is
school performance, later job performance, et cetera.
But there is plenty of research showing how incredibly
important it is to children's development and to their long-
term economic wellbeing to give parents the time that they need
to spend with their newborns.
There are so many different points I could pick up on here.
I will just touch on a couple. I think the conversation about
how we compare with other countries is very interesting. It is
awful to think about the U.S. categorized with countries like
Swaziland and Papua, New Guinea, but if you look at the 22 most
economically competitive countries in the world, we are the
only one that doesn't have laws that require either paid time
off short-term, long-term.
So there are lots of claims about how this will be a
terrible burden on employers and how this will cause cutbacks
in wages and employment. These are the same claims we have
heard every single time we try to move forward in terms of
advancing basic workplace standards and conditions. They don't
materialize. We don't have any evidence that those are going to
come to pass.
And I would say that there is a lot of evidence that shows
over the long term these policies save businesses money, and
that the cost of presenteeism, which means people going to
work, being less productive, people being sick longer as a
result of not taking care of themselves, and people getting
other people sick in the workplace, those costs well exceed the
cost of absenteeism and the cost of even medical disability
claims.
And we know that the cost of replacing workers, if you have
high turnover, which is what happens when you don't have these
policies--cost of replacing workers and retraining, recruiting
and retraining, are much higher than the costs of giving people
some short-term time off to take care of themselves when they
are sick.
So I think we are always willing to sit down and figure out
how to make the legislation we are talking about work well for
both employers and employees, and I have enormous respect for
Ms. Lipnic. We have worked with here in the past, and under her
leadership the Department of Labor commissioned an enormous
amount of feedback and issued a report on the Family and
Medical Leave Act that actually shows that despite the fact
that there are some challenges, it has worked enormously well
for both employees and employers.
And so I think we can figure out a way to move ourselves
forward into the 21st century in a way that can work for both
employers and employees.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Ms. Frett, I would like to ask you what you think, if we
provide paid medical--sick leave, are we going to have to take
it out of the wages of the employees?
Ms. Frett. Thank you.
I think we need to consider during this current economic
downturn that there is ample evidence that we are headed toward
a workforce shortage, okay? There is going to be more jobs than
workers, and the jobs in the future are going to call for more
education, more critical thinking, and more compassion, which,
I might add, are all skills that women excel at.
And we also know that the makeup of the workforce is
changing as well, and that future is women. And women are not
asking, women are demanding, work-life balance. And that means
paid sick days and paid parental leave.
And if we have a workforce shortage and we are trying to
recruit and we are trying to retain, then we have got to focus
in terms of what is going to be that biggest population, which
is going to be women, and address this. Otherwise, there won't
be workers for businesses to keep their doors open.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Dr. Price?
Dr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Frett, I would just follow up quickly. Is there any
compliance cost to these bills by the employer?
Ms. Frett. I don't have the specific statistics on there,
but obviously, I mean, there is always some administrative
costs. But I think what we continue to see by the evidence and
all the other studies is that it is always cheaper than
presenteeism. We are looking at costs of $180-plus billion in
terms of people coming to work sick. And so I think what you
are going to see is savings in those areas that will be used to
offset any administrative costs, as well as retention.
Dr. Price. But there are compliance costs to these----
Ms. Frett. There is always administrative----
Dr. Price. Always----
And, Ms. Ness, I was struck by your comment, because you
said it was good for business and, ``We know.'' The problem
oftentimes with Congress is that we think we know, but in fact,
we legislate and we may not have any experience in the real
world where the rubber meets the road, where jobs actually are
created. Seventy percent of the jobs in this nation are created
by small business out there, and every time that we put a cost
on business, then we actually decrease the number of jobs able
to be created.
Do you not believe that we ought to have businesses be able
to function in a way that allows them to create jobs and
attract employees in certain ways? Is that a bad idea?
Ms. Ness. No. Of course I believe--we want businesses to
thrive. We want employers to thrive just like we want employees
to thrive.
Dr. Price. And would there be a compliance cost related to
these bills?
Ms. Ness. I agree with what Ms. Frett just said. There are
always some compliance costs. But I think the cost of having
people come to work sick or not having the time they need to
take care of their families are much greater in the long run
than the cost of making that kind of leave available.
Dr. Price. And Ms. Lipnic, do you have any comment on that?
Ms. Lipnic. Dr. Price, if I could just make one point----
Dr. Price. Sure.
Ms. Lipnic [continuing]. About the compliance costs, I
think it is important to look at the costs relative to the size
of the business. If you are a business who has 15 employees,
those compliance costs are dramatically more expensive than an
employer who has 1,000 employees.
Dr. Price. Maybe I would ask you to follow up on that for
those small businesses to talk about the certification
requirements and what would we be placing on those small
businesses if these two--if these laws were to be adopted?
Ms. Lipnic. Well, presumably you are placing an entire
regulatory regime, so they would have to follow whatever the
regulations are that the Department of Labor would write. I
would expect--and actually, China may know this better than I,
with her years of H.R. experience--that most small businesses
probably have fairly informal systems right now, in terms of
how people take their leave and how they request it. That would
not be the case if this were signed into law. You would be
complying with whatever the certification requirements are that
the Labor Department would set forward.
Dr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Just very briefly, you know, I continue to hear
conversation about how, you know, the poor business people are
going to, you know, just be unable to function. Unfortunately,
in our country compensation for the top strata of employees,
the CEO, for example, has risen. They used to be at 4 million,
the worker was, maybe the chief operating officer was maybe
five times the salary of it. I mean, it has gone off the chart.
I keep hearing about the strain on businesses. We used to
have a defined pension plan where people were guaranteed a
pension. I mean, in our town of Norton, New Jersey, we had all
kinds of industry--General Electric, General Motors, you know,
RCA, you name it--and everyone who worked there received the
defined pension for life, period. All of that is gone now. It
is defined contributions--what you put in the 401K, which are
now like 201Ks, you know?
But, you know, and so you find that there is less of a
responsibility on the part of the employer. Even the federal
government, in the building where my office is, employees were
previously employed by the federal government. They went out
for a contract, lowest responsible bidder, the salaries of
those employees that are custodians and other types of workers
in the federal building now are almost 50 percent of what they
used to be because the small business has that contract and
provide no health benefits when the federal government did.
So I keep hearing about how the poor business people are
doing when we are seeing our salaries just coming down to at a
point where we are going to find that--and like I say, my, I
guess, confusion is that we keep hearing about how much
sacrifice the small business person is doing, and all I am
seeing is a reversal. Even in strong unions--ILA, Teamsters,
UAW, you know, the starting salaries are maybe two-thirds of
what they were before because we have to compete with the
foreign worker, and so we therefore conclude that we have to
reduce our wages to come down to what the Korean auto worker
makes in Korea if we are going to build cars in the United
States, so they go to the South where there are no unions and
they get a lower per cost.
So there is no question--I think there is a vote coming on,
so I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
For closing remarks, Dr. Price?
Dr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony in what is
clearly a spirited area of discussion here in the Congress. We
all have a common goal of making certain that Americans are
able to have the healthiest lifestyle and lives possible, that
their families are able to be cared for, and that we work
together as employers and employees and government to make it
so that we have the greatest possible benefit for all
individuals.
I would suggest that oftentimes the class warfare that we
hear is a--maybe a useful political tool, but it is not a
useful policy tool. And I think as we move forward, there are
some good provisions in the legislation we have talked about. I
believe there is some very harmful provisions to employees, to
jobs, to America, and so I look forward to working with the
chair as we move forward on this legislation and hopefully come
up with some positive bipartisan legislation.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you, Dr. Price.
Thank you, all of you. You were a wonderful panel of
witnesses, and so well-informed, all of you.
And I, when talking about the FIRST Act and Healthy
Families Act and the impact on businesses, I all of a sudden,
you know, like the light bulb went on like in the comic strips.
California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
California actually provides paid family leave. So we have to
learn something from that. So, I mean, there is some good
examples there.
What we have heard today makes it clear that during good
times and bad times, employee and employers benefit from paid
family leave and paid sick days. We can't afford to wait. We
need to go--we can't not pass the FIRST Act. We must pass the
Healthy Families Act and bring us into the 21st century, as a
country, and make it easier for our families to go to work and
take care of their families at the same time--our workers--so
that we don't put that extra pressure on them so they are not
dying from the heart attacks, that they know that they are
supported while they are supporting their families.
So I look forward to working with Dr. Price and with the
rest of the committee and the full committee in bringing both
of these bills forward and having good debate, and moving in
this 21st century. And you have helped us a lot today. Thank
you very much.
So now, as previously ordered, members will have 14 days to
submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any member
who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the
witnesses should coordinate the majority--with the majority
staff within 14 days. So without objection, the hearing is
adjourned.
[The statement of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Washington
Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, for holding a hearing on such an
important issue. I appreciate our witnesses taking time from their busy
schedules to share their perspectives on ways to help working Americans
better balance work and family obligations in today's economy.
Without a doubt, the biggest concern for workers in this struggling
economy is job security. We see headlines everyday about employers who
have been forced to scale back and let employees go as a result of
economic conditions. The latest unemployment numbers demonstrate job
growth continues to be weak.
In light of these difficult circumstances, there is no question
mandating new labor costs on employers now through enhanced vacation
and paid leave policies will only exacerbate the situation. Instead, I
believe we should give employers and employees the flexibility to work
out mutually-beneficial arrangements in the workplace. To that end, I
introduced the Family-Friendly Workplace Act, which would allow private
sector employers to offer their employees the option of paid time off
in lieu of overtime pay. I believe this legislation addresses one area
where the federal government can play an instrumental role in providing
a valuable option--giving employees a choice instead of a federal
mandate.
Current law mandates private sector employees receive wages for
overtime hours worked. Yet, their public sector counterparts can choose
to save overtime hours worked as paid compensatory time off (known as
``comp time '') to be taken at a later date. Banked comp time belongs
to the employee and thus, for example, could be saved for use during a
maternity leave or to stay home and care for a sick child or elderly
parent.
Most employers understand when employees have flexible workplace
options they are more productive, committed and focused. For example,
an insurance company in my home state of Washington saw per-employee
revenue increase 70 percent over five years after implementing flexible
work options. In many workplaces, flexible work arrangements are an
important tool for retaining and attracting a quality workforce.
One of the biggest struggles working parents face is how to balance
work and family responsibilities. Being a new mom myself, I struggle
with balancing these aspects every day. Employees are looking for
flexibility so they can put in the time they need to get the job done,
but also make sure they can make the school play, stay home with a sick
child, or care for an elderly parent. Of course, none of this matters
if the company goes out of business. We must balance the costs and
benefits that workplace flexibility policies give to employees and
employers.
The Family-Friendly Workplace Act would complement the Family
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by providing employees with an option for
accruing paid time off, which could then be taken by the employee at a
later date. It simply allows overtime compensation to be given--at the
employee's request--as paid comp time off, at the rate of one-and-one-
half hours of comp time for each hour of overtime worked, provided the
employee and the employer agree on that form of overtime compensation.
The bill contains numerous protections to ensure the choice and use of
comp time is a decision made by the employee, not mandated by the
employer.
Many hourly paid employees, particularly those who are lower wage
workers, have fewer opportunities for workplace flexibility than their
public sector or salaried counterparts. Comp time is specifically
directed at hourly employees who work overtime. Through an agreement
with their employer, employees could choose to bank paid time in lieu
of overtime wages. Under the Family-Friendly Workplace Act, comp time
would belong to the employee, and the employee could use it for any
purpose at any time. To be clear, the Family-Friendly Workplace Act
would not change the employer's current obligation to pay overtime at
the rate of one-and-one-half times an employee's regular rate of pay
for any hours worked over 40 in a seven day period.
Many of the witnesses here today advocate for proposals to create
costly ``one-size-fits-all'' employer mandates. As our nation faces the
most severe economic downturn it has seen in decades, increasing labor
costs by way of employer mandates for expanded leave policies is more
likely to hinder than to help economic recovery. One of the best
features of the Family-Friendly Workplace Act is it provides greater
choice and flexibility to employees, without costly mandates.
One way to respond to the growing needs of people who want to
better integrate work and family is to allow them to decide for
themselves whether paid time off or extra pay best fits their needs and
that of their families. It's a matter of helping people focus on doing
what's best for families, small businesses and the next generation.
______
[Additional submissions of Dr. Price follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: The National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM)--the nation's largest industrial
trade association representing manufacturers of all sizes and
industries--opposes ``one-size-fits-all'' mandates on employers that
increase the cost of doing business in the United States, reduce
benefit design flexibility, and limit or eliminate the customized
benefit options currently available to employees. For these reasons,
the NAM opposes H.R. 2460, the Healthy Families Act (HFA), which will
be examined before the House Committee on Education and Labor's
Workforce Protections Subcommittee this week.
The HFA legislation would impose an inflexible government mandate
on employers, making it more difficult for manufacturers to preserve
and create jobs in these difficult economic times. Employers require
the flexibility to provide their employees with the benefits that best
fit the needs of their business and workforce. Most manufacturers
provided generous family-friendly benefits that include leave programs
long before Congress considered mandating paid leave. On average,
manufacturing employees earn over 20 percent more in compensation than
the rest of the workforce and 79 percent of manufacturers currently
offer a leave benefit that their employees can use specifically for
illness, doctor's appointments or to care for an ill family member. The
HFA's flawed approach would force employers to reduce wages or other
benefits to pay a federal government leave mandate.
We stand ready to work with Congress to explore approaches that
will enhance manufacturers' ability to provide the best benefit mix for
their employees.
Sincerely,
Jeri G. Kubicki.
______
Prepared Statement of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: On behalf of the
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), I write to express our
concerns with the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 2460). RILA member
companies place great importance on employee relationships and offer
competitive and comprehensive benefit and salary packages. For this
reason, we share your goal of increasing access to paid leave for
working Americans who desire this benefit. If enacted, however, this
bill would impose an onerous mandate at a time when our industry is
struggling to avoid further layoffs and business closures. The
legislation would also force many employers to make tough choices
between offering paid sick leave over health insurance, a more flexible
leave program, or other benefits that employees may prefer. Needless to
say, the ability to design such packages based on the particular needs
of our employees is of paramount importance to retailers.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association promotes consumer choice
and economic freedom through public policy and industry operational
excellence. Our members include the largest and fastest growing
companies in the retail industry--retailers, product manufacturers, and
service suppliers--which together account for more than $1.5 trillion
in annual sales. RILA members provide millions of jobs and operate more
than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities and distribution centers
domestically and abroad.
Retailers greatly value paid leave programs as key to recruiting
the best talent, ensuring employee happiness and productivity, and
improving community welfare. However, the one-size-fits-all approach of
the Healthy Families Act does not meet the needs of our companies'
unique workforces. Further, because of the large part-time and seasonal
workforces inherent to our industry, accruing leave upon date of hire
and at any number of service hours will make compliance burdensome.
Finally, the legislation as drafted would only add to the already
complex web of inconsistent but overlapping leave obligations under
federal and state laws.
We urge you to put aside the Healthy Families Act and instead
engage us and other stakeholders in a conversation to better meet our
shared goals of enacting a paid leave law that respects the needs of
employers and employees alike.
______
[Additional submissions of Ms. Woolsey follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Prepared Statement of the American Association of University Women
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing
``H.R. 2339, the Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions
Act, and H.R. 2460, the Healthy Families Act.''
Founded in 1881, the American Association of University Women
(AAUW) is a membership organization founded in 1881 with approximately
100,000 members and 1300 branches nationwide. AAUW has a proud 127-year
history of breaking through educational and economic barriers for women
and girls, and continues its mission today through education, research,
and advocacy. AAUW believes that creating work environments that help
employees balance the responsibilities of work and family is good
public policy. In fact, AAUW's member-adopted Public Policy Program is
committed to ``greater availability of and access to benefits and
policies that create a family-friendly workplace environment,'' which
are critical for women to achieve ``equitable access and advancement in
employment.''\1\
Despite the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and a patchwork of
state laws and employer-based benefits--many of which AAUW members
helped to pass--family and personal sick leave remain elusive to many
working Americans. Further, despite the relative wealth of the United
States, our family-oriented workplace policies lag dramatically and
embarrassingly behind those in much of the rest of the world, including
all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries as
well.\2\ While American workplace policies have lagged, the past fifty
years has seen substantial changes in the composition of the American
workforce. Two-thirds (64 percent) of women with children under six are
in the labor force.\3\ Nationwide, 22.9 million families provide care
for an adult family member or friend, and nearly 80 percent of those
care recipients are over the age of 50.\4\
It's clear that new and unique solutions are necessary to meet the
increasing demands of families and the necessary obligations of work.
Employees Need Paid Sick Days, Especially Women
AAUW has long supported flexible workplace policies to address the
family responsibilities of employees. Offering workers the option of
taking time off when they or a family member is sick is not just good
for families, it's good for business. At least 145 countries worldwide
provide paid sick days, with 127 providing a week or more annually.
More than 79 countries provide sickness benefits for at least 26 weeks
or until recovery.\5\
But many hardworking Americans do not have access to the important
benefit of paid sick leave. In fact, just under half (43 percent) of
the private sector workforce has no paid sick days.\6\ Low-wage workers
are especially hard hit, with about half receiving no paid sick
days.\7\ In the industries that employ the most women--retail trade and
accommodations/food service, which coincidentally have immense public
health implications--almost 9 million women do not have paid sick
days.\8\ Further, 27 percent of low income women put off getting health
care because they cannot take time off from work and 18 percent of
women at all income levels face this situation.\9\ More than 22 million
working women do not have paid sick days,\10\ and as a result half of
working mothers report that they must miss work and often go without
pay when caring for a sick child.\11\
Paid employment should not be at odds with family responsibilities.
In fact, finding solutions so that the two roles might better coexist
is in the best interest of businesses. Current models of benefits are
out of touch with the realities of the 21st century workforce, where
households are often headed by dual-earning couples out of necessity,
or a single parent whose juggling act can be particularly difficult.
Furthermore, elder care responsibilities affect nearly four in ten
adults, and this number is likely to grow higher as nearly two-thirds
of Americans under age 60 expect to be responsible for the care of an
elderly relative in 2008.\12\ But work is not a choice for the majority
of Americans, and most cannot afford to forfeit their paycheck or their
job when a family member is sick; the Healthy Families Act provides a
reasonable solution to this everyday crisis faced by families
nationwide.
The Healthy Families Act
Without sick days, employees often come to work sick, decreasing
productivity and infecting coworkers. We've seen increased attention to
the community health issue during the recent H1N1 flu pandemic, with
officials urging schools to close and workers presenting symptoms to
stay home. The lack of available paid sick days forces families with
children to confront difficult choices that impact not only their
families but potentially their communities as well. Such decisions can
become a catch-22. For the 86 million Americans who do not have paid
sick days,\13\ a decision to stay home to care for a sick child or
family member jeopardizes their family income or even their job. In
addition, employees themselves are unable to make smart decisions to
stay home to prevent infecting others because they cannot go without a
day's wages.
The Healthy Families Act would require employers with at least 15
or more employees to guarantee workers seven days of accrued paid sick
leave annually. By ensuring that hard working Americans have access to
a minimum number of paid sick days that can also be used to care for
sick dependents, employees will no longer have to make the difficult
choices between caring for loved ones--or themselves--and losing much-
needed income. In these challenging economic times, that decision is an
especially difficult one for families to make.
In the 111th Congress, the Healthy Families Act was introduced with
an important new provision. The bill's paid sick days would be
available for use for treatment, recovery, and activities necessary to
deal with an incidence of domestic violence. This includes, but is not
limited to, activities such as filing a restraining order, making a
court appearance, moving into a shelter, and seeking medical treatment.
We know that the aftermath of domestic violence costs employers, at a
minimum, between $3 billion and $5 billion annually in lost time and
productivity.\14\ And even more importantly, victims of intimate
partner violence lose 8 million days of paid work each year.\15\ Paid
sick and safe days are a necessity to victims and AAUW supports this
new provision in the bill.
Not only is offering paid sick days a positive step for businesses
to stay in tune with the makeup and needs of the 21st century
workforce, paid sick days produce savings for businesses through
decreased turnover and increased productivity. The Institute for
Women's Policy Research estimates that the Healthy Families Act would
result in a net savings, after covering costs of paid leave, of $8
billion per year. In addition, we are fortunate to be able to examine
the policy already in place in San Francisco, where it was shown that
implementing paid sick days resulted in a minor impact on employers and
strong job growth in relation to the region.\16\
Conclusion
The Healthy Families Act is an important step for Congress to take
to ensure that employees can more adequately balance the
responsibilities of work and life. The demands of providing care for a
sick family member should not force workers into an untenable decision
between a paycheck or their job and the needs of a loved one. AAUW
believes that the improvement of current benefits and family leave to
include a basic minimum of paid sick days is critical to breaking
through economic barriers for women, and will continue to work with
Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
endnotes
\1\ American Association of University Women. (July 2007). 2007--09
AAUW Public Policy Program. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from http://
www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue--advocacy/upload/2007-09-PPP-brochure.pdf
\2\ Hegewisch, Ariane and Janet Gornick. (May 2008). Statutory
Routes to Workplace Flexibility in Cross-National Perspective.
Institute for Women's Policy Research. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/B258workplaceflex.pdf.
\3\ Lowell, Vicky. Institute for Women's Policy Research. (May
2004). No Time to be Sick: Why Everyone Suffers When Workers Don't Have
Paid Sick Leave. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/
B242.pdf.
\4\ National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. (April 2004).
Executive Summary. Caregiving in the U.S.: Findings From the National
Caregiver Survey. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from http://
www.caregiving.org/data/04execsumm.pdf.
\5\ The Institute for Health and Social Policy. (2007). The Work,
Family, and Equity Index: How Does the United States Measure Up?
Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.mcgill.ca/files/ihsp/
WFEIFinal2007.pdf.
\6\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (August
2007). National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private
Industry in the United States, March 2007, Table 19. Retrieved January
16, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/ebsm0006.pdf.
\7\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (August
2007). National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private
Industry in the United States, March 2007, Table 19. Retrieved January
16, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/ebsm0006.pdf.
\8\ Ibid.
\9\ Salganicoff, Alina, Usha R. Ranji, and Roberta Wyn. (2005)
Women and Health Care: A National Profile. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/
7336.cfm.
\10\ Institute for Women's Policy Research. (February 2007). Women
and Paid Sick Days: Crucial for Family Well-Being. Retrieved January
15, 2008 from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/B254--paidsickdaysFS.pdf.
\11\ Kaiser Family Foundation. (April 2003). Women, Work and Family
Health: A Balancing Act. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://
www.kff.org/womenshealth/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/
getfile.cfm&PageID=14293.
\12\ National Partnership for Women and Families. (June 2004). Get
Well Soon: Americans Can't Afford to Be Sick. Accessed January 24, 2008
from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/
GetWellSoonReport.pdf?docID=342.
\13\ Lovell, Vicky. (May 2004). No Time to be Sick: Why Everyone
Suffers When Workers Don't Have Paid Sick Leave. Institute for Women's
Policy Research. Accessed January 5, 2008 from http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/
B242.pdf.
\14\ Bureau of Nat'l Aff., Special Rep. No. 32, Violence and
Stress: The Work/Family Connection 2 (1990).
\15\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Costs of Intimate
Partner Violence Against Women in the United States (2003).
\16\ Institute for Women's Policy Research. (October 2008). Job
Growth Strong with Paid Sick Days. Retrieved May 6, 2009 from
www.iwpr.org/pdf/B264--JobGrowth.pdf.
______
Prepared Statement of Darryl Fagin, Legislative Director, Americans for
Democratic Action, Inc.
Chairwoman, Lynn Woolsey and Members of the Subcommittee on the
Workforce Protections, on behalf of Americans for Democratic Action our
nations' premier membership multissue liberal political organization, I
thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our views about
this vital legislation pending before your Committee, the Healthy
Families Act (HFA) H.R. 2460 and the Family Income to Respond to
Significant Transitions (FIRST) Act's, HR 2339.
Chairwoman, Woolsey you made the strongest case for these bills in
March when you said, ``Today, three-quarters of all mothers work and in
about 80% of two-parent families, both parents work outside the home.
Unfortunately, the laws governing work-life balance haven't kept up
with these changes.'' Our nation's financial crisis has caused families
to have less money and unable to make ends meet, workers need policies
like paid family and medical leave more than ever. The lack of paid
sick days is not just a crisis for individual families--it is a public
health crisis as well.
The HFA has 105 cosponsors. This bill requires certain employers,
who employ 15 or more employees for each working day during 20 or more
workweeks a year, to permit each employee to earn at least one hour of
paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.
The HFA is a comprehensive bill that will more fully restore and
strengthen the economic safety net for working people. Specifically,
the bill would provide assistance for working families through: family
and medical care leave; expanded child care opportunities; in-school
and after-school options, and a variety of other initiative that will
help working parents. The HFA policies benefit workers and employers.
Studies have shown that workers with the flexibility to balance work
and family are loyal to their employers, and tend to stay longer in
their jobs.
When illness strikes working families need paid leave to help them
survive financially when they have a new child, when a bread winner
cannot work because of critically illness, or when a loved on suffers
from illness and needs care. The current law that helps workers in this
situation is the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
Working people need more than the unpaid leave provided by current
laws to protect their family's financial integrity. Working people need
paid leave. Low-income worker without paid family and medical leave are
hit hardest and suffer the most. About three in four low-income
employees who take family and medical leave receive no pay, compared to
between one in three middle income employees and one in four upper
income employees. ``For families in the lowest quartile of earners, 79
percent lack paid sick time.'' [H. R. 2460, Sec. 2. (12)]
The FIRST Act's, grant funding to develop and implement new paid
leave programs would enable states to clear the hurdle of start-up
costs. The FIRST Act will also help states with existing programs reach
out to and educate workers about their options for paid leave.
Under the FIRST act, the Secretary of Labor can award grants to
states to pay for the federal share of the cost of carrying out
programs that assist families by providing, through various mechanisms,
wage replacement for eligible individuals taking leave to respond to
care giving needs resulting from the birth or adoption of a child, or
for other purposes under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
(FMLA) or provided under state or local law.
When employees don't have paid sick days their necessary absences
eventually leads to higher employee turnover. Many low-income workers
do not have paid sick days. Providing paid sick days will actually save
American businesses by eliminating these productivity losses and
reducing worker turnover. Paid sick leave will help to build a loyal
and stable workforce.
Allowing workers earn paid sick time to care for themselves and
their families is a matter of fundamental fairness. All hardworking
Americans deserve the chance to take care of their families without
having to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for their sick
child.
ADA supports these two bills by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) ``The
Healthy Families Act'' (HFA) and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) ``FIRST
Act,'' and urges Congress to past this common sense legislation to help
working Americans. These well crafted bills will benefit both workers
and employers and should be approved, without delay.
Thank you for your attention.
______
Prepared Statement of A Better Balance
On behalf of A Better Balance, a legal advocacy organization that
is working with a broad coalition of advocacy groups in New York and in
states around the nation to create paid leave programs for workers, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide a statement for the hearing
record on the Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act
(FIRST Act). We urge Congress to pass the FIRST Act, which will make it
possible for working people to take time off to care for a new baby,
for their own serious health needs or those of their families without
jeopardizing their economic security. This legislation would provide
incentives to encourage additional states to adopt paid family leave
programs and assist states that have already enacted such programs to
conduct outreach and to provide incentives to small employers to
provide job protection to workers on leave. We strongly support it.
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Right now, the only laws that help workers in this
situation are the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and in our
state, the Temporary Disability Insurance program, which provides only
meager benefits for a worker's own temporary non-work related
disability. But workers need more than the unpaid leave and limited
benefits provided by these laws to protect their family's economic
security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness in the
family forces them into a cycle of economic distress. Twenty-five
percent of all poverty spells begin with the birth of a child. The lack
of paid family and medical leave hits low-income workers hardest:
almost three in four low-income employees who take family and medical
leave receive no pay, compared to between one in three middle income
employees and one in four upper income employees.
With families increasingly unable to make ends meet, workers need
policies like paid family and medical leave more than ever. Because of
the economic downturn, lost wages or a lost job because of a new child
or sick family member can have especially devastating effect. If a wage
earner gets seriously ill or needs to take time off of work to care for
a family member, a missed paycheck may mean that the mortgage, rent or
other bills will have to go unpaid. It is unsurprising that studies
show that medical bills lead to foreclosures and bankruptcy--workers
have no other choices.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when they get sick or a family member needs them. Paid family and
medical leave will help families maintain their economic security and
will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
Prepared Statement of Ellen Bravo, Coordinator, Family Values @ Work: A
Multi-State Consortium
On behalf of Family Values @ Work: A Multi-State Consortium (FV@W),
I would like to express strong support for the Family Income to Respond
to Significant Transitions Act (FIRST Act).
Family Values @ Work is a network of eleven state coalitions, all
working to expand access to paid family leave and paid sick days at the
state and federal levels. The coalitions in our network include
representatives of seniors, children, women, labor, health
professionals, and business owners who advocate for new policies to
make sure that workplace standards match the realities of today's
workforce.
The Family and Medical Leave Act allows employees in firms of 50 or
more to take time to care for a new child, a serious health condition
or a seriously ill loved one. Yet nearly three million people a year
who are eligible for family leave and need to use it, do not take this
time because they cannot afford to do so without pay. Family and
medical leave insurance is a proven, cost-effective approach that would
immediately help rectify this problem. It would enable people to stay
employed and at the same time improve the health and well-being of
children, speed recovery from illness, lower medical costs, improve
family economic security, and help businesses prosper.
A number of our member states as well as other states have already
passed or would likely pass family leave insurance programs, but need
funds to help initiate these programs or do adequate outreach for them.
By providing grants to the states for start-up or outreach for
family leave insurance funds, the FIRST Act would assist with our
nation's economic recovery, directing money to people who will spend it
just when they need it most. Establishment of family leave insurance
funds will enable workers to stay employed and help business owners
benefit from job stability and lower costs related to turnover.
All employees need to be able to be good family members and
responsible employees. And all business owners need to know that staff
can take time to care for themselves or a loved one and be able to
return to work. The FIRST Act's funding to develop and implement new
paid leave programs would enable states to clear the hurdle of start-up
costs. Funding at the critical early stages will help ensure that state
paid leave programs can then become self-sustaining.
By providing this assistance, passage of the FIRST Act would
significantly help working families. We strongly urge Congress to act
quickly to pass the FIRST Act.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Cindia Cameron, Organizing Director, 9to5,
National Association of Working Women--Atlanta Chapter
On behalf of the members and constituents of 9to5, National
Association of Working Women--Atlanta Chapter, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide a statement for the hearing record on the
Healthy Families Act and the Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions Act (FIRST Act).
Atlanta 9to5 urges Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act, which
will allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days annually to care for
their own or family members' illness, and to pass the FIRST Act, which
will make it possible for working people to take time off to care for a
new baby, for their own serious health needs or those of their families
without jeopardizing their economic security. Both of these pieces of
legislation are critical for the health and economic security of all
working people and their families. We strongly support both bills.
Jennetta Allen is a 19 year-old college student, and a member of
Atlanta 9to5, who was diagnosed with spino-cerebellar syndrome at a
young age. She shared her experience of the need for the Healthy
Families Act at an Atlanta press conference:
``Once when I was little I got real sick at school. I waited and
waited but Mom never came. The principal had to drive me home and wait
with me for my Mom. When my Mom finally got home she was crying more
than I was. She told me her boss would not let her leave work. My Mom
was fired because her boss THOUGHT I might get sick again!''
Healthy Families Act
Chances are each of us will get sick or need to care for a sick
family member this year. But not all of us have the option to take time
off from work to get better or to care for a sick family member. Almost
60 million Americans lack a single paid sick day in which to care for
themselves when illness strikes. In addition, nearly 100 million
workers don't have a paid sick day they can use to care for an ill
child.
When many workers get sick, need to take care of a sick child, or
have to take an elderly parent to a medical appointment, they are faced
with an impossible choice: lose a day of pay and possibly even a job,
or take the time needed to take care of their family. Half of low-wage
working parents report losing pay to stay home and care for a sick
child or being forced to leave children home alone.
When workers have access to paid sick days, employers benefit from
reduced turnover, higher productivity, and reduced spread of contagion
in the workplace. If workers were allowed to earn just seven paid sick
days per year, as the Healthy Families Act proposes, our national
economy would experience a net savings of $8.1 billion per year.
In a nation that values families, no worker should have to choose
between their job and their own or a family member's health. Please
help us achieve this goal by supporting the Healthy Families Act.
FIRST Act
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Currently, the only law that helps workers in this
situation is the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. But workers need
more than the unpaid leave provided by FMLA to protect their family's
economic security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness
in the family forces them into a cycle of economic distress; in fact,
the birth of a child accounts for twenty-five percent of people's bouts
with poverty.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when a wage earner gets sick or a family member needs help. Paid family
and medical leave will help families maintain their economic security
and will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
June 25, 2009.
Dear Representative Woolsey: My name is Lindsey Lee and I am
writing to express my strong support of federal legislation that
mandates a minimum standard for paid sick and safe days for workers
through the Healthy Families Act. I founded Cargo Coffee and Ground
Zero coffee shops in Madison, Wisconsin over eleven years ago. I have
about twenty-four employees and provide paid sick days. I first became
an avid supporter of paid sick days when paid sick days legislation was
first debated in Madison, Wisconsin in 2006.
Providing paid sick days makes plain sense for my business and I
believe for the overall economy. First, the cost is relatively minor.
This is especially true when compared to the ever rising health
insurance costs. For my staff, providing paid sick days resulted in
about a two to three percent one time increase to payroll. Second,
providing paid sick days has increased productivity among my staff.
Having an employee come in to work sick and then having multiple sick
employees several days later makes no sense. Being in the restaurant
industry, I am pretty sure my customers and employees appreciate that I
am acting prudently in making sure I have a healthy staff.
Finally, I recall that in the early 1990s, some voices trying to
speak for the business community predicted dire consequences for small
businesses and the overall economy if the Family and Medical Leave Act
passed. Instead, it has been a successful law that recognizes that our
workforce has been evolving, especially with more families with two
parents working full time jobs. I believe that law actually
strengthened our workforce and business culture which in turn has made
for a stronger economy. I am sure the same would be true if paid sick
days were also made mandatory.
My business would benefit from a national standard which would set
a level playing field among my competitors. My employees with children
can stay with their sick child and not fear they will lose their job.
That should be a minimum standard for all businesses.
In order for me to continue to recruit, retain, and support skilled
and committed workers, I have to acknowledge the needs of my workers
and their families. I urge support of the Healthy Families Act to meet
the needs of our workforce and modern economy.
Thank you.
Lindsey Lee,
Cargo Coffee and Ground Zero Coffee, Madison, WI.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) is a nonpartisan
national nonprofit that develops and advocates for policies at the
federal, state, and local levels that improve the lives of low-income
people. CLASP's mission is to improve the economic security,
educational and workforce prospects, and family stability of low-income
parents, children, and youth, and to secure equal justice for all.
CLASP strongly encourages passage of the Healthy Families Act.
Having paid sick days is a basic labor standard that needs to be
legislated because the lack of a paid sick days mandate has resulted in
about half of all private-sector workers having no ability to take a
day off when sick without losing pay. Too many are at risk of losing
jobs as well. The lack of paid sick days disproportionately affects the
lives of our nation's low-income population, contributes toward public
health risks, and allows an uneven playing field for businesses.
Low-Income Workers--Nearly half of all private-sector U.S. workers
(47%) are not provided any sick time and 70 percent do not have sick
days to care for sick children. Fully 77% of workers in the bottom wage
quartile--nearly 24 million--do not have any paid sick leave.\1\ When
those workers who do not have paid sick days fall ill, or their
children or elders fall ill, they are forced to choose between their
badly needed pay check, and often their job security, and their health.
Parents with paid time off are more than five times as likely as other
parents to stay home with sick children which helps with recovery, yet
only 41% of working mothers have paid sick days consistently.\2\
Public Health--In light of the recent H1N1 flu pandemic, the
President urged and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) issued guidelines recommending that employees experiencing flu-
like symptoms, stay home from work or school and limit contact with
others.
As a practical matter, employees are unable to heed these warnings
if they do not have the benefit of paid sick days and cannot afford to
stay home from work and risk losing their jobs.
The danger resulting from the spread of viruses and disease is
especially acute in the service industry, where workers interact
regularly with the general public. Because service workers earn low
wages, they usually cannot afford to miss a day of work during an
illness. And, workers in the food and accommodation industry are least
likely to have access to paid sick days--17th of 17 industries.\3\
Without paid sick days, these employees will continue to come to work
and interact with patrons while sick, which creates a public health
concern.\4\
While some businesses may have responded to the recent flu by
providing time off for employees so that the public health was not
jeopardized, the vast majority did not change their policies. The
government is right to call attention to the public health concerns
related to the flu; to ensure a viable system, it appears a government
policy that sets a labor standard floor is essential.
Level-Playing Field--A minimum labor standard on paid sick days is
critical to ensure that businesses, especially small businesses, have a
level-playing field. Competition with other firms that do not offer
paid sick days discourages many businesses from voluntarily offering
paid sick days to their employees, even when they would like to do
so.\5\ A small firm that wants to provide paid sick days to its
employees typically cannot afford to do so unless the firm's competitor
provides paid sick days as well. The smaller a firm's profit margin,
the greater the significance of a level-playing field.
Cost-Benefit Analysis--Recent research also suggests the economic
benefits of paid sick days for businesses outweigh the costs. Paid sick
days would reduce the incentive for employees to leave one firm for
another with better working conditions, and costs associated with high
rates of turnover are substantial. Unhealthy workers are also
unproductive workers. ``Presenteeism,'' or the cost incurred when sick
employees go to work but perform under par due to illness, constitutes
a ``hidden'' loss in productivity for businesses. Health conditions of
sick employees often worsen when they do not rest at home or seek
medical care, thereby exacerbating the loss in productivity. And,
sickness is spread easily in the workplace from one employee to
another.\6\ Contagion due to the flu in the workplace costs our
national economy $180 billion annually in lost productivity.\7\ For
employers, this costs an average of $255 per employee per year and
exceeds the cost of absenteeism and medical and disability benefits.
While some critics of paid sick days legislation argue that
mandated paid sick days legislation would lead to job loss and raise
the unemployment rate, the facts are to the contrary. A recent study
has found that there is no statistically significant effect of mandated
paid sick days or leave on national unemployment rates.\8\ However,
paid sick days could pay off economically by restricting the costly
spread of contagious diseases.
Conclusion
Because paid sick days are critical to public health and are good
for business, it is not surprising that 21 of the world's 22 highly
ranked countries in terms of economic and human development provide
paid sick days to its employees. It is a surprising fact that the
United States is the only country in that group that has to date failed
to adopt a national policy guaranteeing that workers receive paid sick
days or paid leave.\9\
The Healthy Families Act provides our nation with an opportunity
and highlights our responsibility to provide paid sick days to all
workers, including the many low-wage workers that cannot afford to not
have them. CLASP strongly urges passage of the Healthy Families Act.
endnotes
\1\ Vicky Lovell, ``No Time to be Sick: Why Everyone Suffers When
Workers Don't Have Paid Sick Leave,'' Institute for Women's Policy
Research, Washington, DC, 20004. Low-income is defined as less than 200
percent of the federal poverty line.
\2\ Jody Heymann, ``The Widening Gap: Why America's Working
Families are in Jeopardy and What Can be Done About It,'' Basic Books,
2000.
\3\ Institute for Women's Policy Research, ``No Time to Be Sick:
Why Everyone Suffers When Workers Don't Have Paid Sick Leave.''
\4\ Jodie Levin-Epstein, ``Here's a Tip: When Restaurant and Hotel
Workers Don't Have Paid Sick Days, It Hurts Us All,'' Center for Law
and Social Policy, February 2007, http://www.clasp.org/publications/
heres--a--tip.pdf.
\5\ Jodie Levin-Epstein, ``Responsive Workplaces: The Business Case
for Employment that Values Fairness and Families,'' The American
Prospect, February 2007, http://www.prospect.org/cs/
articles?article=responsive--workplaces.
\6\ Jodie Levin-Epstein, ``Presenteeism and Paid Sick Days,''
Center for Law and Social Policy, February 2005, http://clasp.org/
publications/presenteeism.pdf.
\7\ Ron Goetzal, et al., ``Health Absence, Disability, and
Presenteeism Cost Estimates of Certain Physical and Mental Health
Conditions Affecting U.S. Employers,'' Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, April 2004.
\8\ John Schmitt, et al., ``Paid Sick Days Don't Cause
Unemployment,'' Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2009.
\9\ Jody Heymann et al., ``Contagion Nation: A Comparison of Paid
Sick Day Policies in 22 Countries,'' Center for Economic and Policy
Research, May 2009.
______
Prepared Statement of Connecticut Working Families
Connecticut Working Families is a grassroots coalition of community
organizations, unions and neighborhood activists. We were formed with
the goals of refocusing the political debate on issues that most affect
working class and middle class families, like affordable healthcare,
good jobs, high quality public schools and fair workplace standards.
For the past few years, we have led the Everybody Benefits
coalition campaigning for paid sick days for working people in
Connecticut. Our campaign has attracted a broad coalition of
supporters, including doctors, public health professionals, business
owners, educators, women's rights groups, unions and community
organizations.
A growing body of research demonstrates that such a policy has
broad public benefits and minimal costs. It's not just a narrow
``labor-management'' issue; it's an issue of public health, of
healthcare access, and even an issue of smart business practices.
Two factors have drawn the need for a basic labor standard for paid
sick days into sharper focus then ever.
The first is the swine flu. When the swine flu outbreak began,
public health officials, the Centers for Disease Control, and even
President Barack Obama offered the same commonsense advice to protect
public health: if you get stick, stay home.
For the hundreds of thousands of Connecticut employees without sick
days, and for millions across the nation, making the healthy choice
isn't so easy. Facing the prospect of losing wages or even their job,
workers are likely to come in sick. In fact, a recent survey from
Monster.com indicated 33 percent of workers go to work sick for fear of
losing their job in this economy.
Swine flu didn't turn into the global pandemic some feared. But it
did show a real divide between common-sense public health practices and
reality for hundreds of thousand of workers.
It is particularly alarming that workers without paid sick days are
concentrated in industries such as food service, retail and even
healthcare, which require a substantial level of contact with the
public.
A 2008 outbreak of a `norovirus' at Adam's Mill restaurant in
Manchester. About 30 UConn students caught an acute norovirus
(sometimes called a stomach flu) at dinner. The Connecticut Department
of Public health did an investigation and traced the incident to a sick
food service worker. This is no surprise; the Center for Disease
Control estimates that out of 18 million norovirus infections annually,
roughly half are attributable to ill food service workers.
Infectious illness can be particularly harmful in places like
schools and nursing homes, where vulnerable populations are in close
contact. It defies commonsense to make school bus drivers and home
health aides come to work sick. But we do. And that puts us all at
risk.
Many physicians support paid sick days because it's a reform that
can dramatically improve our healthcare system. When it comes to
healthcare reform, there's one thing that all sides agree on: improving
access to primary care drives down costs for all of us. Yet nearly half
of all private sector workers have no sick days--making them far more
likely to forego the preventive care that reduces costs and improves
health outcomes.
The second factor is the recession. Our working families are hit
hardest by the recession. More than ever, families are barely making
ends meet, or falling further into debt. And those without paid sick
days have even more to be worried about. For those families, losing a
day's pay--or even a job--is as easy as catching the flu, or a child
catching a bug.
Among low-wage workers--those who can least afford to lose pay--
around three-quarters lack paid sick days. And if an employee does stay
home to recover from illness or to care for a child, and loses his job,
the consequences are worse than ever. It will likely take much longer
to find a new job than it would have even a year ago.
If there was ever a time that working families need an extra
measure of economic security, this is it. In times as tough as these,
we shouldn't be asking people to make an impossible choice between
their livelihood and their family's health.
Opponents of a paid sick days measure will claim it's too expensive
for businesses. This view is penny-wise but pound-foolish. It's an
argument contradicted by serious analysis and by real life experience.
According to the Center for Worklife Law, the cost to employers of
``presenteeism''--coming to work sick--is far greater than the cost of
absenteeism. It accounts for 78 percent of the loss of productivity for
businesses--$180 billion annually. Employees who stay home account for
only 22 percent.
There is an assumption by some that employees will use every hour
of sick leave available. Yet, the research and available data indicate
that when allowed seven sick days per year, workers take, on average,
just under three. Many use no sick time in a given year. Only rarely do
employees use all the sick time available.
The argument that employees will abuse sick leave is equally
misguided. Proper administration dissuades abuse and provides tools for
dealing with it.
Paid sick leave also decreases turnover and its associated costs,
increases employee morale and satisfaction and ultimately enhances
profitability and success. Employees who feel valued are more likely to
produce value, and are less likely to leave.
The experience in San Francisco bears out this data. In 2007, the
city enacted a paid sick leave ordinance that is much broader than the
one proposed in Connecticut. The following year, job growth in San
Francisco was as good as or better than any other county in the area.
In the restaurant industry, the most heavily affected by paid sick
leave, employment grew faster the year following the ordinance than the
year prior.
The Healthy Families Act is crafted carefully to balance the needs
to employers and employees, and it gives employers the ability to
protect against employee abuse. Research shows that paid sick days is
even smart for business, and saves money in the long run.
Enacting a reasonable labor standard for paid sick days will give
hundreds of thousands of Connecticut families a safety net so that
illness won't mean financial disaster.
______
Prepared Statement of Cathy Deppe, Lead Organizer, 9to5, National
Association of Working Women--Los Angeles 9to5
On behalf of the members and constituents of 9to5, National
Association of Working Women--Los Angeles, I appreciate the opportunity
to provide a statement for the hearing record on the Healthy Families
Act and the Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act
(FIRST Act).
9to5 Los Angeles urges Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act,
which will allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days annually to
care for their own or family members' illness, and to pass the FIRST
Act, which will make it possible for working people to take time off to
care for a new baby, for their own serious health needs or those of
their families without jeopardizing their economic security. Both of
these pieces of legislation are critical for the health and economic
security of all working people and their families. We strongly support
both bills.
When 9to5 helped win the ``first in the nation'' paid sick days
bill for the City of San Francisco, the Work and Family Coalition
brought together labor unions, interfaith groups, and community
organizations for a state-wide drive. Our Coalition has over 160
members and includes ACORN, the California Federation of Labor, and
SEIU. 9to5 Los Angeles has helped secure a Los Angeles City Council
Resolution for the bill. This same coalition has advocated for
legislation to protect caregivers against discrimination in the
workplace, and legislation to extend and reinforce the CA Paid Family
Leave Act which provides 6 weeks partial wage replacement. We are doing
our part--and we need Congress to step in and do theirs.
Healthy Families Act
Chances are each of us will get sick or need to care for a sick
family member this year. But not all of us have the option to take time
off from work to get better or to care for a sick family member. Almost
60 million Americans lack a single paid sick day in which to care for
themselves when illness strikes. In addition, nearly 100 million
workers don't have a paid sick day they can use to care for an ill
child.
When many workers get sick, need to take care of a sick child, or
have to take an elderly parent to a medical appointment, they are faced
with an impossible choice: lose a day of pay and possibly even a job,
or take the time needed to take care of their family. Half of low-wage
working parents report losing pay to stay home and care for a sick
child or being forced to leave children home alone.
When workers have access to paid sick days, employers benefit from
reduced turnover, higher productivity, and reduced spread of contagion
in the workplace. If workers were allowed to earn just seven paid sick
days per year, as the Healthy Families Act proposes, our national
economy would experience a net savings of $8.1 billion per year.
In a nation that values families, no worker should have to choose
between their job and their own or a family member's health. Please
help us achieve this goal by supporting the Healthy Families Act.
FIRST Act
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Currently, the only law that helps workers in this
situation is the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. But workers need
more than the unpaid leave provided by FMLA to protect their family's
economic security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness
in the family forces them into a cycle of economic distress; in fact,
the birth of a child accounts for twenty-five percent of people's bouts
with poverty.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when a wage earner gets sick or a family member needs help. Paid family
and medical leave will help families maintain their economic security
and will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
Prepared Statement of Erin Bennett, Colorado Organizer; Lorena Garcia,
Colorado Lead Organizer, 9to5, National Association of Working Women--
Colorado Chapter
On behalf of the members and constituents of 9to5, National
Association of Working Women--Colorado Chapter, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide a statement for the hearing record on the
Healthy Families Act and the Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions Act (FIRST Act).
9to5 Colorado urges Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act,
which will allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days annually to
care for their own or family members' illness, and to pass the FIRST
Act, which will make it possible for working people to take time off to
care for a new baby, for their own serious health needs or those of
their families without jeopardizing their economic security. Both of
these pieces of legislation are critical for the health and economic
security of all working people and their families. We strongly support
both bills.
Eva Henry is a resident of Thornton, Colorado. She worked in the
financial services industry as a single parent and did not receive paid
sick days. On a $15,000 annual salary she had to decide between paying
rent and putting food on the table; or staying home with her child. If
she missed one day of pay she would have to make those hard choices or
even lose a job and be faced with the challenge of finding a new one.
Her daughter had chronic ear infections from the time she was 6 months
old. When her daughter was 8, Eva had to start leaving her at home
alone because she did not have paid sick days that allowed her to be
home with her child. When she was at work, her daughter was constantly
on her mind. Eva would call home often; worried that something would
happen while she was at work. When her daughter was 10, she had to have
an operation. Eva informed her supervisor and 3 days before her
daughter's operation, she was fired because of the time needed for her
daughter.
9to5 Colorado is dedicated to working on work-family issues, such
as paid sick days and paid time off. Recently, we led the effort to
pass a Colorado bill allowing workers time off to attend their
children's school activities, such as parent-teacher conferences. This
year, we began working on gaining access to paid sick days for all
workers in Colorado. We have built a strong coalition consisting of
organizations, businesses, labor, and many Colorado citizens who
believe very strongly that everyone deserves access to paid sick days.
Healthy Families Act
Chances are each of us will get sick or need to care for a sick
family member this year. But not all of us have the option to take time
off from work to get better or to care for a sick family member. Almost
60 million Americans lack a single paid sick day in which to care for
themselves when illness strikes. In addition, nearly 100 million
workers don't have a paid sick day they can use to care for an ill
child.
When many workers get sick, need to take care of a sick child, or
have to take an elderly parent to a medical appointment, they are faced
with an impossible choice: lose a day of pay and possibly even a job,
or take the time needed to take care of their family. Half of low-wage
working parents report losing pay to stay home and care for a sick
child or being forced to leave children home alone.
When workers have access to paid sick days, employers benefit from
reduced turnover, higher productivity, and reduced spread of contagion
in the workplace. If workers were allowed to earn just seven paid sick
days per year, as the Healthy Families Act proposes, our national
economy would experience a net savings of $8.1 billion per year.
In a nation that values families, no worker should have to choose
between their job and their own or a family member's health. Please
help us achieve this goal by supporting the Healthy Families Act.
FIRST Act
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Currently, the only law that helps workers in this
situation is the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. But workers need
more than the unpaid leave provided by FMLA to protect their family's
economic security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness
in the family forces them into a cycle of economic distress; in fact,
the birth of a child accounts for twenty-five percent of people's bouts
with poverty.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when a wage earner gets sick or a family member needs help. Paid family
and medical leave will help families maintain their economic security
and will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
Prepared Statement of Carol Goertzel, President/CEO, PathWays PA
PathWays PA would like to commend the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections for holding hearings to discuss the need for a minimum paid
leave standard as depicted in H.R. 2460, the Healthy Families Act
(HFA), and H.R. 2339, the Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions (FIRST) Act. Both of these bills would provide much needed
opportunities for workers to earn time to care for themselves, their
children, and their families.
In short, we support these bills for the following reasons:
Paid Leave is a Limited, Regulated Benefit Earned by
Workers: Paid leave bills establish a minimum workplace standard that
would allow workers to earn a limited amount of time to care for
themselves or their families.
Paid Leave Makes Businesses Stronger: Paid leave programs
increase productivity, decrease turnover, and provide substantial
savings for businesses.
Paid Leave is Necessary to Strong Working Families: Paid
leave gives parents the opportunity to be with their children while
they are ill, leading to faster recovery times and better health
outcomes.
Paid Leave Makes Sense Even in This Economy: Paid leave
policies do not create job loss, but they do allow caregiving without
loss of income.
Why PathWays PA Supports Paid Leave
PathWays PA began in 1978 as the Women's Association for Women's
Alternatives, one of Pennsylvania's first residential programs to keep
low-income, vulnerable women together with their children. It has grown
to become one of the Greater Philadelphia region's foremost providers
of residential and community-based services with a focus on serving
women, teens and children. Each year PathWays PA serves nearly 6,000
clients with a full complement of social services; job training and
employment assistance; as well as residential programs.
Through our work, we have seen many families struggle towards self-
sufficiency, and observed firsthand how state and local policies affect
their success. We believe, very simply, that workers shouldn't have to
choose between their jobs and their families' well-being. Yet in the
United States today, there is no minimum standard for paid sick days,
leaving 59 million workers without paid time off for themselves, and
even more (86 million) without paid time to care for their family
members.\1\ In Pennsylvania, 46% of our workers are without paid time
to care for themselves and their families.\2\
Paid Leave is a Limited, Regulated Benefit Earned by Workers
An important distinction when talking about paid leave, either in
the case of paid family leave (defined as several weeks of time used
for serious illness) and paid sick time (defined as a small number of
days workers earn to care for routine illness), is that paid leave in
either case is a limited, regulated amount of time. Paid leave bills
establish a minimum workplace standard, similar to the minimum wage,
which would allow workers to earn a limited amount of time to care for
themselves or their families.
Paid Leave Makes Businesses Stronger
Many businesses, both large and small, already provide paid sick
leave based on the benefits incurred by their businesses as well as
those gained by the employee. Employers who offer paid sick leave say
it ultimately improves their bottom line, citing fewer absences, lower
health care costs, and higher rates of worker retention.\3\
Even the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) notes
on their website ``a sick staff infects a small business' bottom
line.''\4\ This infection is not because the business needs to pay for
paid sick time, but because ``sick people are not productive.''\5\
Businesses that provide paid leave for workers profit in a number
of ways, including higher productivity and morale, reduced absenteeism
and ``presenteeism''\6\ and lower turnover and training costs. These
benefits often outweigh any direct costs of providing paid leave.
Paid Leave Creates High Productivity and Low Presenteeism:
When sick workers do come into the office, they cost their businesses
more in lost productivity than they would by staying home. According to
a study by AdvancePCS, an organization providing health improvement
services, 72% of lost productivity related to illness comes from
presenteeism, while only 28% comes from workers staying home sick.\7\
Paid Leave Creates Substantial Savings to Business: A
national study showed that 46% of employees with little job flexibility
(including paid sick time and paid family leave, etc.) planned to look
for new jobs in the next year, compared to just 27% of workers with
higher flexibility.\8\ Staff retention alone saves businesses the high
costs associated with employee turnover. Businesses often spend 150% of
a worker's annual salary to replace that worker, and the replacement
cost for a worker earning $8 hour can be higher than $5,500. This loss
equals 687 work hours, or 87 days of 8-hour work.\9\
Studies show that many companies know and value the benefits of
decreased turnover. Nearly 8 out of 10 companies surveyed responded
that providing paid leave and other flexible work arrangements either
outweighed costs or had a neutral fiscal impact.\10\
Our Own Story as a Business Offering Paid Sick Time
PathWays PA employs nearly 150 workers, most of whom are full-time.
We have made a commitment to provide our employees with a comprehensive
benefits package that includes paid sick, personal, and vacation time.
While we think this is the ``right thing to do'' from the
standpoint of our mission, it is also the right thing from a business
standpoint. Paid sick time gives our employees the opportunity to care
for themselves and their children, ensuring that when they are in the
workplace, they are giving full attention to their work. In the past
year alone, our employees have had access to paid sick time for the
following reasons (among others):
One employee was involved in a car accident and was able
to use paid sick time to recover from the accident and her subsequent
hand surgery. Without paid sick time, she says ``she would have never
been able to catch up on her bills.''
At least one employee took short periods of leave to act
as a caregiver for her father, using the time to take him to doctor's
appointments and to be with him when he was rushed to the hospital.
Following his death a short time later, she said she ``had the comfort
of knowing that I had been with him when he needed me, and that my job
was safe during the hours I spent with him.''
Paid Leave is Necessary to Strong Working Families
In addition to creating a healthy workplace, paid sick time plays a
critical role in the health and economic well-being of working adults,
their children, and their elderly relatives.
All working families must cope with common illnesses. Over one-
third of American families have at least 2 weeks per year when a family
member is sick. Approximately 1 in 4 working families face a family
illness burden of 3 weeks or more each year.\11\ When working family
members are ill, paid sick days and paid leave help to bridge the
income gap and create needed benefits for the sick family.
Paid Leave Leads to Healthier Families: When parents
participate in the care of sick children, these children recover more
rapidly from illnesses and injuries and have better health outcomes.
But time to care for a sick child is available to only 26% of low-wage
workers and 57% of high-wage workers nationally, a significantly
smaller amount than the number of workers who have access to paid leave
to recover from their own illness.\12\ However, many parents report
they often have no choice but to go to work when their children are
sick.\13\ Among parents who are able to stay at home with their sick
children, more than half say that some type of paid leave allows them
to do so.\14\
Paid Leave Impacts Everyone During an Economic Crisis: At
a time when many families are stretching their paychecks to meet ever-
increasing costs, fewer families are able to afford even one day
without pay. In Pennsylvania, 21 percent of all households earn less
than the Self-Sufficiency Standard for Pennsylvania, a conservative
measurement of the expenses families face to meet their basic
needs.\15\ The Standard sets a bare bones budget, with no room for
movies, cable, or debt repayment--and no room for a missed day to
recuperate from the flu or care for a sick child.
One Worker's Story on the Need for Paid Sick Time
At PathWays PA, we have an employee whose previous company
``allowed'' her to take a paid sick day, but labeled each day as an
``occurrence.'' More than three occurrences in a six-month period led
to a written warning, and our employee saw others lose their jobs
because they took ``paid'' sick time.
Although she worked while sick many times, when her daughter was
admitted to Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, our employee had to be
with her child. During the hospital stay, she had to choose between
working, which meant being two hours away, or staying at the hospital,
which meant losing her job.
This is a direct quote: ``When I told my daughter that I had to go
to work because I needed to make sure I still had a job to help support
my family, it was very hard for her to understand. She was in the
hospital, and she wanted me to be there with her. Instead, my older
daughter, who was still in school at the time, had to stay home from
school that day so that she could be at the hospital with her little
sister.''
Paid Leave Makes Sense Even in This Economy
During times of economic crisis, paid sick days are critical
because their families have less of an economic cushion to sustain them
during unpaid leave or unemployment. Just as importantly, paid sick
leave policies have no relationship to the national unemployment rate.
In a recent study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the
authors tested the impact of paid sick time on unemployment data for 22
affluent countries and found no correlation between sick time policies
and unemployment.\16\
While paid leave impacts everyone, those closest to poverty are
among those most impacted by being able to earn time to care for their
families. 76 percent of low-wage and low-income workers do not have
access to paid sick leave.\17\ These workers also face a higher
likelihood of being fired for staying home to care for a sick child.
However, even middle-class Pennsylvanians are likely to lack paid leave
if they work part-time, work for a small company, or work in the
service or construction industries.
In Conclusion: Workers Need Paid Sick Time
There are many more families in Pennsylvania that are like the
families of our employees--parents who must make a choice between work
and family that should never need to be made; children who think their
parents prefer work over spending time with them, or who must stay home
from school to care for a sick sibling. Something as simple as paid
sick days could ensure that children can have the time they need with
their parents, and that parents can concentrate on work instead of
worrying about a sick child from afar.
Note on the FIRST Act:
While PathWays PA supports both HFA and the FIRST Act, our
testimony primarily concentrates on HFA. However, we would like to
state the need for the FIRST Act as well. The FIRST Act, which provides
grants to the states to implement and improve their paid family leave
programs, would give workers the opportunity to care for their families
in times of critical need. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
gives about 60 percent of American workers the right to take up to 12
weeks of unpaid leave following the birth or adoption of a child or
because of the serious health condition of the worker or the worker's
child, spouse, or parent.\18\ Yet studies show that among workers who
need family and medical leave but do not take it, seventy-eight percent
chose not to take leave because they cannot afford to miss a
paycheck.\19\ Without fully paid leave, nearly one in ten workers were
forced onto public assistance to make ends meet.\20\
endnotes
\1\ ``Get Well Soon: Americans Can't Afford to be Sick.''
Washington, D.C.: National Partnership for Women and Families, 2004, p.
1.
\2\ Analysis using the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR)
Paid Sick Days Estimator, http://www.paidsickdays.org. The Estimator
uses IWPR analysis of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' March 2006
National Compensation Survey (Vicky Lovell, Taking Care: Adequacy and
Equity of Paid Leave, forthcoming), adjusted for eligibility with data
from the November 2005 through October 2006 U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, to calculate the
percent of workers, by industry, lacking paid sick days at the national
level. Data on the number of workers in PA by industry are from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages (downloaded from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?en).
\3\ Jodie Levin-Epstein, ``Responsive Workplaces: The Business Case
for Employment That Values Fairness and Families.'' Center for Law and
Social Policy. http://www.clasp.org/publications/responsive--
workplaces.pdf. Accessed 8/26/08.
\4\ Shannon McRae, ``Fighting the Flu: How to Keep Your Office
Running in Sickness and in Health.'' The National Federation of
Independent Business. http://www.nfib.com/object/IO--26096.html.
Accessed 08/25/08.
\5\ Shannon McRae, ``Fighting the Flu: How to Keep Your Office
Running in Sickness and in Health.'' The National Federation of
Independent Business. http://www.nfib.com/object/IO--26096.html.
Accessed 08/25/08.
\6\ When workers are ill but stay on the job, their presence comes
at a cost to employees in the form of reduced productivity.
Presenteeism refers to workers who come to work even though they are
sick because they cannot afford to take time off. Depending on the
illness, these workers may also infect other workers, which could
contribute to further absenteeism and/or presenteeism in the company.
Jodie Levin-Epstein, ``Presenteeism and Paid Sick Days.'' Washington,
D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, 2005, p. 1. http://
www.clasp.org/publications/presenteeism.pdf.
\7\ Jodie Levin-Epstein, ``Presenteeism and Paid Sick Days.''
Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, 2005, p. 1. http://
www.clasp.org/publications/presenteeism.pdf.
\8\ MultiState Working Families Consortium, ``Summary Report:
Family Values at Work: It's About Time!''. http://www.9to5.org/
familyvaluesatwork/[email protected]. Accessed 8/25/08.
\9\ MultiState Working Families Consortium, ``Summary Report:
Family Values at Work: It's About Time!''. http://www.9to5.org/
familyvaluesatwork/[email protected]. Accessed 8/25/08.
\10\ Ellen Galinsky and James T. Bond, ``The 1998 Business Work-
Life Study: a Sourcebook.'' New York City, NY: Families and Work
Institute, Executive Summary, 1998, p. IV.
\11\ Alison Earle, Ph.D., Testimony before Massachusetts Joint
Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, May 4, 2005.
\12\ Department of Labor, National Compensation Survey: Employee
Benefits in Private Industry in the United States, March 2006. Summary
available at www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/ebsm0004.pdf.
\13\ Alison Earle, Ph.D., Testimony before Massachusetts Joint
Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, May 4, 2005.
\14\ Alison Earle, Ph.D., Testimony before Massachusetts Joint
Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, May 4, 2005.
\15\ Diana Pearce, Ph. D., Overlooked and Undercounted: Struggling
to Make Ends Meet in Pennsylvania. May 2009.
\16\ John Schmitt, Hye Jin Rho, Alison Earle, and Jody Heymann,
``Paid Sick Days Don't cause Unemployment.'' http://
salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/
track.jsp?v=2&c=AyxteWOJ3nJUGQyFlRmWZKMFa8fBupv7. Accessed 18 June
2009.
\17\ Vicky Lovell, No Time to Be Sick: Why Everyone Suffers When
Workers Don't Have Paid Sick Leave. Institute for Women's Policy
Research, 2004, downloaded from www.iwpr.org.
\18\ Workers are covered by FMLA protections if they work for
companies with at least 50 workers or for public employers and have
been with their employer for at least one year. With these
restrictions, roughly 40 percent of workers are not covered by the
FMLA.
\19\ Nicole Costa. ``Highlights of the 2000 U.S. Department of
Labor Report Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: Family and
Medical Leave Surveys.'' Washington, D.C.: National Partnership for
Women and Families, 2000, p. 5. Available at http://
www.nationalpartnership.org/portals/p3/library/FamilyMedicalLeave/
2000DOLLaborReportHighlights.pdf.
\20\ Nicole Costa. ``Highlights of the 2000 U.S. Department of
Labor Report Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: Family and
Medical Leave Surveys.'' Washington, D.C.: National Partnership for
Women and Families, 2000, p. 5. Available at http://
www.nationalpartnership.org/portals/p3/library/FamilyMedicalLeave/
2000DOLLaborReportHighlights.pdf.
______
Prepared Statement of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR)
Dear Chairwoman Woolsey and Ranking Member Price: On behalf of the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest,
largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition,
representing more than 200 national organizations, we write to express
our strong support for the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 2460).
The Healthy Families Act will allow workers to earn up to seven
paid sick days that workers will be able to use to recover from their
own short-term illnesses, to care for a family member with a short-term
illness, to attend well-care visits, and to address issues arising from
domestic violence.
The need for the Healthy Families Act is obvious: all workers get
sick or have to care for sick family members sometimes. Yet, as we know
from recent studies, many workers--especially low-income workers and
people of color--do not have paid sick days. The Healthy Families Act
will ensure that the most vulnerable workers are able to earn paid sick
time.
The Healthy Families Act is a necessary, modest workplace standard.
Without paid sick days, too many workers are faced with the impossible
choice of losing a job or a paycheck, or taking care of their health or
their family. While these choices are difficult at the best of times,
in today's climate, with so many families facing incredibly difficult
economic situations, these choices are especially harsh. We should
never force workers to choose between their family's health and
economic well-being.
The Healthy Families Act's provision of paid sick days will help
protect the public's health as well. As the recent outbreak of H1NI flu
virus highlighted, in order to contain contamination, workers who are
ill need to be able to miss work and parents whose children are sick
need to be able to keep those children out of school when necessary.
This prevents the unnecessary spread of illness and allows sick
individuals to get necessary care. Yet, without paid sick days, neither
of these outcomes is possible.
We look forward to working with you to pass this important
legislation. If you have any questions, please contact LCCR Employment
Task Force Chair Co-chair Sharyn Tejani, at 202986-2600, or LCCR
Counsel Paul Edenfield at 202-263-2852.
______
Prepared Statement of Donna Levitt, Manager, San Francisco Office of
Labor Standards Enforcement
Donna Levitt brought over 20 years of experience in the
construction industry to the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards
Enforcement when she was hired to lead the office in 2002. Ms. Levitt
was among a group of pioneering tradeswomen when she began her
carpenter apprenticeship in 1980. She worked in the trade for over ten
years as a carpenter, superintendent, and estimator. Ms. Levitt was
also a widely respected union representative, the only woman to head a
major construction local in the United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America. She has served on the California Building Standards
Commission, the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory
Commission, and on the boards of numerous labor and community
organizations.
The San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE)
enforces labor laws adopted by San Francisco voters and the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors. Among other laws, OLSE administers and
enforces San Francisco's Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (PSLO), the first
law in the United States to require employers to provide employees with
paid sick days.
The Paid Sick Leave Ordinance was adopted by San Francisco voters
on November 7, 2006, with 61% of voters voting in favor of the measure.
The PSLO finds that a large number of workers in San Francisco,
particularly part-time employees and low income workers, do not have
paid sick leave or have an inadequate level of paid sick leave. The
absence or inadequacy of paid sick leave among workers in San Francisco
poses serious problems not only for affected workers but also their
families, their employers and customers, the health care system, and
the community as a whole.
While 127 countries provide at least one week of paid sick leave
per year,\1\ San Francisco was the first jurisdiction in the United
States with a paid sick leave requirement. The ordinance took effect on
February 5, 2007. It requires all employers to provide paid sick leave
to their employees performing work in San Francisco. There is no
exception for small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Work, Family, and Equity Index, Jody Heymann, Alison Earle,
and Jeffrey Hayes, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid Sick Leave Ordinance--Economic Impacts
While paid sick leave may have been a new concept to some employers
and employees in San Francisco, we believe that the implementation of
the law has been smooth for our community. When the PSLO took effect in
February of 2007, some employers initially reported that they needed
additional time to adjust their payroll systems to ensure compliance
with the new requirements. Since that time, we have heard relatively
few complaints or problems from employers with respect to
implementation of the law.
I am not aware of any employers in San Francisco who have reduced
staff or made any other significant changes in their business as a
result of the sick leave ordinance. While San Francisco, like every
community, has suffered in the current recession, to my knowledge no
employers have cited the sick leave requirement as a reason for closing
or reducing their business operations in the city.
Further, economic indicators do not show that the law had an
adverse affect on the City's economy. In the 12-month period following
the effective date of the PSLO, employment in San Francisco expanded by
1.1 percent, the same rate as neighboring Marin and San Mateo counties
and substantially above the rate of employment change in Alameda,
Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Job Growth Strong with Paid Sick Days, Vicky Lovell, Ph.D., and
Kevin Miller, Ph.D, October 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid Sick Leave Ordinance--Worker and Public Health Impacts
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of San Francisco workers who
previously did not have access to adequate sick leave now have the
opportunity to take time off to care for their own health or for a
loved one. That also means fewer sick workers exposing their co-workers
or customers to illness.
The recent H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) outbreak has demonstrated the
public health necessity that sick workers and children stay home.
However, as the only jurisdiction in the United States with a
comprehensive paid sick days law, only San Francisco can meaningfully
urge workers and parents to stay home. To that end, at the height of
the H1N1 Flu outbreak, my office distributed 55,000 sick days fliers to
the San Francisco Unified School District to be sent home with
children. The fliers--provided in English, Spanish, and Chinese--
informed parents and guardians of their legal right to stay home with
sick children. The PSLO enables San Francisco to deal with a pandemic
such as H1N1 Flu unlike any other jurisdiction in the United States.
Paid Sick Leave Ordinance--Implementation
Our office completed an extensive public rulemaking process to
provide guidelines on the PSLO requirements and produced multilingual
resources to explain the law to employers and employees. These
materials are available for your review at www.sfgov.org/olse/pslo.
Should Congress choose to implement a national paid sick days law, we
would gladly make ourselves available to provide assistance based on
our experience here in San Francisco.
I am happy to respond to any questions or requests for information.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience implementing the
San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance.
______
Prepared Statement of the Massachusetts Paid Leave Coalition
On behalf of the Massachusetts Paid Leave Coalition, I thank the
Subcommittee for holding a hearing on the Healthy Families Act
introduced in the House by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and in the Senate
by Senator Edward Kennedy and submit this statement in full support of
the Act.
The Massachusetts Paid Leave Coalition is a coalition of labor
unions, local advocates, businesses, community organizations, and
policy and data experts working in collaboration to educate the public
and policymakers about the critical need for policies that provide all
workers with access to paid leave--specifically paid sick days. The
Coalition is a member group of Family Values @ Work: A Multi-State
Consortium, that brings together state coalitions working to expand
access to paid leave. Similar legislation providing for paid sick days
is pending in the Massachusetts state legislature which, like the
Healthy Families Act, would allow workers to earn up to seven paid sick
days a year to be used for illness, doctor visits, or care for a child,
spouse or parent and as safe days for victims of domestic violence.
Paid Sick Days is A Public Health Issue
Over 40% of workers in our state do not have any paid sick days or
job protection, and for workers in service industries it is nearly 80%.
A sick worker must consider whether she can afford to lose a day's pay
or maybe her job; a decision that could impact the health of everyone
that comes in contact with her. As cases of the H1Nl virus (a.k.a./
swine flu) are spreading, public health officials are advising the sick
to stay home from work at least 7 days to avoid infecting others.
However without paid sick days, many families will not heed this
advice. The threat of an epidemic of swine flu reinforces the necessity
of this basic public health measure immediately. Workers should not be
punished for following guidelines from the nation's health experts, and
we all have a stake in ensuring that those who prepare and serve our
food, teach our children, care for our elderly, or even ride our public
transportation do not have to make a choice between following healthy
precautions and losing their jobs.
Paid Sick Days Help Contain Health Care Costs
As Congress works to reform health care, many look to the
Massachusetts model where the Health Care Reform Law's universal health
care requirement was successful in extending health insurance to nearly
440,000 individuals in its first two years. (Commonwealth Health
Insurance Connector Authority 2008). However, the program's cost has
been much higher than anticipated. The Institute of Women's Policy
Research (IWPR) found that paid sick days is a natural partner to bring
cost control to the state's expanded health care system: ``Expanded
access to paid sick days could help the state meet its cost-containment
goals. The proposed Paid Sick Days Act would make it easier for workers
to get regular, appropriate care for chronic illnesses and timely
treatment for acute medical needs, while reducing the spread of
contagious illness.'' IWPR No. B267, January 2009.
Responding to a recent study on increased emergency room visits,
Massachusetts' Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Judy Ann
Bigby, noted that without paid sick days, some workers turn to costly
emergency room services rather than scheduling appointments with
primary care doctors: ``The issue of whether primary-care providers are
available when people are able to see them is going to affect lower-
income people who are more likely to not be able to take time off in
the middle day without losing pay * * *. Non-English speakers are also
more likely to be working in a job with that situation.'' (Lazar, Kay.
2008. ``Many Continue to Rely on ERs: 14% Used Hospital Before Family
Doctor'' Boston Globe, November 29). Paid sick days are a natural
complement to universal health insurance. ``Together, these policies
promote health and reduce health care costs by helping workers access
preventive, timely, and lower-cost health services while reducing
workplace injuries and the spread of disease.'' IWPR No. B267.
Paid Sick Days are Good for Business
The conventional wisdom is that providing paid sick days costs
businesses money, but research shows that the opposite is true. Paid
sick days would offer substantial savings to employers by reducing
turnover and minimizing absenteeism, according to another IWPR report,
Valuing Good Health in Massachusetts: The Costs and Benefits of the
Paid Sick Days Act (2/09). The report, which analyzes the potential
financial impact of the legislation on employers, finds that while
Massachusetts employers would pay $218 million annually in wages,
payroll taxes, payroll-based employment benefits and administrative
expenses under the law, they would save a total of $348 million
annually. The majority of those savings would be due to reduced
turnover costs. The research also shows that workers do not abuse sick
time. ``Workers with paid sick days usually don't use anywhere close to
the number of paid sick days available to them. Workers covered by the
Paid Sick Days Act will use an average of less than two sick days
annually for their own medical needs, excluding maternity leave. On
average, they will use one paid sick day a year for family care and
doctor visits, and half of all workers will not take off any days for
illness.'' IWPR No. B269 February 2009.
We applaud the Subcommittee for the hearing on the Healthy Families
Act and we urge an early mark-up of the Act because of the immediate
need for paid sick days to protect the public health from the spread of
disease and because paid sick days are shown to benefit business,
workers, and families.
massachusetts paid leave coalition
AARP Massachusetts ACORN AFL-CIO, Massachusetts
Asian Task Force AFSCME Council 93 Arise for
Social Justice Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center
Boston Police Patrolmen's Association Boston Women's
Commission Boston Teachers Union (AFT) Boston Tenant
Coalition Caregivers Alliance/OWL Older Women's League
CHAPA Charles Group Consulting Chinese
Progressive Association City Life Vida Urbana
Coalition Against Poverty/Coalition for Social Justice
Community Action Agency of Somerville Disability Law Center
EMERGE Greater Boston Libor Council Greater
Boston Legal Services Greater Southeastern Mass. Central
Labor Council Hampshire Franklin Central Labor
Council JALSA-Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action
John Hancock Financial Services Jobs With Justice
Legal Assistance of Central Mass. Mass. Affordable Housing
Alliance Mass, Commission on the Status of Women
Mass. Law Reform Institute Mass. NOW Mass. Nurses'
Association Mass. Senior Action Mass. Women's Bar
Association Merrimack Valley Central Labor Council
National Assoc. of Social Workers, MA Neighborhood Legal
Assistance North Shore Labor Council PACE
Painters District Council 35 Pioneer Valley Central Labor
Council Plymouth Bristol Central Labor Council SEIU
Local 1199 SEIU Local 509 SEIU Local 615
SEIU Local 888 South Coastal Counties Legal Services
South Middlesex Legal Services Springfield Partners for
Community Action Take Back Your Time Teamsters Local
122 The Family Center UAW Mass. CAP Council
UAW Local 1596 UAW Local 2320 UAW Local 2322
UFCW Local 1445 UFCW Local 791 UNITE HERE, Joint
Board U. Mass. Action Network Western Mass. Legal
Services
______
Prepared Statement of Linda Meric, Executive Director, 9to5, National
Association of Working Women
On behalf of the members and constituents of 9to5, National
Association of Working Women across the United States, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide a statement for the hearing record on the
Healthy Families Act and the Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions Act (FIRST Act).
9to5 urges Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act, which will
allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days annually to care for their
own or family members' illness, and to pass the FIRST Act, which will
make it possible for working people to take time off to care for a new
baby, for their own serious health needs or those of their families
without jeopardizing their economic security. Both of these pieces of
legislation are critical for the health and economic security of all
working people and their families. We strongly support both bills.
Healthy Families Act
Chances are each of us will get sick or need to care for a sick
family member this year. But not all of us have the option to take time
off from work to get better or to care for a sick family member. Almost
60 million Americans lack a single paid sick day in which to care for
themselves when illness strikes. In addition, nearly 100 million
workers don't have a paid sick day they can use to care for an ill
child.
Americans want to be responsible workers and be able to care for
their families. In the vast majority of today's families, both parents
work for pay, but our policies lag desperately behind this reality--and
families are struggling as a result. We can and must do better--and we
will, if we truly value families.
Providing paid sick days benefits all workers including women and
seniors. Nearly half (47%) of working mothers miss work when a child
comes down with a common illness, and women are more likely to have
low-wage jobs that do not offer paid sick days. Parents who lack paid
sick days are often forced to choose between the jobs they need and
caring for their families.
While this issue is important for families with children, it also
affects the more than one-third of working Americans with elder care
responsibilities who need to take time away from work to provide care.
Thirty-five percent of workers, both women and men, report that they
have cared for an older relative in the past year. Responsibilities for
caregiving will increase as Baby Boomers age.
In service industries that employ low-wage workers such as
restaurants, the majority of workers (86%) lack paid sick days. When a
low-wage worker gets sick, needs to take care of a sick child, or has
to take an elderly parent to a medical appointment, she or he is faced
with an impossible choice: lose a day of pay and possibly even a job,
or take the time you need to take care of your family. Half of low-wage
working parents report losing pay to stay home and care for a sick
child or being forced to leave children home alone.
Paid sick days are also a key component of safeguarding our
nation's public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
has recommended that those who believe they are ill with swine flu-
related symptoms stay home from work or school until they recover.
Staying at home when infected could reduce the proportion of people
impacted by pandemic influenza by 15-34%, according to a new study by
Health Impact Partners. But for those without paid sick days, staying
home from work means losing income and might mean losing a job.
Especially in this challenging economy, urging anyone to stay home and
risk losing a job is an ineffective way to protect the public health.
Workers who disproportionately lack paid sick days work with the
public every day. Seventy-eight percent of food and hotel workers do
not have a single paid sick day. Many of these workers are employed in
child care centers, retail establishments, and nursing homes. When they
go to work sick, their colleagues and all others they contact face an
increased risk of contracting illness.
Workers' access to paid sick days is critical to a productive and
vibrant economy. When workers have access to paid sick days, employers
benefit from reduced turnover, higher productivity, and reduced spread
of contagion in the workplace. If workers were allowed to earn just
seven paid sick days per year, as the Healthy Families Act proposes,
our national economy would experience a net savings of $8.1 billion per
year.
In a nation that values families, no worker should have to choose
between their job and their own or a family member's health. Please
help us achieve this goal by supporting the Healthy Families Act.
FIRST Act
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Currently, the only law that helps workers in this
situation is the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. But workers need
more than the unpaid leave provided by FMLA to protect their family's
economic security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness
in the family forces them into a cycle of economic distress; in fact,
the birth of a child accounts for twenty-five percent of people's bouts
with poverty.
The lack of paid family and medical leave hits low-income workers
hardest: almost three in four low-income employees who take family and
medical leave receive no pay, compared to one in three middle income
employees and one in four upper income employees.
With families increasingly unable to make ends meet, workers need
policies like paid family and medical leave more than ever. In the
current economic downturn, lost wages or a lost job because of a new
child or sick family member can have an especially devastating effect.
If a wage earner gets seriously ill or needs to take time off of work
to care for a family member, a missed paycheck may mean that the
mortgage or other bills will have to go unpaid. Not unsurprisingly,
studies show that medical bills lead to foreclosures and bankruptcy--
workers have no other choices.
The economy has also taken its toll on state budgets. Even states
that want to create paid family and medical leave programs are finding
it difficult to allocate funding for the relatively small start-up
costs of such programs. The FIRST Act's grant funding--to develop and
implement new paid leave programs--would enable states to clear the
hurdle of start-up costs. Funding at the critical early stages will
help ensure that state paid leave programs will quickly become self-
sustaining. The FIRST Act will also help states with existing programs
reach out to and educate workers about their options for paid leave.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when a wage earner gets sick or a family member needs help. Paid family
and medical leave will help families maintain their economic security
and will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the North Carolina Justice Center
The North Carolina Justice Center commends Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey
and Ranking Member Tom Price for convening a series of hearings to
examine workplace policies that help workers meet their
responsibilities on the job and to their families. The North Carolina
Justice Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization based
in Raleigh, North Carolina dedicated to ensuring that every North
Carolina household has access to the resources, services and fair
treatment it needs to achieve economic security.
Updating our labor standards to match a changing workforce
The North Carolina Justice Center has a long history of working to
improve workplace standards for lowand moderateincome workers and their
families. We have pushed for minimum wage increases, advocated for
stronger worker safety protections, and successfully implemented a
series of policy changes to strengthen our unemployment insurance
system. Decades of research and policy analysis have shown us
repeatedly that we cannot successfully alleviate poverty until we
address the fact that work is no longer a pathway to prosperity.
Thousands of working families in North Carolina work long hours in
lowpaying jobs with poor benefits--no health insurance, no paid leave,
or vacation. Many work multiple jobs to make ends meet and patch
together a meager family budget with their wages and safety net
benefits.
Our workplaces have changed dramatically over the last decades and
gone is North Carolina's thriving manufacturing economy, where a basic
high school education and hard work could guarantee a modest
middleclass lifestyle.\i\ As workers have adapted to a growing
servicebased economy, our labor laws have not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ For a more detailed explanation of North Carolina's shifting
economy, see the report: ``North Carolina's Unfinished
Transformation'', Winter 2006, by John Quinterno: http://
www.ncjustice.org/sites/default/files/north--carolina.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This country's labor laws have not changed significantly since the
1930's and it's time that we recognize that they're outdated and need
retooling.
Workers speak out about paid sick days
Among many issues that workers tell us about, paid sick days, or a
lack thereof, have risen to the top among North Carolinians struggling
to balance work and family. We have been travelling around the state
talking to everyday North Carolina workers and here are some of their
stories: A mom went back to work days after giving birth, leaving her
infant child to spend her first days in the world without a momma's
tender care.
A nurse, who is in the business of trying to help sick patients get
better, dragged herself into work sick, sniffles and all, so she didn't
have to lose a day's pay.
A virus was spreading through the kitchen of a local restaurant but
a waiter came in anyway, fearful of losing a shift or even his job. He
continued doling out the diner's signature meatloaf, with a side of
strep throat.
Everybody has a story to tell about paid sick days. And it's no
surprise because nearly half of North Carolina's workers--1.6 million--
lack paid sick days.\ii\ Without access to paid sick time, workers are
faced with the difficult choice between losing a day's pay (or possibly
their job) or going to work sick. Especially in today's economy,
workers are more often choosing to come into the workplace with their
sickness in tow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Miller, Kevin. ``Valuing Good Health in North Carolina: The
Costs and Benefits of Paid Sick Days'', Institute for Women's Policy
Research, March 2009. For an Executive Summary: http://
www.ncjustice.org/sites/default/files/
IWPR%20CostBenefits%20Exec%20Summary,%20509.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These workers are typically the folks preparing and serving our
food, the people who take care of our children and our aging parents.
When they come to work sick, their germs become our germs.
Support in North Carolina
North Carolinians get why paid sick days benefit everyone. In a
survey conducted by AARP North Carolina, 79% of respondents said
employers should be required to provide a minimum number of paid sick
days for fulltime employees. The survey of 800 workers age 30plus also
tellingly demonstrated how many Tar Heels have significant caregiving
responsibilities: one in six respondents is currently providing care to
a family member or friend.
We're in tough economic times and workers are struggling to hold on
their jobs. Taking a day off and missing pay to take care of a sick
loved one is just not an option for the 1.6 million workers without
paid sick days in North Carolina.
Federal action needed
States have longrelied on federal action to set minimum standards
such as the minimum wage and child labor laws. Southern states like
North Carolina particularly depend on Congress in the area of labor and
workplace safety. As one of the most unfriendly union states in the
nation, passing state legislation such as paid sick days is a long
battle, as our nearly 3 year old statebased paid sick days campaign has
reminded us.
We urge Congress to continue its good work and look at making paid
sick days a reality for all workers not only in North Carolina but also
across the nation. Enacting paid sick days legislation is a job
retention strategy that would help our working families, improve public
health and benefit employers.
______
June 25, 2009.
Hon. Tom Price, Committee on Education and Labor,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Price: On behalf of the National Partnership
for Women & Families, I would like to thank you and Chairwoman Lynn
Woolsey for inviting me to testify in support of the Healthy Families
Act and the FIRST Act on June 11, 2009. At your request, I am
responding to the Society for Human Resource Management's (SHRM's)
Principles for a 21st Century Workplace Flexibility Policy.
Like SHRM, the National Partnership believes that employers should
provide paid time off so that workers can take care of their own health
and personal needs, and care for the health and well-being of their
family members. And like SHRM, we also commend the responsible
employers that voluntarily guarantee their employees paid time off.
When businesses take care of their workers, they are better able to
retain them--and reap the benefits of a committed, productive
workforce.
Workers Need a Standard of Paid, Job-Protected Time Off
First and foremost, the National Partnership--and our coalition
partners representing children's, women's, disability, faith-based, and
anti-poverty groups, labor unions, health agencies and leading
researchers at top academic institutions--urge Congress to consider
workers' need for guaranteed, paid and job-protected time off,
especially when illness strikes them or their family members. Second,
we believe that paid leave policies, including paid sick days, must
ensure that the most vulnerable communities have access to leave.
Despite the benefits to businesses that offer paid time off, not
all employers do so. In fact, one in five working parents (20 percent)
and more than half of poor working parents (54 percent) ages 18 to 54
have no paid time off at all.\1\ And nearly half of private-sector
workers (48 percent) do not have paid time off for even the most basic
of needs--their own health.\2\ Ironically, low-wage workers are more
likely to have frequent contact with the public, where the spread of
contagion can be hard to avoid, but they are less likely to have paid
sick days. Only 22 percent of food and public accommodation workers
have any paid sick days, for example.\3\ Unless Congress passes the
Healthy Families Act, we will not see the kind of large-scale guarantee
of paid sick days that workers and communities urgently need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Katherin Ross Phillips, Urban Institute, Getting Time Off:
Access to Leave among Working Parents, 2004, http://www.urban.org/
url.cfm?ID=310977
\2\ Vicky Lovell, Institute for Women's Policy Research, Women and
Paid Sick Days: Crucial for Family Well-Being, 2007.
\3\ Vicky Lovell, Institute of Women's Policy Research, Valuing
Good Health: An Estimate of Costs and Savings for the Healthy Families
Act, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Work-and-Family Policies Create a Floor
Paid sick days, and other paid leave laws, are basic labor
standards like the minimum wage and safety and health laws. And as with
the minimum wage, we are convinced there should be a federal minimum
standard of paid sick days that protects all workers, with states and
localities free to go above the federal standard to address particular
needs of their residents. The nominal number of paid sick days proposed
in the Healthy Families Act--seven--would create such a floor. Among
the 52 percent of private-sector workers who currently have access to
paid sick days, the leave available to them varies from eight to 11
days in smaller firms, and 11 to 21 days in larger firms.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1996--1997 data (most recent
available).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We encourage flexibility at the state and local levels in creating
policies that go beyond the federal floors set by the Family and
Medical Leave Act and proposed in the Healthy Families Act. California
and New Jersey have enacted paid family leave programs, and Washington
State passed a law that will offer workers paid parental leave.
Similarly, San Francisco and the District of Columbia have enacted paid
sick days laws, and more than a dozen cities and states are working to
pass similar policies. We urge Congress to pass legislation that would
establish a floor without squelching state and local innovation.
Work-and-Family Policies Should Not Undermine Other Laws
While we support efforts to create innovative programs and policies
that help workers meet their responsibilities on the job and at home,
the National Partnership cannot support a ``safe harbor'' for employers
that would exempt them from federal, state and local leave policies.
Although SHRM's ``safe harbor'' concept is new, its underlying elements
have long been proposed by employer groups. These proposals would
diminish workers' ability to rely on basic workplace standards. For
more than 70 years, these standards have served as safeguards for
millions of workers in inherently unequal employer-employee bargaining
positions.
We strongly urge Congress not to amend federal work-hour laws, as
SHRM proposes. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) established a 40-
hour workweek to protect workers and discourage employers from
requiring extraordinarily long hours of work or diminished pay. Changes
to the 40-hour workweek would, obviously, leave workers vulnerable to
reduced wages and/or excessive, mandatory overtime work, which would be
especially punitive in these difficult economic times.
The Healthy Families Act Considers Business Concerns
In proposing the Healthy Families Act, the National Partnership and
our coalition partners have taken into consideration many of the
concerns of the business community and, particularly, many of the
principles outlined by SHRM. The Healthy Families Act already balances
the needs of workers with the needs of employers.
The Healthy Families Act now has a simplified method by
which paid sick days are accrued: workers would earn a minimum of one
hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours (seven
days) per year, unless the employer selects a higher limit. We
believe--and our business-community allies agree--that this simplified
calculation would make it easier for employers to track of the amount
of paid sick time workers earn.
The Healthy Families Act covers businesses with 15 or more
employees, which is also the threshold set in the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Title VII. The threshold balances our desire to
cover as many workers as possible, while mitigating compliance concerns
for small businesses.
Employers already offering paid sick time that meets the
requirements proposed by the Healthy Families Act do not need to offer
additional paid sick time. Furthermore, employers may--but are not
required to--request certification from employees after they've taken
more than three consecutive sick days.
Now more than ever, with families struggling and jobs scarce,
workers need policies like paid family and medical leave, paid sick
days, limits on mandatory overtime and more work schedule flexibility--
as is already allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Especially in
the current economic crisis, this ``safe harbor'' is a Trojan Horse
that would roll back 70 years of basic workplace protections at the
expense of workers. In no way is it a step toward workplace standards
that truly respect and value workers and their families.
The National Partnership and our broad coalition of more than 100
organizations are committed to working with you, as well as Chairwoman
Woolsey and other Members of Congress, to advance policies that will
help workers meet their responsibilities on the job and to their
families.
Sincerely,
Debra L Ness, President.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Hampshire Women's Lobby and Alliance
On behalf of a broad advocacy coalition in New Hampshire that is
working to create a paid leave program for workers in our state, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide a statement for the hearing
record on the Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act
(FIRST Act). We urge Congress to pass the FIRST Act, which will make it
possible for working people to take time off to care for a new baby,
for their own serious health needs or those of their families without
jeopardizing their economic security. This legislation would be
critical for the success of our work and would give our state the
flexibility to develop a program based on the needs of our state's
working families. We strongly support it.
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Right now, the only laws that help workers in this
situation are the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. But workers
need more than the unpaid leave provided by these laws to protect their
family's economic security. For many workers, the birth of a child or
an illness in the family forces them into a cycle of economic distress.
Twenty-five percent of all poverty spells begin with the birth of a
child. The lack of paid family and medical leave hits low-income
workers hardest: almost three in four low-income employees who take
family and medical leave receive no pay, compared to between one in
three middle income employees and one in four upper income employees.
With families increasingly unable to make ends meet, workers need
policies like paid family and medical leave more than ever. Because of
the economic downturn, lost wages or a lost job because of a new child
or sick family member can have especially devastating effect. If a wage
earner gets seriously ill or needs to take time off of work to care for
a family member, a missed paycheck may mean that the mortgage or other
bills will have to go unpaid. It is unsurprising that studies show that
medical bills lead to foreclosures and bankruptcy--workers have no
other choices.
The economy has also taken its toll on state budgets. Even states
that want to create paid family and medical leave programs are finding
it difficult to allocate funding for the relatively small start-up
costs of such programs. The FIRST Act's grant funding to develop and
implement new paid leave programs would enable states to clear the
hurdle of start-up costs. Funding at the critical early stages will
help ensure that state paid leave programs will quickly become self-
sustaining. The FIRST Act will also help states with existing programs
reach out to and educate workers about their options for paid leave.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when they get sick or a family member needs them. Paid family and
medical leave will help families maintain their economic security and
will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Jersey Time to Care Coalition
The New Jersey Time to Care Coalition, a broad group of over 70
diverse organizations working together to create family friendly
workplace practices, very much appreciates the opportunity to provide a
statement for the hearing record on the Family Income to Respond to
Significant Transitions Act (FIRST Act).
We urge Congress to pass the FIRST Act, which will make it possible
for working people to take paid time off to care for a new baby, for
their own serious health needs or those of their families without
jeopardizing their economic security. This legislation would be
critical for the success of states' work on this issue and would give
our state the flexibility to expand its existing program to better meet
the needs of New Jersey's working families. We strongly support it.
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. New Jersey recognized this need and on May 2, 2008, it
took a strong step forward in helping its working families meet the
challenges of balancing work and family by enacting a family leave
insurance program. On that day, Governor Jon Corzine signed family
leave insurance legislation into law, making New Jersey the third state
in the nation to enact a family leave insurance program for its working
families.
In enacting family leave insurance legislation, New Jersey
reaffirmed its commitment to protect the economic security of all New
Jersey's working families. With families increasingly unable to make
ends meet, workers need policies like paid family and medical leave
more than ever. Because of the economic downturn, lost wages or a lost
job because of a new child or sick family member can have especially
devastating effect. If a wage earner gets seriously ill or needs to
take time off of work to care for a family member, a missed paycheck
may mean that the mortgage or other bills will have to go unpaid. It is
unsurprising that studies show that medical bills lead to foreclosures
and bankruptcy--workers have no other choices.
New Jersey has taken a strong step forward in helping families meet
the challenges of balancing work and family by enacting family leave
insurance program, but there is much still that can be done to help all
U.S. working families--the FIRST Act's grant funding to develop and
implement new paid leave programs would enable states to clear the
hurdle of start-up costs, and funding at the critical early stages will
help ensure that state paid leave programs will quickly become self-
sustaining. The FIRST Act will also help states with existing programs
like New Jersey expand job protections for workers in small businesses,
conduct outreach and education and explore other opportunities to
expand its existing program.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when they get sick or a family member needs them. Paid family and
medical leave will help families maintain their economic security and
will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
Respectfully submitted,
The New Jersey Time to Care Coalition.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Paid Family Leave Coalition
On behalf of a broad advocacy coalition of more than 100 labor,
women's, children's, senior, health and anti-poverty organizations in
New York State that is working to create a paid leave program for
workers in our state, we appreciate the opportunity to provide a
statement for the hearing record on the Family Income to Respond to
Significant Transitions Act (FIRST Act). We urge Congress to pass the
FIRST Act, which will make it possible for working people to take time
off to care for a new baby, for their own serious health needs or those
of their families without jeopardizing their economic security. This
legislation would provide incentives to encourage additional states to
adopt paid family leave programs and assist states that have already
enacted such programs to conduct outreach and to provide incentives to
small employers to provide job protection to workers on leave. We
strongly support it.
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Right now, the only laws that help workers in this
situation are the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and in our
state, the Temporary Disability Insurance program, which provides only
meager benefits for a worker's own temporary non-work related
disability. But workers need more than the unpaid leave and limited
benefits provided by these laws to protect their family's economic
security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness in the
family forces them into a cycle of economic distress. Twenty-five
percent of all poverty spells begin with the birth of a child. The lack
of paid family and medical leave hits low-income workers hardest:
almost three in four low-income employees who take family and medical
leave receive no pay, compared to between one in three middle income
employees and one in four upper income employees.
With families increasingly unable to make ends meet, workers need
policies like paid family and medical leave more than ever. Because of
the economic downturn, lost wages or a lost job because of a new child
or sick family member can have especially devastating effect. If a wage
earner gets seriously ill or needs to take time off of work to care for
a family member, a missed paycheck may mean that the mortgage, rent or
other bills will have to go unpaid. It is unsurprising that studies
show that medical bills lead to foreclosures and bankruptcy--workers
have no other choices.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when they get sick or a family member needs them. Paid family and
medical leave will help families maintain their economic security and
will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diane Rosenbaum, Oregon State Senator
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
in support of the Family Income to Respond to Significant Transactions
Act (FIRST Act). I have been working to pass a paid family leave
program in Oregon for a number of years and would like to urge Congress
to pass the FIRST Act, which will make it possible for working people
to take time off to care for a new baby, their own serious health needs
or those of their family without jeopardizing their economic security.
This legislation would be critical for the success of Oregon's work and
would give the state the flexibility to develop a program based on the
needs of Oregon's working citizens. I strongly support this
legislation.
Right now, the only laws that help workers care for their family
while maintaining their job are the federal Family and medical Leave
Act, and in Oregon, the Oregon Family Leave Act. However many employees
are unable to take advantage of these benefits because they cannot
afford to go without a paycheck. Oregon has been working to provide
partial wage replacement to these workers. Paid Family Leave Insurance
would enable many low- and moderate-income families to be at home
during the crucial first months of a child's life, or to take care of a
family member who has a life-threatening illness. According to
independent studies commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor, 78%
of employees who did not take family leave when they needed it reported
they did so because they could not afford to go without a paycheck.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Labor 2000 report at 2-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an increasing number of Oregonian ``sandwiched'' between
caring for their children and their aging parents, employees are
increasingly called upon to balance their need for time off against
their need to earn a paycheck. Because of the economic downturn, lost
wages or a lost job because of a new child or sick family member can
have an especially devastating effect.
The economy has also taken its toll on state budgets. Oregon is
facing a $4.2 billion dollar deficit, and we have found it increasingly
difficult to allocate funding for the relatively small start-up costs
of a paid family leave program. The FIRST Act's grant funding to
develop and implement new paid leave programs would enable us, and
others, to clear the hurdle of start-up costs. Funding at the critical
early state will help ensure that state paid family leave programs will
quickly become self-sustaining.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when they get sick or a family member needs them. Paid family and
medical leave will help families maintain their economic security and
show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families. Please
help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
Respectfully,
Diane Rosenbaum, Oregon State Senator,
Senate Assistant Majority Leader, Senate District 21.
______
Prepared Statement of Amy Stear, Wisconsin Director, 9to5, National
Association of Working Women--Milwaukee Chapter
On behalf of the members and constituents of 9to5, National
Association of Working Women--9to5 Chapter, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide a statement for the hearing record on the
Healthy Families Act and the Family Income to Respond to Significant
Transitions Act (FIRST Act).
9to5 Milwaukee urges Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act,
which will allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days annually to
care for their own or family members' illness, and to pass the FIRST
Act, which will make it possible for working people to take time off to
care for a new baby, for their own serious health needs or those of
their families without jeopardizing their economic security. Both of
these pieces of legislation are critical for the health and economic
security of all working people and their families. We strongly support
both bills.
In Milwaukee, we have been hearing from parents with children in
Milwaukee Public Schools who have H1N1. Wisconsin is leading the
courntry in confirmed H1N1 cases. Doris Gillispie, the Chair of 9to5's
Board said, ``I have a family member who had to be quarantined and
missed 4 and a half days of work, with no pay, because of H1N1 in her
household. Now, she is doing double shifts just to pay her bills and
make it at her job. With the lawsuit, justice was delayed, but our
families can't wait on politicians who already have sick time.'' As the
head of the household, she has been put in this impossible place where
she can't pay rent while caring for her own health, her children's
health, and public health by staying home.
An overwhelming majority of the voters--over 69%--passed a
Milwaukee paid sick days ordinance in November of 2008 because they
recognized the need for it. They need it to stay healthy, to keep their
children healthy, to stay employed, to stay out of poverty. They need
it in order to care for loved ones with chronic conditions or ailments
that come with aging. Some need it to find legal and treatment remedies
for domestic violence or sexual assault.
A broad and expansive coalition of over 50 labor, religious,
student, and community groups in Milwaukee and the surround region will
continue to fight for the paid sick days law to be implemented.
Wisconsin is in preliminary stages of a statewide Paid Sick Days
campaign and continue their committment to work/family policies.
Healthy Families Act
Chances are each of us will get sick or need to care for a sick
family member this year. But not all of us have the option to take time
off from work to get better or to care for a sick family member. Almost
60 million Americans lack a single paid sick day in which to care for
themselves when illness strikes. In addition, nearly 100 million
workers don't have a paid sick day they can use to care for an ill
child.
When many workers get sick, need to take care of a sick child, or
have to take an elderly parent to a medical appointment, they are faced
with an impossible choice: lose a day of pay and possibly even a job,
or take the time needed to take care of their family. Half of low-wage
working parents report losing pay to stay home and care for a sick
child or being forced to leave children home alone.
When workers have access to paid sick days, employers benefit from
reduced turnover, higher productivity, and reduced spread of contagion
in the workplace. If workers were allowed to earn just seven paid sick
days per year, as the Healthy Families Act proposes, our national
economy would experience a net savings of $8.1 billion per year.
In a nation that values families, no worker should have to choose
between their job and their own or a family member's health. Please
help us achieve this goal by supporting the Healthy Families Act.
FIRST Act
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Currently, the only law that helps workers in this
situation is the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. But workers need
more than the unpaid leave provided by FMLA to protect their family's
economic security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness
in the family forces them into a cycle of economic distress; in fact,
the birth of a child accounts for twenty-five percent of people's bouts
with poverty.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when a wage earner gets sick or a family member needs help. Paid family
and medical leave will help families maintain their economic security
and will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
______
Prepared Statement of Time to Care for Oregon Families
On behalf of a broad advocacy coalition in Oregon that is working
to create a paid leave program for workers in our state, we appreciate
the opportunity to provide a statement for the hearing record on the
Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Act (FIRST Act). We
urge Congress to pass the FIRST Act, which will make it possible for
working people to take time off to care for a new baby, for their own
serious health needs or those of their families without jeopardizing
their economic security. This legislation would be critical for the
success of our work and would give our state the flexibility to develop
a program based on the needs of our state's working families. We
strongly support it.
Working families need paid leave to help them stay afloat
financially when they have a new child, when a wage earner falls
critically ill, or when a family member has a serious health condition
and needs care. Right now, the only laws that help workers in this
situation are the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and in our
state, the Oregon Family Leave Act. But workers need more than the
unpaid leave provided by these laws to protect their family's economic
security. For many workers, the birth of a child or an illness in the
family forces them into a cycle of economic distress. Twenty-five
percent of all poverty spells begin with the birth of a child. The lack
of paid family and medical leave hits low-income workers hardest:
almost three in four low-income employees who take family and medical
leave receive no pay, compared to between one in three middle income
employees and one in four upper income employees.
With families increasingly unable to make ends meet, workers need
policies like paid family and medical leave more than ever. Because of
the economic downturn, lost wages or a lost job because of a new child
or sick family member can have especially devastating effect. If a wage
earner gets seriously ill or needs to take time off of work to care for
a family member, a missed paycheck may mean that the mortgage or other
bills will have to go unpaid. It is unsurprising that studies show that
medical bills lead to foreclosures and bankruptcy--workers have no
other choices.
The economy has also taken its toll on state budgets. Even states
that want to create paid family and medical leave programs are finding
it difficult to allocate funding for the relatively small start-up
costs of such programs. The FIRST Act's grant funding to develop and
implement new paid leave programs would enable states to clear the
hurdle of start-up costs. Funding at the critical early stages will
help ensure that state paid leave programs will quickly become self-
sustaining. The FIRST Act will also help states with existing programs
reach out to and educate workers about their options for paid leave.
Working families should not have to risk their financial security
when they get sick or a family member needs them. Paid family and
medical leave will help families maintain their economic security and
will show that we, as a nation, truly support and value families.
Please help us achieve this goal by supporting the FIRST Act.
Regan Gray,
Time to Care for Oregon Families & Children First for Oregon.
______
Prepared Statement of Trust for America's Health (TFAH)
I am Dr. Jeffrey Levi, Executive Director of Trust for America's
Health (TFAH). TFAH is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated
to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working
to make disease prevention a national priority. Thank you for having
this hearing on an important piece of legislation, the Healthy Families
Act, which would guarantee most workers seven days of paid sick leave
per year. TFAH believes that this legislation is a necessary public
health tool to protect workers during public health emergencies such as
an influenza pandemic. We thank Representative Rosa DeLauro and Senator
Ted Kennedy for their leadership on this legislation.
The recent outbreak of the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus is an
important wake up call for the nation, a clear reminder that influenza
pandemics can happen that novel flu viruses do emerge and can threaten
the nation's and the world's health. While so far not as virulent as
some prior pandemic flu viruses, we are not yet out of the woods the
virus has not finished playing out this season and there is a very real
danger that it could return in a far more virulent form in the fall. In
the meantime, scientists continue to be worried about the threat posed
by the H5N1 (avian) flu virus.
In June, TFAH released a report, Pandemic Flu Preparedness: Lessons
from the Frontlines, which detailed early lessons from the initial H1N1
outbreak and recommendations for preparing for a resurgence of the
virus in the future. In our report, we cited numerous media reports of
people with influenzalike illness continuing to go to work because they
had no sick leave and feared losing their jobs, and some parents sent
sick children to school because they could not stay home to care for
them.\1\ Just last week, a column in The Salt Lake Tribune stated that
some employees of the Primary Children's Medical Center were reportedly
going to work with flulike symptoms because the hospital's sick leave
policies could force them to take all of their paid sick days and some
vacation time to stay home.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trust for America's Health. Pandemic Flu Preparedness: Lessons
from the Frontlines. Washington, DC: Trust for America's Health, June,
2009. p. 4.
\2\ Rolly, Paul. ``Rolly: The Sick Treating the Sick?'' The Salt
Lake Tribune, June 12, 2009. http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci--12581592
(Accessed 6.18.09)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the H1N1 outbreak, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and state and local health departments warned
Americans to stay home if they felt sick.
These kinds of ``social distancing'' measures are essential to
contain and mitigate the effects of an infectious disease outbreak. The
Healthy Families Act is an important step in ensuring workers can
follow the guidance of public health officials and stay home if they
are sick or must care for a family member who is ill. For many
employees, taking unpaid sick time is simply not a financially viable
option. Employers may threaten to terminate workers who stay home, and
many who live paycheck to paycheck can not afford to miss work. Workers
should not be penalized for protecting their families and the public's
health in general by avoiding contact with other people if they are
sick.
TFAH is hopeful Congress will pass the Healthy Families Act
quickly, as scientists fear the H1N1 virus may resurge in the fall in a
more virulent form. Even with passage of this important legislation,
however, we urge employers to be as flexible as possible during a flu
pandemic. Sick leave policies should allow workers to fully comply with
CDC guidance. Furthermore, Congress, the Office of Personnel
Management, and Department of Labor should consider policies that
expand worker protections during a severe infectious disease outbreak,
including up to two weeks of paid sick time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Healthy Families
Act. We appreciate the Committee's work on this legislation and for
your continued efforts to protect American workers.
______
Prepared Statement of Vermont Paid Sick Days Coalition
On behalf of the Vermont Paid Sick Days Coalition, the Vermont
Livable Wage Campaign of the Peace and Justice Center and Voices for
Vermont's Children submit these comments for the Congressional record
in support of the Healthy Families Act. We applaud Chairwoman Woolsey
and the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections for taking testimony on
June 12, 2009 to learn more about this important legislation and the
need for paid sick leave for working Americans.
The Healthy Families Act Boosts States' Efforts
Vermont is among a growing number of states pushing for paid sick
leave for its workforce. This spring, the Vermont Paid Sick Days
Coalition launched Campaign 2010: Paid Sick Days for Vermont. The
Coalition, comprised of organizations working on a broad range of
issues from women's and workers rights to issues affecting children and
domestic violence victims, has been seeking to pass legislation in
Vermont for over six years. Similar to the Healthy Families Act,
Vermont's legislation--H.382: Act Relating to the Absence from Work for
Health Care and Safety--allows workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days
annually. As we continue our Campaign 2010 outreach and organizing
work, we believe that the Subcommittee's focus on the Healthy Families
Act and the plight of millions of working Americans and their families
will help us build momentum to pass Vermont legislation.
Vermont Needs Paid Sick Days
In our small state of Vermont with a total private sector workforce
of only 250,000, currently 42 percent of working Vermonters lack any
paid sick days to care for themselves or a family member. Today,
approximately 106,000 hard working Vermonters do not have paid sick
days and like their counterparts nationwide, low-wage workers in
Vermont disproportionately lack paid sick days. Unfortunately, too many
workers are forced to choose between their paycheck, their health or
the health of their family. Fortunately, Vermonters across the
political spectrum support guaranteed paid sick days. In a poll of
Vermont voters, more than three-quarters want the state legislature to
``create a basic `workplace standard' guaranteeing all Vermont workers
a minimum number of paid sick days.''
The Healthy Families Act Will Be Good for Everyone's Health
Before the outbreak of the H1N1 flu and the subsequent attention
paid to this major public health risk, the Vermont Paid Sick Days
Coalition partnered with the University of Vermont Medical College to
complete a public health analysis titled ``The Impact of Paid Sick Days
on Public Health in an Elementary School Population''. The research
found: (1) Adults with less paid sick days were more likely to send a
child with symptoms of illness to school for financial or work related
issues. This correlation was more pronounced in families when adults
are typically not home during the school day. (2) Three or less paid
sick days reduced the amount of well child visits (annual check ups) in
families when adults are commonly not home, while over 90% of adults
took their children to well child visits regardless of paid sick days
when an adult was typically home during the school day.
It is clear that in these difficult economic times and given the
concern for public health all Vermonters would benefit significantly
from allowing everyone to earn paid sick days. The Healthy Families Act
would have a marked impact on the health and economic security of all
Vermonters.
Thank you for taking the time on this vitally important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Marilyn P. Watkins, Policy Director, Economic
Opportunity Institute
On behalf of the Washington State Family Leave Coalition, I would
like to express strong support for the Family Income to Respond to
Significant Transitions Act (FIRST Act).
As a broad coalition, including representatives of seniors,
children, women, labor, health professionals, and business owners, we
have advocated for new policies to modernize workplace standards for
over a decade. When a new child arrives or a serious illness strikes,
all workers must have access to paid time off from work. Family and
medical leave insurance is a pragmatic, proven approach that improves
the health and well-being of children, speeds recovery from illness,
lowers medical costs, bolsters family economic security, and helps
businesses prosper.
We are proud that in 2007 Washington became the first state without
an existing temporary disability insurance program to pass a family
leave insurance program. However, the state fiscal crisis has forced a
delay in implementation of that program from 2009 until 2012. This is
particularly unfortunate, because families and local businesses need
the economic security and stimulus that this program would provide now
more than ever.
We anticipate that a fully implemented family and medical leave
insurance program in Washington state would benefit 38,000 families
caring for a newborn or newly adopted child each year, and an
additional 70,000 workers with their own or a family member's serious
health condition.
By providing federal assistance with start-up costs and initial
benefits, passage of the FIRST Act would help our state get family
leave insurance back on track.
Equally important, passage of the FIRST Act would spur creation of
programs in other states, tailored to the specific conditions in each
state. The United States lags far behind other nations in support of
young children and of workers in their care-giving roles. Our
shockingly high infant mortality rate and the unsustainable growth in
health care costs are in part a result of this neglect.
We strongly urge Congress to act quickly to pass the FIRST Act.
American families are counting on you.
Attached is a list of the organizations that endorsed passage of
Senate Bill 5659, establishing Washington's Family Leave Insurance
program in 2007.
Organizations Endorsing Washington State Family and Medical Leave
Insurance, Senate Bill 5659, Signed into Law May 8, 2007:
AARP Washington
American Association of University Women, Washington Chapter
A. Philip Randolph Institute, Seattle
Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 2
American Federation of Teachers, Washington
Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers
Children's Alliance
Child Care Resources (CCR)
Children's Home Society
Church Council of Greater Seattle
Early Care and Education Coalition
Economic Opportunity Institute
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local
751
International Union Of Operating Engineers Local 302
League of Women's Voters of Washington
Lutheran Public Policy Office
Minority Executive Directors Coalition
Moms Rising
National Council of Jewish Women
National Employment Law Project
National Organization for Women, Washington Chapter
Northwest Women's Law Center (Legal Voice)
Program for Early Parent Support (PEPS)
Seattle Human Services Coalition
Senior Citizens' Lobby
Service Employees International Union, Local 775
Service Employees International Union, Local 925
Society of Professional Engineering Employees of Aerospace, IFPTE 2001
(SPEEA)
Statewide Poverty Action Network
Take Back Your Time
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 141
Washington Association of Churches
Washington State Alliance for Retired Americans
Washington State Labor Council
Welfare Right Organizing Coalition
______
Prepared Statement of Women Employed
Women Employed commends Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey and Ranking Member
Tom Price for convening this hearing on paid sick days legislation for
employees who are ill, or to care for an ill family member, or for
medical appointments, or for leave connected to domestic violence or
sexual assault. WE is a 36-year-old membership organization dedicated
to improving women's economic status. Over the past three decades, WE
has expanded employment and educational opportunities, won improvements
in workplace practices, and provided women with practical tools for
career and educational planning. Our primary focus today is on the
barriers facing the millions of women still earning low wages.
WE's policy work has always been informed by our Job Problems
Counseling Service, which has responded to thousands of individuals who
call to get advice on employment-related problems. We regularly receive
calls from individuals wanting to know how much paid leave the law
requires their employers to provide them. We unfortunately have to
explain to them that there is no affirmative duty to provide paid
leave.
All of us will get sick at some point, sick enough to need to stay
home. But nationally, nearly half of all private sector workers have no
paid sick days. Without an enforceable paid sick days law:
workers come to work sick because they cannot afford to
miss a day's pay, or they fear being fired for taking a day off;
some employers provide leave to some workers but not all;
those workers fortunate enough to have sick leave are
often prevented from using it to care for a family member who is ill;
employers may apply sick day usage as part of a
progressive disciplinary policy that involves demerits for using a sick
day.
Here are some stories from Illinois employees who needed to take
sick days:
Angela of Chicago Heights worked for a retailer who
promised her sick days, but then would not let her use them when she
needed it due to painful rheumatoid arthritis. They told her they would
fire her if she did not return to work. She instead chose to quit
because she could not trust her employer and had no avenue for
recourse. Angela is currently in college, raising two foster children,
and working part-time at a large chain bookstore that does not provide
paid sick days to part-time workers. Angela supports the Healthy
Families Act for full and part-time workers, and for the leave it would
provide her if she or her children got sick.
Karen, a dental assistant from Dixon, has no sick days
because she works part-time, although she notes that full-time
employees in the office get benefits. She winds up having to work for
her co-workers who have benefits when they stay home and use their paid
time off, which she notes creates ill-will.
Beverly from Rock Falls has a son who is able to work
despite a head injury as a teenager. He does not receive paid sick days
at the fast food and retail establishments where he has worked, so
while he should take time off to see a doctor or regulate his
medications, he goes to work in order to pay his expenses, including a
house he purchased. Despite these efforts her son has been fired from
jobs when he was so sick he had to stay home and his employer did not
provide a sick day benefit.
Jannet in Vernon Hills works through a temporary agency
that does not provide benefits. She has been at her current assignment
for over one year. In December, Jannet got sick with bronchitis and
then her two-year-old daughter got sick--because family members do not
always get sick at the same time. Jannet had to miss work and was not
paid. This meant she could not pay bills, nor celebrate Christmas as
she'd planned.
Providing paid sick days benefits the public
Cold and flu outbreaks can be ameliorated by having a sick day
policy that allows workers to briefly withdraw from worksites to
recover and avoid spreading disease. This is particularly important at
worksites where employees are in direct contact with the public, such
as restaurants, hotels and child care and health care facilities. So
even those of us who receive paid sick days are threatened with illness
when we come in contact with those without paid sick days who come to
work because they cannot afford to miss a day's pay.
Providing paid sick days benefits business
A Harvard Business Review article reported that ``presenteeism''--
workers coming to work when sick--costs companies more than they spend
on healthcare expenses. (Presenteeism: At Work--But Out of It, Paul
Hemp, Oct. 2004.) According to a cost-benefit study done on the impact
of the Healthy Families Act, the benefits outweigh the costs by $8
million. (Valuing Good Health: An Estimate of Costs and Savings for the
Healthy Families Act, Vicky Lovell, Ph.D., April 2005, www.iwpr.org.)
These savings come from 1.) not paying workers who are unproductive
because they come to work sick, 2.) by reducing turnover costs when
workers do not have to leave for another job with better benefits, and
3.) in reduced spread of flu at work, which would have led to more
workers being absent.
In addition, lack of paid sick days can impact an employer's
customers. A Nevada jury found that a viral outbreak that sickened
hundred at a Las Vegas hotel was caused by the lack of an adequate paid
sick days policy, awarding $25 million in damages to victims of the
disease. (Diane Verderber v. Reno Hilton Resort Corporation, et al.,
106 P.3d 134 (Nev. 2005).
Before the paid sick days law was passed in San Francisco (in
2007), some businesses opposed it based on their concern that business
would move outside the city limits. However, a study done one year
after enactment of the ordinance (Job Growth Strong with Paid Sick
Days, Vicky Lovell, Ph.D. and Kevin Miller, Ph.D., Oct. 2008, Institute
for Women's Policy Research) shows that San Francisco maintained a
competitive job growth rate that exceeded the average growth rate of
nearby counties that do not require that employers provide paid sick
days. The director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association told the
San Francisco Chronicle that ``it hasn't been a big issue'' for the
companies he represents.
The United States should adopt the Healthy Families Act
Some, but not all, large employers have recognized the necessity of
providing benefits for their employees' needs and have reaped the
rewards of retaining a skilled and stable workforce in this competitive
economy. But it is insufficient to point to the few employers that are
making these efforts as the answer to the rest of the U.S. workforce
that is faced with jeopardizing their jobs when they or family members
get sick.
______
Prepared Statement of Working Mother Media (WMM)
To the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections: Working Mother Media
(WMM) is proud to express its continued support for the Healthy
Families Act. WMM issued a press release in 2007 in support of the
Healthy Families Act when it was last introduced. Our support today is
as strong as it has ever been. WMM--the publisher of Working Mother
magazine and the force behind the 24-year-old signature initiative
Working Mother 100 Best Companies--has long advocated family-friendly
policies in the workplace. WMM is standing with Representative DeLauro
and Senator Kennedy as they promote common-sense change that will
enhance the lives of millions of working Americans.
Every study, every piece of research shows that giving workers paid
sick days to attend to personal concerns, as well as to those of
children and extended family members, increases job satisfaction,
workplace morale, company profitability, and community health.
This issue is particularly important to women, including our 2
million readers who combine career and family. Mothers are the family
health managers in America, and we need to make sure that when the
family health manager also works outside the home, she can still
perform her important job of keeping her family healthy. It is time to
level the playing field by asking government to mandate a standard that
protects the health of our working families. The provision of a minimum
standard for paid sick days will dramatically change the lives of
countless workers and their families.
Poorer Americans, in particular, will benefit from the proposed
legislation. An estimated three quarters of low-wage workers have no
paid sick days, and research from the Urban Institute estimates that of
working parents with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line,
41% have no paid leave at all. As a result, workers who least can
afford it are forced to miss work or lose their jobs to care for
themselves and family members. Working mothers, as primary household
caregivers, feel the burden most acutely.
In response to the issues raised by the original introduction of
the Healthy Families Act, Working Mother Media has highlighted the
importance of paid sick days in the business world by making sick day
policy a factor in evaluating applicants to the Working Mother100 Best
Companies award. We want to be certain that our winners offer this
important supports to their employees.
About Working Mother Media
Working Mother Media (WMM) is a division of Bonnier Corporation.
Founded by Carol Evans in 2001 when she acquired Working Mother
magazine, the Work Life Congress, and the National Association for
Female Executives (NAFE) and their websites, WMM has launched important
new initiatives including the Best Companies for Women of Color, the
Best Companies for Hourly Workers and the Best Law Firms for Women.
Working Mother magazine, launched thirty years ago, reaches over 2
million readers and is the only national magazine for career-committed
mothers.
Sincerely,
Carol Evans, President,
Working Mother Media.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]