[Senate Hearing 113-837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-837
ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WORKING WOMEN: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WORKING WOMEN
__________
MAY 20, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-615 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina RAND PAUL, Kentucky
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MARK KIRK, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
Derek Miller, Staff Director
Lauren McFerran, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014
Page
Committee Members
Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Tennessee, opening statement................................... 3
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland....................................................... 55
Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 56
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 58
Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 59
Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 60
Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin.. 62
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 63
Witnesses
Tanden, Neera, President, Center for American Progress,
Washington, DC................................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Bravo, Ellen, Executive Director, Family Values at Work,
Milwaukee, WI.................................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Graves, Fatima Goss, Vice President for Education and Employment,
National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC.................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Legros, Armanda, Low-Wage Worker, Jamaica Estates, NY............ 30
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Traub, Amy, Senior Policy Analyst, Demos, New York, NY........... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Pelletier, Lori, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Connecticut State
Federation of Labor, Rocky Hill, CT............................ 41
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Troy, Gayle E., SPHR, Human Resource Manager, Globe Manufacturing
Company, LLC, Pittsfield, NH................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Riner, Rhea Lana, President, Rhea Lana's, Inc., Conway, AR....... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 52
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Letter from Debra L. Ness, President, on behalf of the
National Partnership for Women & Families.................. 75
Attachment 1.--Coalition Letter in Support of the Healthy
Families Act........................................... 76
Attachment 2.--Coalition Letter in Support of the Family
and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act)........... 80
Response to questions of Senator Harkin by:
Ellen Bravo.............................................. 89
Rhea Lana Riner.......................................... 90
(iii)
Response to questions of Senator Alexander by:
Neera Tanden............................................. 90
Ellen Bravo.............................................. 91
Fatima Goss Graves....................................... 92
Amy Traub................................................ 93
Lori Pelletier........................................... 94
ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WORKING WOMEN: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin, Alexander, Mikulski, Murray,
Casey, Franken, Baldwin, Murphy, and Warren.
Opening Statement of Senator Harkin
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. Today's hearing
is on Economic Security for Working Women, and we're having
sort of a roundtable. It doesn't look round. But if we set it
up that way, we wouldn't have any room for the audience. So we
decided to go ahead and set it up like a normal hearing,
although I want it more like a roundtable discussion.
If anyone asks a question of the group, and if you want to
answer, just turn your name thing on edge or something like
that so--you know, we may have a question and just throw it
out, and whoever wants to answer it just put your name thing
up.
America's working women have made incredible strides in the
workplace. As women succeed, America succeeds, and our economy
succeeds. But huge challenges remain. Too many working women
are stuck in poor quality and low-wage jobs living at or near
poverty and struggling to make ends meet.
In addition, even as women have entered the workforce,
they're still usually the primary caregivers for children and
elders. Yet our workplaces have not kept up with the changing
times. Most women do not have access to the supports they need
to be successful workers and caregivers.
Here I'll diverge a little bit. When my wife and I, right
after she got elected--my wife was elected before I was. She
was elected as a district attorney in Iowa and went over to the
courthouse. We had a child not long after that--Amy. I was here
in Washington. I had been elected to Congress. And Ruth had to
go--my wife had to go to the courthouse every day, of course,
where she worked in the courthouse.
Two things happened. The first time that she showed up
pregnant, the judge asked her who was going to try her cases.
Pregnant women didn't appear in courtrooms. That was forbidden.
Anyway, she got over that, and we had Amy.
She cleaned out a broom closet in her office to make a
place for a crib, a little bassinet and that kind of thing, and
took her to work with her every day and nursed. We believed
very strongly in nursing. That raised a lot of eyebrows and a
lot of questions in the courthouse in Nevada, IA, about someone
bringing a baby to work and nursing--heaven forbid--when you
come to work.
We've often thought about that. But, of course, my wife
could do that. She was an elected official. But we often
thought, ``What if she worked for somebody else and tried to do
that?'' So I often think of my wife as a trail blazer in that
regard, because ever since then, women who work in the
courthouse and who have children are more than welcome to bring
their kids to work and nurse, with nursing facilities and pump
rooms and refrigeration. That's what it ought to be like all
over America. These are just the kinds of support systems we
need all over America.
As I continue on that line, pregnancy presents many
challenges. More and more pregnant women must work throughout
their pregnancies, and sometimes they risk losing their jobs
despite existing legal protections, or they face problems of
basic accommodations. Someone standing on her feet all day,
sometimes at a minimum wage job, might need a stool to sit on
for a little while, or maybe more frequent bathroom breaks,
things like that.
They are denied such accommodations, and it forces a woman
to choose between her health and her comfort on her job. Again,
many women working have no access to any caregiving leave, like
maternity leave, at all. Most lack access to any kind of paid
leave.
Forty percent of workers still are not covered by the
Family and Medical Leave Act. A women who gives birth or needs
to care for a parent and has no FMLA protections can lose her
job for missing work. Even women who are fortunate enough to be
covered by the FMLA are often forced to return to work too
soon, because they simply can't afford to take the unpaid leave
that the Family and Medical Leave Act provides. I may be
mistaken on this, but I think we're one of the few
industrialized countries that don't have paid maternity leave.
We have some real problems out there we need to address,
and especially as it concerns women in the workplace. And, as I
said, this is not just a thing where women say, ``Well, I just
want to go to work.'' People have to work, and we have so many
single mothers out there that have to work and care for
children.
It seems to me that we ought to be about trying to change
and make accommodations to make this possible. It's not
impossible. It's not a stretch. It doesn't cost a lot of money.
But it makes life tolerable and it makes it possible for women
to both be caregivers and to work.
That's what this hearing is about. We know that there have
been successful policies around the country to help do this,
and the businesses that I've come across that do these things
have more loyal workers. People tend to stay there longer,
because they know that they'll have the ability to take leave
for a child, either for birth or for sickness or illness.
Today's roundtable will begin with a lot of distinguished
panelists to tell us about the experiences of today's working
women and what we need to do to help working women achieve more
economic security and stability in our society.
With that, I'll turn to Senator Alexander.
Opening Statement of Senator Alexander
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Harkin. I welcome
those of you who have come today. Mr. Chairman and Senator
Mikulski, I've said that I used to sit down there when I was
education secretary, and I thought the Senators played a big
trick on the witnesses by sitting them in low chairs and all of
us in high chairs up here to make us appear more imposing.
We're looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
The subject of the hearing is working women, and I think
the more accurate way to say it is women who not only work at
home but work outside the home. I would like to suggest that
the two things that we should address are, No. 1, more jobs for
women who want to work outside the home; and, No. 2, more
flexibility for women who work outside the home, because, most
likely, they're doing quite a bit of work at home as well.
On the first point, without reciting the statistics, we've
had a tough 4 or 5 years in terms of jobs. The great recession,
unemployment rates still 6.3 percent--that's 10 million people.
More than a third of those are longtime unemployed, many of
them women. And the unemployment situation is worse when you
consider that 7.3 million Americans who want to work full-time
have had to take part-time jobs. Workforce participation is at
the lowest rate in 35 years.
I hope during the hearing we'll talk about ways to create
more jobs. For example, one way to create more jobs would be to
give the President more trade authority so we could ship more
goods from Tennessee and Iowa and Maryland and Pennsylvania
overseas and create more jobs at home. The President has asked
for that, but the Democratic Majority Leader won't bring it up.
Another way we could create more jobs is to approve the
Keystone Pipeline. There are a whole series of proposals that
would create an environment in the United States that would
liberate the free enterprise system to create more jobs.
A recent example of that was something that had a lot of
bipartisan support. It was called the Jobs Act. It provided
regulatory relief for new startup companies. I helped start a
company myself one time that made its way to the NASDAQ stock
exchange. It's a treacherous time, those first few years of a
startup, and you don't need extra obstacles.
What happened, according to AOL co-founder, Steve Case, was
that the Jobs Act provided relief for companies that enabled a
70 percent increase in initial public offerings this year. Mr.
Case said Congress should be reducing more regulatory red tape
and moving on to other laws to encourage business growth, like
immigration reform.
There are many things we could do to create more jobs.
Sometimes the debate here in this committee and in the Congress
is between what I would call the mandaters, those who see a
need and say, ``Well, we can tell you what to do,'' and those
who see a need and say, ``Well, we will empower or enable you
to do those things.''
Anyone who's been in business or is in business--and we'll
hear from some today--knows that there are plenty of mandates
already. I talked to a franchisee group that owns 20 fast food
restaurants in this area. They employ more than 500 people. Of
course, they start out paying 6.2 percent FICA taxes. That's
social security and Medicare.
Then they have a menu labeling mandate--sounds like a good
thing, but it costs each restaurant $1,000. Those in DC have
paid sick leave mandates--sounds like a good thing. That's a DC
requirement. That costs them another $600,000. And with the
implementation of the new healthcare law, they'll go from a
healthcare cost in the company of about $100,000 to $1 million
if they opt out and pay the penalty, and between a half million
and a million and a half dollars if they decide to participate
in it.
Almost every time we impose new mandates, we run the risk
of destroying jobs. We had a debate here and continue to have
it--I guess we'll have it all year until election day--about
the so-called minimum wage. We had the Congressional Budget
Office Director Doug Elmendorf sit right there in front of us
and say the proposal to increase the minimum wage before the
committee would destroy 500,000 jobs. And now we are here
talking about jobs and better jobs for women.
Why would we want to pass something that would destroy
500,000 jobs, especially when the CBO testimony also found that
80 percent of the benefits would go to people above the poverty
level? The mandaters versus the enablers and empowerers is a
big part of our discussion. I would hope we could agree on more
flexibility after we create more jobs.
I mentioned the company I helped to start, which enabled
corporate-sponsored childcare for employees. It was in the
1980s, and it provided an opportunity for parents, to take the
child to work and have a safe place for that child. It has
grown and merged with its competitor and become the Bright
Horizons Company.
What I learned in that setting was that many women value as
much flexibility as possible, because their days were very
difficult. I've offered an amendment to permit employers and
employees to voluntarily negotiate compensation and benefits
that provide flexibility, and I've opposed proposals that would
restrict that kind of flexibility.
Other Senators have introduced bills to allow private
sector employees to have the same flexibility that Federal
employees have, when they basically swap paid time off--they
have paid time off instead of overtime pay. I am focused and
listening for answers on how we can create an environment that
will produce more jobs, not fewer. My feeling is that the more
mandates we have, the fewer jobs we'll create.
Second, I'm looking for creative proposals that would
permit employees and employers to agree upon more flexibility,
especially for women who work outside the home, so that they
can balance all of the things that they have to balance. So I
welcome the discussion and look forward to your comments, and I
thank the chairman for the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Now I'll introduce our panel. First, let me say that all of
your statements will be made a part of the record in their
entirety. What we'll do is we'll go from my left to right, and
if you could just make a 2-minute statement or something like
that--I know that's short, but we'd rather get into a
discussion with you. And then rather than us having 5-minute
rounds, what I'm going to do is recognize everyone to ask one
question, and then we'll just see how many rounds we can go
asking questions at that point in time.
On my left is Neera Tanden, president of the Center for
American Progress; Ellen Bravo, who is director of the Family
Values at Work Consortium; Fatima Goss Graves, vice president
for Education and Employment at the National Women's Law
Center; Armanda Legros, a low-wage worker in New York City who
was fired from her job when she was pregnant. We look forward
to hearing from you.
And we have Amy Traub, senior policy analyst at Demos; Lori
Pelletier, executive secretary-treasurer, Connecticut State
Federation of Labor; Gayle E. Troy, human resource manager,
Globe Manufacturing Company; Rhea Lana Riner, Rhea Lana's,
Inc., of Conway, AR. So thank you all for being here and for
your participation.
Like I said, we'll just start with Ms. Tanden. If you could
sum up in a couple of minutes the main points you want to make,
then we'll open it for discussion. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR AMERICAN
PROGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member
Alexander, for the invitation to testify today. My name is
Neera Tanden. I am president of the Center for American
Progress.
As Chairman Harkin said, the American workforce has changed
dramatically. While it used to be rare for mothers to work
outside the home, today women make up nearly half the
workforce, and more than 6 in 10 women are breadwinners or co-
breadwinners. These are enormous demographic shifts, and,
frankly, our workplace policies need to keep up with them.
Economic progress depends on public policies that
acknowledge the changes in our workforce. The national policy
has been very slow to keep up. In two-parent households, women
are often the primary caregiver in their families. Yet women,
particularly low-
income women and women of color, go to work each day without
the protections they need to balance work and family
responsibilities or ensure they are paid fairly. There are
mothers today who face the terrible choice of sending a sick
child to school because they can't pay their rent if they lose
out on simply a day's work.
I believe these policies are family friendly policies,
because they allow mothers and fathers to be good parents and
good workers. Among the public policy solutions that would
empower women to meet their full potential are paid sick days,
paid family leave, pay equity, a higher minimum wage,
affordable early childcare, and universal Pre-K. I would agree
that jobs are a significant issue, and I would remind the
committee that there was a jobs package that really focused on
the teaching profession, which is, as we know,
disproportionately held by women, and that package,
unfortunately, did not pass the Senate. But that would have
been a jobs package that really, really helped women.
I believe we need to have policies that strengthen our
families, our workplaces, our economy, and our Nation, and that
these policies can do so. We see in California a paid leave
policy that helps families and does not hurt the bottom line.
Businesses have reported that they support those policies.
These are policies that help companies help workers and help
our economy.
Thank you all very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tanden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neera Tanden
Thank you Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of
the committee for the invitation to testify today.
My name is Neera Tanden, and I am president of the Center for
American Progress. CAP is an independent, nonpartisan educational
institute dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through
progressive ideas and action. At CAP, we believe that a robust and
growing middle class is vitally important to growing a stronger, more
resilient economy and a more competitive future. To do this, we know
that we need workplaces that make full use of our Nation's talent to
ensure that every worker--man or woman--has a fair chance to succeed.
introduction and background
If we want a thriving economy that works for all Americans,
strengthens our businesses, and makes our Nation more competitive on
the global stage, we have to start with a clear understanding of
today's workplace and the changing workforce. The reality is that
workplaces--and the people who work in them--are changing. Fifty years
after groundbreaking laws like the Equal Pay Act helped usher in a new
era of opportunity for women in the workplace, more women are working
than ever before.
While it used to be rare for mothers to work outside the home,
today, women make up nearly half the workforce. But this demographic
shift has enormous implications for how our workplaces operate and for
our overall economic growth. More than 6 in 10 women are breadwinners
or co-breadwinners for their families, yet women, on average, continue
to earn less than their male counterparts. This gap is even larger for
women of color, who are more likely to be stuck in minimum-wage
jobs.\1\
Our workplace culture and national policy have been slow to adapt.
Even in two-parent households, women are often the primary caregivers
in their families, with the main responsibility for providing,
coordinating, or securing care. And although there are clearly some
employers who have adopted progressive policies, too many women--and
men--continue to work in environments without the protections they need
to balance work and family responsibilities or ensure that they are
paid fairly for their work.
If we want real economic progress, we need policies that respond to
the everyday challenges facing the diverse group of women who are part
of today's economy, particularly those women who too often get ignored.
why women's work matters to our economic well-being
Women's rapid entry into the workplace during the last three
decades of the 20th century transformed our country and its labor
force. Between 1970 and 2000, the percentage of women who work rose
from 43.3 percent to 59.9 percent.\2\ Before the Great Recession, more
than three-quarters of women worked 35 hours or more per week.\3\ And
today, the majority of employed women work full-time.
Because more women are working, women's income has become a
lynchpin of our Nation's economic success. Today, two-thirds of mothers
are breadwinners or co-breadwinners,\4\ up from slightly more than a
quarter of mothers in 1967.\5\ (See Figure 1.
But women's paychecks don't just contribute to their families'
bottom lines. They are also vital for America's economic growth.
continuing women's economic progress
Over the past four decades, women have made huge economic gains.
But those gains were unequal. While some women have broken into
typically male-dominated professions, 43.6 percent of women still work
in just 20 types of typically low-paying jobs, such as secretary,
nurse, teacher, and salesperson, among others.\6\
Low- and middle-wage, young, and less-educated workers in
particular lack access to benefits that help balance work and family
life. Employers too often view paid leave or sick days as perks for
higher-paid workers: The lowest quarter of wage earners are nearly
three times less likely to have access to paid family and medical leave
than those in the top quarter.\7\
Women of color are also more likely to lack benefits such as paid
leave. Women of color are just as likely to work as white women, but
twice as likely to work in a low-wage sector or the service industry in
jobs that don't offer these middle-class benefits.\8\ This is
especially concerning given the additional demographic change that is
inevitable in the coming decades.
Women of color will make up 53 percent of the female population by
2050. Hispanic women will lead this growth, increasing from a share of
16.7 percent of the female population in 2015 to 25.7 percent in
2050.\9\
And unequal policy will continue to produce unequal economic gains.
It's bad for families, for labor, and for the economy. But policy can--
and should--change to react to changing demographics.
federal policies that benefit working women and families
There are a number of public policy solutions that can make an
immediate difference in the lives of working women. At the Federal
level, mandating paid sick days, paid family and medical leave, and a
more flexible workplace, and strengthening pay equity legislation could
empower women to meet their full potential.
Since nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers and 70 percent of
tipped minimum-wage workers are women, making the minimum wage a living
wage would help close the pay gap and lift millions of Americans out of
poverty.\10\
Fostering the policies that allow women to be full participants in
today's workforce will boost businesses' bottom lines and ensure
America's competitiveness in the global economy.
Among the public policy solutions that would empower women to meet
their full potential are:
Paid sick days, as proposed in the Healthy Families Act,
and paid family and medical leave insurance, as proposed in the Family
and Medical Insurance Leave Act, or FAMILY Act.
Pay equity, as proposed in the Paycheck Fairness Act.
High-quality, affordable early childhood education and
universal pre-K.
A higher minimum wage and tipped minimum wage.
Let's examine each of these policies briefly in more detail.
paid sick days, paid maternity leave, and paid family and medical leave
About 100 million private-sector workers lack paid family leave to
care for a new child or an aging parent.\11\ Tens of millions more lack
access to paid sick leave.
The United States is the only industrialized nation without a
Federal law providing workers access to paid maternity leave, and one
of only a few that does not offer broader family and medical leave
insurance.\12\ The failure to offer paid leave makes the United States
an outlier among developed nations.\13\ In 2013, only 61 percent of
workers had access to paid sick days,\14\ and only 12 percent of
workers had access to paid leave to recover from an illness or care for
a sick family member.\15\
As a leading nation, we need to adopt workplace policies that allow
both men and women to balance the demands of parenthood with the
demands of their jobs. But this is a make-or-break issue for women.
Because women continue to be more likely than men to provide care
to their families--even when they are employed--they are
disproportionately affected by the lack of paid leave. Even married
mothers take on more family care duties. Compared to employed fathers,
employed mothers with a child under age 6 spend about 47 more minutes
per day giving care. And mothers are more likely than fathers to stay
home with sick children,\16\ so women disproportionately bear the worry
of losing wages or even a job because they take time off.
In fact, the lack of family friendly policies often pushes women
out of the workforce altogether. When women have to take unpaid time
away from work or drop out of the workforce entirely, it affects their
wages for the rest of their lives, a factor that exacerbates the gender
wage gap. Instituting family friendly policies that help women balance
the dual demands of work and home can help neutralize some of the
imbalance.
A whopping 80 percent of low-wage workers lack access to paid sick
days,\17\ and 40 million Americans struggle with the choice between
working while sick and losing a day's pay.\18\ A disproportionate
number of those workers are people of color. From higher levels of
unemployment to even lower wages, their struggles highlight the need to
adopt policies that allow for workplace flexibility.
Guaranteeing workers access to paid leave and sick days will help
families care for sick parents and children, a newborn or newly adopted
child, or recovery from a serious illness without suffering
financially. It will increase labor-force participation, employee
retention, and lifetime earnings.\19\ Businesses will be able to
attract higher-quality workers and reduce absenteeism and tardiness
among employees.\20\
The Healthy Families Act, introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA),
would ensure workers have access to paid sick days and would no longer
have to worry about taking a financial hit if they or their children
fall ill.\21\ This has untold economic benefits. For example,
researchers at the University of Virginia found that paid parental
leave policies actually equate to lower unemployment rates.\22\
Family and medical leave insurance--also known as paid family
leave--would allow employees to take temporary leave to recover from
illness or care for a sick loved one. Introduced by Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the Family and Medical
Insurance Leave Act of 2013, also known as the FAMILY Act, would
relieve the financial burden of taking unpaid time off, providing paid
leave for nearly every U.S. worker.\23\
pay equity
Today, women make up nearly half of the American workforce.\24\
Women graduate from college at higher rates than men.\25\ More women
are serving in Congress than ever before.\26\ Yet for millions of
American women, no amount of hard work will bring pay equity with their
male peers.
Women, on average, still take home 77 cents for every dollar earned
by a man. The average American woman makes $11,084 less than her male
counterpart per year.\27\ If women working full-time, year round were
paid the same for their work as comparable men, we would cut the
poverty rate for working women and their families in half.\28\
And for women of color, the disparity is even greater. Women of
color are twice as likely as white, non-Hispanic women to live in
poverty. And the wage gap is more like a gulf. For every dollar a man
makes, white women make 77 cents, African-American women take home 64
cents, and Hispanic women take home 55 cents on the dollar.\29\
These differences among women can be attributed to a variety of
economic factors, including occupational segregation and higher rates
of unemployment among women of color, which lead to longer gaps in work
histories. Wage disparities--even compared to men of color--depress
lifetime earnings of women of color even more than those of white
women.
When women are shortchanged over the course of a lifetime, the
dollars and cents add up. Over the course of a 35-year career, a woman
with a college degree will make an average of $1.2 million less than a
man with the same level of education.\30\
Since the Equal Pay Act was signed 50 years ago, we have made
significant progress. Back then, women were paid just 59 cents for
every dollar earned by men. Legislation has narrowed the pay gap, but
didn't close it.\31\ The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill
that Barack Obama signed as President, was another important step
toward making women full, equal participants in the workforce.
But if a woman doesn't know she is underpaid, she can't take action
to close the gap. The Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Sen. Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD), would enable the Department of Labor to gather better
information about wage differences. The Paycheck Fairness Act would
protect employees from retaliation for discussing their salaries. And
it would empower women to negotiate for equal pay and create strong
incentives for employers to obey the laws already in place.
Making sure women receive equal pay for equal work increases their
lifetime earnings and strengthens our economy in the process. The
Institute for Women's Policy Research found that if women had received
pay equal to their male counterparts in 2012, the U.S. economy would
have produced $447.6 billion in additional income \32\--similar to the
economic output of the entire State of Virginia.\33\
early childhood education and universal pre-k
Our safety net is working overtime to catch those who have been
left behind by the recovery, but once again, policy hasn't kept up with
changing demographics. Although the share of working mothers with
children under age 5 has doubled since 1970, child care subsidies and
preschool programs remain underfunded. And more mothers are also
breadwinning alone: At least half of all children in the United States
today will spend at least part of their childhood in a single-parent
family.\34\
Additionally, today's infants and toddlers are the first age cohort
that is majority children of color, making this a critical issue for
communities of color.\35\ Communities of color are expected to comprise
the majority of the U.S. population sometime in the early 2040s.
Addressing racial and ethnic disparities is not just the right thing to
do; it is imperative for economic growth and competitiveness.
In an economy where three-quarters of families have either a single
parent or two working parents, child care isn't a luxury. It's a
necessity. More than 60 percent of all preschool-aged children spend
time in the care of someone other than their parents.\36\
Unfortunately, most families don't have access to high-quality
child care and preschool. Programs such as Head Start and the Child
Care and Development Fund serve only a fraction of eligible families.
And quality of care is often low. And many more kids don't attend
preschool or receive high-quality care because their families simply
can't afford it. Child care is the largest household expense for most
families and can cost more than a year of college.
In light of these challenges, one of the most important ways we can
improve the lives of millions of American families across the economic
spectrum is to commit to educate children during the first 5 years of
their lives. Research shows that the early years of a child's cognitive
and emotional development, more than any others, establish their
direction in life. High-quality early intervention makes at-risk
children 25 percent less likely to drop out of school, 40 percent less
likely to become a teen parent, and 70 percent less likely to be
arrested for a violent crime. But because of the shortage of quality,
affordable child care, low-income children are entering kindergarten
without the skills necessary to succeed.\37\
Universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-old children, and
affordable child care for low-income families with children under age 3
will help bridge the gap, as will an expansion of Early Head Start and
home visiting.
The Strong Start for America's Children Act, which was introduced
by Sen. Harkin and passed by this committee this month, would create a
partnership between the Federal Government and States to expand access
to high-quality preschool for all low-income 4-year-olds and provide
programs for some younger children as well. Passing and funding this
bill would narrow the school-readiness gap and help parents access
employment by building the supply of high-quality programs and reducing
costs.
the minimum wage becomes a living wage
We should raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.
Currently, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns just
$15,080 per year.\38\ For a family of three, that is $4,000 below the
Federal poverty line.\39\ Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would
increase yearly earnings to $19,777.\40\ It would directly raise the
wages of 16.5 million American workers and would lift almost 1 million
Americans out of poverty.\41\
Nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers are women, so raising the
minimum wage, as proposed by Sen. Harkin, would give 15.4 million women
a raise \42\ and help close the pay gap.\43\ These workers are not just
teenagers. Nearly 90 percent of minimum-wage workers are 20 years old
or older, and the average minimum-wage worker is 35 years old.\44\
Seventy percent of tipped restaurant workers are women, so raising
the tipped minimum wage would also strengthen women's prospects.\45\
While the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, the minimum for
workers who receive tips is just $2.13. Tips are supposed to make up
the difference. Yet servers are twice as likely to use food stamps as
is the rest of the U.S. workforce, and three times as likely to live in
poverty.\46\
The number of female minimum-wage workers has also increased
markedly since the beginning of the Great Recession. In 2007, there
were almost 1.2 million female minimum-wage workers--nearly double the
number of male minimum-wage workers. But the number of women making
minimum wage had doubled by 2012.
And while the number of workers earning minimum wage increased for
all racial and ethnic groups of women from 2007 to 2012, the share of
Latina women at minimum wage tripled, and the share of African-American
and Asian women more than doubled.\47\
We're already seeing businesses, such as the Gap, Costco, and Whole
Foods, adopt the attitude that a fair wage is good for corporate
profits and reputations. Raising the wages of frontline workers helps
minimize employee turnover, encourage hard work, and increase employee
productivity, commitment, and loyalty.\48\ Cities, counties, and States
have also adopted measures to raise the incomes of their lowest paid
workers because they know that if workers can earn a living wage, it
will help grow their local economies. More than half of the States that
raised the minimum wage during periods of high unemployment saw their
unemployment decrease over the next 12 months.\49\
And increasing the minimum wage has positive implications for the
Federal budget as well. CAP recently published research showing that a
$10.10 minimum wage would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program by $46 billion over the next decade.\50\
the business case
Successful businesses already see a competitive advantage when they
ensure workers with families are happy and successful. Policies that
support working women and families lead to more productive employees.
They also help business attract and retain top-notch talent, paying
dividends in the long term. But there are immediate savings for
businesses with family friendly benefits as well.\51\
Studies showed companies that are flexible--that allow adjustable
work schedules or telework, for example--improved employee retention
and recruitment, as well as revenue generation and client
satisfaction.\52\ Employees said their ability to prioritize both
career and family influenced their choice to remain with the company.
This translates into real and immediate savings for businesses. While
replacing a worker can cost up to 20 percent of that worker's salary,
policies such as earned sick days or flexible options can be
implemented at little to no net cost.\53\
But the companies that will excel in tomorrow's economy won't just
be focused on retaining female employees; they'll be interested in
cultivating the next generation of female leaders and executives. That
will mean more than adopting flexible schedules and worker-friendly
policies. It will mean changing the culture from the factory floor to
the board room to allow talented, dedicated women to advance and
succeed. It will mean combating workplace discrimination of every kind.
It will mean encouraging mentor relationships that pair successful
women with future leaders in their organizations. And it will mean
including women in the decisionmaking process, so their voices are
heard and their concerns are considered. After all, when women have a
place at the table, they can advocate for the very worker-friendly
policies that boost morale along with the bottom line.
conclusion
Public policies that help women also strengthen our families, our
workplaces, our economy, and our Nation. It's time to put women at the
center of the policy agenda. Every Member of Congress must work
together to demonstrate, with a proactive policy agenda, that
government is committed to our families.
Families are changing. Our workforce is changing. The way we live
is changing. And our economic success hinges on recognizing those
changes and committing to public policy that improves the lives and
livelihood of working families.
I thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the committee for the
opportunity to testify today.
Endnotes
1. Sarah Jane Glynn, ``The New Breadwinners: 2010 Update: Rates of
Women Supporting Their Families Economically Increased Since 2007''
(Washington: Center for American Progress, 2012), available at http://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/04/16/11377/the-new-
breadwinners-2010-update/.
2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Women in the Labor Force: A
Databook'' (2013), Table 2.
3. Ibid., Table 20.
4. Heather Boushey, ``The New Breadwinners.'' In Heather Boushey
and Ann O'Leary, eds., The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes
Everything (Washington: Maria Shriver and Center for American Progress,
2009); Glynn, ``The New Breadwinners.''
5. Glynn, ``The New Breadwinners.''
6. Heather Boushey and Alexandra Mitukiewicz analysis of the Center
for Economic and Policy Research Extracts of the Current Population
Survey Outgoing Rotation Group.
7. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Table 32. Leave benefits:
Access, private industry workers, National Compensation Survey, March
2013,'' available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/
ownership/private/table21a.htm (last accessed May 2014).
8. Sophia Kerby, ``The State of Women of Color in the United
States'' (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2012), available at
http://www.american
progress.org/issues/race/report/2012/07/17/11923/the-state-of-women-of-
color-in-the-united-states/.
9. Ibid.
10. The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and others,
``Tipped Over the Edge: Gender Inequity in the Restaurant Industry''
(2012), available at http://rocunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/
ROC_GenderInequity_F1-1.pdf.
11. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Table 32. Leave benefits.''
12. Heather Boushey, Ann O'Leary, and Alexandra Mitukiewicz, ``The
Economic Benefits of Family and Medical Leave Insurance'' (Washington:
Center for American Progress, 2013), available at http://
www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PaidFamLeave-
brief.pdf.
13. Jody Heymann, Alison Earle, and Jeffrey Hayes, ``The Work,
Family, Equity Index: How Does the U.S. Measure Up?'' (Montreal,
Canada: Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University,
2009), available at: http://www.hreonline
.com/pdfs/08012009Extra_McGillSurvey.pdf.
14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Table 32. Leave benefits.''
15. Ibid.
16. University of Cincinnati, ``Working Parents--Who Puts Family
First When a Child Gets Sick?'', Press release, August 13, 2007,
available at http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=6152.
17. Eileen Appelbaum, ``Paid Sick Days: A Win for Employees and the
Economy,'' Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, June 6, 2011,
available at http://www.spot
lightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=4c4cc307-20b6-44ea-81c2-
0712411
c3e70.
18. Ibid.
19. Boushey, O'Leary, and Mitukiewicz, ``The Economic Benefits of
Family and Medical Leave Insurance.''
20. Ibid.
21. Healthy Families Act, S. 631, 113 Cong. (Government Printing
Office, 2013), available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/
s631.
22. Christopher J. Ruhm and Jackqueline L. Teague, ``Parental Leave
Policies in Europe and North America.'' Working Paper 5065 (National
Bureau of Economic Research, 1995).
23. National Partnership for Women & Families, ``Fact Sheet: The
Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (The FAMILY Act)'' (2014),
available at http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/work-
family/paid-leave/family-act-fact-sheet.pdf.
24. Crosby Burns, Kimberly Barton, and Sophia Kerby, ``The State of
Diversity in Today's Workforce'' (Washington: Center for American
Progress, 2012), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
labor/report/2012/07/12/11938/the-state-of-diversity-in-todays-
workforce/.
25. Mark Hugo Lopez and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, ``Women's college
enrollment gains leave men behind,'' Pew Research Center, March 6,
2014, available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/
womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/.
26. Rosalind S. Helderman, ``The 113th Congress is the most diverse
in history,'' The Washington Post, January 3, 2013, available at http:/
/www.washington
post.com/politics/113th-congress-has-more-women-minorities-than-ever/
2013/01/03
/7d1aaf30-55e5-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html.
27. National Women's Law Center, ``How the Wage Gap Hurts Women and
Families'' (2013), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/
files/pdfs/factorother
than_sexfactsheet_5.30.12_final.pdf.
28. Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress, The Shriver
Report: A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2014).
29. Farah Ahmad and Sarah Iverson, ``The State of Women of Color in
the United States'' (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2013),
available at: http://www.americanprogress.org / wp-content / uploads /
2013 / 10 / StateOfWomenColor-1
.pdf.
30. American Women and others, ``Equal Pay: A Conversation Guide''
(2013), available at http://www.americanwomen.org/body/
EqualPayToolkit_National.pdf.
31. Ibid.
32. Heidi Hartmann, Jeffrey Hayes, and Jennifer Clark, ``How Equal
Pay for Working Women Would Reduce Poverty and Grow the American
Economy'' (Washington: Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2014).
33. Ibid.; Bureau of Economic Analysis, Widespread Economic Growth
in 2012: Advance 2012 and Revised 2009-11 GDP-by-State Statistics,
Table 4 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013), available at http://
bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2013/pdf/gsp0613.pdf.
34. D'Vera Cohn, Gretchen Livingston, and Wendy Wang, ``After
Decades of Decline, A Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers'' (Washington: Pew
Research Center, 2014), available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/
2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/.
35. Children's Defense Fund, ``The State of America's Children''
(2014), available at http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-
data-publications/data/2014-soac.pdf.
36. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics,
``America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2013:
Child Care,'' available at http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/
famsoc3.asp (last accessed May 2014).
37. Donna Cooper and Kristina Costa, ``Increasing the Effectiveness
and Efficiency of Existing Public Investments in Early Childhood
Education'' (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2012), available
at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2012/06/01/
11723/increasing-the-effectiveness-and-efficiency-of-existing-public-
investments-in-early-childhood-education/.
38. David Cooper, ``Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10
Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost''
(Washington: Economic Policy Institute, 2013), available at http://
www.epi.org/publication/raising-Federal-minimum-wage-to-1010/.
39. Families USA, ``Federal Poverty Guidelines,'' available at
http://www.families
usa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/Federal-poverty-
guidelines.html (last accessed May 2014).
40. Cooper, ``Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift
Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost.''
41. Congressional Budget Office, ``The Effects of a Minimum-Wage
Increase on Employment and Family Income'' (2014), available at http://
www.cbo.gov/publication/44995.
42. Ibid.
43. David Madland and Keith Miller, ``Raising the Minimum Wage
Would Boost the Incomes of Millions of Women and Their Families,''
Center for American Progress Action Fund, December 9, 2013, available
at http://www.american
progressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2013/12/09/80484/raising-the-
minimum-wage-would-boost-the-incomes-of-millions-of-women-and-their-
families/.
44. David Cooper and Dan Essrow, ``Low-wage Workers Are Older Than
You Think,'' Economic Policy Institute, August 28, 2013, available at
http://www.epi.org
/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/.
45. The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and others,
``Tipped Over the Edge.''
46. Ibid.
47. Ahmad and Iverson, ``The State of Women of Color in the United
States.''
48. John Schmitt, ``Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible
Effect on Employment?'' (Washington: Center for Economic and Policy
Research, 2013), available at http://www.cepr.net/documents/
publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf.
49. T. William Lester, David Madland, and Jackie Odum, ``Raising
the Minimum Wage Would Help, Not Hurt, Our Economy,'' Center for
American Progress Action Fund, December 3, 2013, available at http://
www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2013/12/03/80222/
raising-the-minimum-wage-would-help-not-hurt-our-economy/.
50. Rachel West and Michael Reich, ``The Effects of Minimum Wages
on SNAP Enrollments and Expenditures'' (Washington: Center for American
Progress, 2014), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
economy/report/2014/03/05/85158/the-effects-of-minimum-wages-on-snap-
enrollments-and-expenditures/.
51. Small Business Majority, ``Small Businesses Support Family
Medical Leave'' (2013), available at http://
www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/family medical-
leave/092713-FML-report.php.
52. Anna Danziger and Shelley Waters Boots, ``The Business Case for
Flexible Work Arrangements'' (Washington: Georgetown University Law
Center, 2008), available at http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1001
&context=legal.
53 Heather Boushey and Sarah Jane Glynn, ``There Are Significant
Business Costs to Replacing Employees'' (Washington: Center for
American Progress, 2012), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/labor/report/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-
costs-to-replacing-employees/.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Ms. Bravo.
STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAMILY VALUES AT
WORK, MILWAUKEE, WI
Ms. Bravo. Thank you, Senators and staff of the HELP
Committee. I'm delighted to be here to testify on behalf of
Family Values at Work. We're a network of 21 coalitions, more
than 1,000 groups, very diverse, all of them working for
policies like paid sick days and family medical leave
insurance. They're driven by women like Rhiannon Broschat in
Chicago, mother of a kid with special needs, and Shelby Ramirez
in Denver, who helps take care of her dad with diabetes. These
are people who have lost a job or vital income for doing
exactly what we define as being a good parent or a good child
to their parents.
We're in this dilemma because although many employers do a
great job, as you said, the rest of them are operating as if
we're still in a madman era. There's good news, though, and
that is that the States and cities are paving the way toward
the Federal policies that we need, as they always have,
incubating model policies and studying them for their
effectiveness.
We have three States that have passed family medical leave
insurance. New York is chomping at the bit. The State-paid
leave fund in the budget would really help. We have seven
cities in one State that have let workers earn paid sick days
and lots more on the horizon. And we have a growing body of
evidence that shows these policies are good for women's
economic security, for families, and for business bottom line.
I've talked a lot about it in my written remarks, all this
research, and quotes from some of our business partners who
say,
``You know what? These policies--I want to see them
as a floor for everyone, because they lower my
expenses, but they also put money in the pockets of the
people who are going to be my customers, what I need
the most.''
We shouldn't have a situation where having economic
security is at odds with the security of the emotions and
physical health of our loved ones, and yet that's where we are.
I want to end by telling you about one of our leaders,
Melissa Broome in Maryland, whose son recently had surgery, 4-
year-old Owen. He's going to be OK. She and her husband both
had paid sick days and could be there the whole week. But as
they led him on a red wagon through the halls, they saw a lot
of kids who were much sicker. Owen didn't ask, ``Why is that
kid bald?'' or ``Why is that kid hooked up to a machine?'' But
he did ask, ``Why is that kid alone, and where is that kid's
mommy and daddy?''
It's going to be very difficult to cure all the ailments of
those children. It should not be at all difficult to get
bipartisan support to pass the Healthy Families Act and the
Family Act so that every family knows they can have someone
holding their hand and whispering in their ear when they're
poked and prodded when they're ill.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bravo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ellen Bravo
Thank you so much, Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander, for
hosting this hearing and inviting me to testify on economic security
for working women.
My name is Ellen Bravo, and I have been working for years to
advance policies that value families at work, first as director of
9to5, National Association of Working Women, and for the last decade as
director of Family Values @ Work Consortium. In 1995 I was appointed by
Congress to the bipartisan Commission on Leave to study the impact of
the Family and Medical Leave Act on employers and employees. I have
written several books and numerous articles on working women and
testified before Federal, State and local legislative bodies. For a
number of years I taught a masters level class on Family-Friendly
Workplace Practices at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Family Values @ Work is a network of coalitions in 21 States that
bring together a wide range of local groups--working women and men,
restaurant owners and restaurant workers, feminists and faith leaders,
those who want to end poverty and end asthma, advocates for workers,
children, seniors and racial justice, LGBT activists and public health
professionals, and many business owners. Together, we have been making
strides toward establishing economic security for families through paid
sick days and paid family leave policies.
While many employers already offer the policies we seek, millions
of workers are still operating in workplaces designed for men with
wives at home full-time.
In 2010, nearly three quarters of children had both parents or
their only parent working, a 13 percent increase since the mid-1980s
when FMLA was first drafted.\1\ Women are the primary or co-
breadwinners for nearly two-thirds of the Nation's families, so a
woman's income loss during maternity leave or even a few days with a
sick child has significant economic consequences for her family.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Houser, L. and Vartanian, T. (January 2012). ``Pay Matters: The
Positive Economic Impacts of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses
and the Public,'' retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://smlr.rutgers.edu/
paymatters-cwwreport-january2012.
\2\ Boushey, H. (2009). The New Breadwinners. In H. Boushey and A.
O'Leary (Eds.), The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes
Everything. Retrieved May 15 2013 from http://shriverreport.org/
special-report/a-womans-nation-changes-everything/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not having these policies in place also holds back our economy. For
stronger families, stronger businesses, a stronger country, we must
make sure that working women have opportunities to succeed as providers
and as caregivers. Policies like paid sick days and family and medical
leave insurance are small steps that can create a big difference in
making us the Nation we set out to be.
I'm here to speak on behalf of all the working women, men and
families who are involved in this important work in the States. It is
their voices and commitment that are the center of this movement--and
this progress--that we are seeing.
They are women like Shelby Ramirez in Denver, whose father and
daughter each had surgery within days of each other. Shelby took unpaid
time from work to care for them. For doing what a good daughter and
mother does, Shelby nearly wound up homeless and had to pawn the one
thing of value she owned, a ring given to her by her father many years
earlier.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofpe3PZXRgM&feature=youtu.be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I speak also for Rhiannon Broschat who lives in Chicago.\4\ On a
day this winter when the Chicago Public Schools closed because it was
too cold to be safe for children to go to schools, Rhiannon had no one
to care for her special needs son. For safeguarding her child as a good
mother does, Rhiannon was ``separated'' from the company for
``abusing'' the attendance policy. What this means is that Rhiannon was
fired from a very profitable company for refusing to leave her son home
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEB1kGP_ghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women and families in this country will not have real economic
security until their earnings and their jobs are protected when they or
a family member needs care. The lack of modest policies like those that
exist in the rest of the world forces women like Shelby and Rhiannon
and millions of others to make an impossible choice between the jobs
they need and the family that needs them.
This goes against the core family values that our country believes
in--across party lines and geographies.
Our coalitions are also working to ensure that pregnant workers can
have a stool to sit on, water to drink or sufficient bathroom breaks
without losing their job. New York, New Jersey, and a number of other
places have passed such bills with bipartisan support. We are working
on solutions to another serious set of issues--how to ensure people
have enough hours and predictable schedules as businesses seek staffing
solutions that can also meet their needs.
However, my testimony today will focus on the need for paid sick
days and family and medical leave insurance.
Twenty-one years ago, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave
Act with bipartisan support. The FMLA provides up to 12 weeks unpaid
time for the occasional longer term leave people need to care for a new
baby or for a serious personal or family illness. It applies to those
who work in a firm of 50 or more, have been on the job at least a year
and work at least 25 hours a week on average for the same employer.
FMLA was a great first step for families--but as our economy and
our families have changed, so too must our laws. The FMLA leaves out
more than 40 percent of the workforce.\5\ It does not include routine
illness or preventive care. While an employee covered by FMLA could
take leave to care for her father if he had a heart attack, that same
employee could be fired for taking Dad to the doctor to get his
cholesterol down and prevent a heart attack in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Klerman, J., et al. (updated September 2013). ``Family and
Medical Leave in 2012, Technical Report,'' Abt Associates, Inc., http:/
/www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLA-2012-Technical-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, many of those who are covered are unable to take the
time they need because it is unpaid. In 2012, two and a half times as
many people as in 2000 needed leave and were eligible but didn't take
it, mostly because they couldn't afford it. Many others went back from
leave too early, without fully recovering.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is needed? We need to expand the FMLA to cover those currently
excluded.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Jorgensen, H. and Appelbaum, E, Center for Economic and Policy
Research, (April 2014). ``Expanding Family and Medical Leave to Small
Firms, http://www.cepr.net/documents/fmla-small-firms-2014-04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also need public policies like the Healthy Families Act (H.R.
1286/S. 631) that address short-term, routine illness and the
preventive care that people need every year. The Healthy Families Act,
introduced by Senator Harkin, would allow workers to earn paid sick
days they can use to care for their own illness or that of a loved one,
or to deal with the aftermath of sexual or domestic violence.
In addition, we need a policy like the FAMILY Act (H.R. 3712/S.
1810), introduced by Senator Gillibrand, to establish a family and
medical leave insurance fund. By pooling small contributions from
employees and employers, this fund would enable those needing leave to
have some vital income during an already challenging time.
Consider these facts related to the lack of access to paid sick
days:
More than 41 million workers in the United States, nearly 40
percent of the workforce, do not earn paid sick days.\8\ Millions more
are not allowed to use the sick time they earn to care for a sick
family member. The numbers are much lower for low-wage workers and
particularly those with the closest contact with the public, such as
those who work in food preparation and service, and those in personal
care.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Williams, C. and Gault, B., Institute for Women's Policy
Research (March 2014). ``Paid Sick Days Access in the United States:
Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Occupation, Earnings, and Work
Schedule,'' retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.iwpr.org/
publications/pubs/paid-sick-days-access-in-the-united-states-
differences-by-race-ethnicity-occupation-earnings-and-work-schedule.
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly one quarter of adults in the United States have been fired
or threatened with job loss for taking time off to recover from illness
or care for a sick loved one.\10\ Even losing a few days' pay can be
devastating. For low-income families, going just 3.5 days without wages
is equivalent to losing a month's groceries.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Smith, T. and Kim, J. National Opinion Research Center, (June
2010). ``Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences,'' retrieved May 15,
2014. http://www.publicwelfare.org/resources/DocFiles/psd2010final.pdf.
\11\ Gould, E. et al., Economic Policy Institute, (June 2011).
``The Need for Paid Sick Days,''
retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.epi.org/publication/
the_need_for_paid_sick_days
/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Disease Control found that more than 2.5 million
cases of foodborne illness each year were caused by sick restaurant
workers contaminating food while they are at work.\12\ During the H1N1
epidemic, 7 million people caught the virus from co-workers who came to
the job while sick.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Painter, J., et al. (2013, March). ``Attribution of Foodborne
Illnesses, Hospitalizations, and Deaths to Food Commodities by using
Outbreak Data, United States, 1998-2008.'' Centers for Disease Control.
Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/3/pdfs/
11-1866.pdf.
\13\ Drago, R. and Miller, K. (2010 February). ``Sick at Work:
Infected Employees in the Workplace During the H1N1 Pandemic.''
Institute for Women's Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/sick-at-work-infected-employees-
in-the-workplace-during-the-h1n1-pandemic/at_download/file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health conditions go undiagnosed because workers without paid sick
days are less likely to get basic health and cancer screenings.\14\
More than one in four parents of a child with asthma (28 percent) has
missed one of their child's medical appointments because they could not
get time off work.\15\ Injuries on the job are also more common when
workers go to the job ill.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Peipins, L.A., Soman, A., Berkowitz, Z., White, M.C. ``The
lack of paid sick leave as a barrier to cancer screening and medical
care-seeking: results from the National Health Interview Survey.'' BMC
Public Health 2012;12(1):520.
\15\ Smith, L.A., et al. (2002, September). ``Employment barriers
among welfare recipients and applicants with chronically ill
children.'' Published in American Journal of Public Health, Retrieved
May 18, 2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12197972.
\16\ Asfaw, A., et al. (2012, September). ``Paid Sick Leave and
Nonfatal Occupational Injuries.'' American Journal of Public Health,
102(9), e59-e64. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human cost of sick days is also borne by businesses and
society.
Presenteeism, (the cost of employees' lower productivity when
working sick) adds up to $160 billion annually--considerably more than
the cost of absenteeism.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Kalorama Information (2009, October). ``The Market for
Wellness Programs and Their Impact on Pharmaceutical, Diagnostic and
Device Product Markets.'' Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://
www.kaloramainformation.com/about/release.asp?id=1463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States spends $1.1 billion in unnecessary emergency
department costs because people can't take time off to see a doctor
during business hours and either go straight to ERs or wait until
conditions worsen and an ER becomes necessary.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Miller, K., et al. (2011, November). ``Paid Sick Days and
Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Department Visits.''
Institute for Women's Policy Research, Retrieved May 18,
2014 from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/paid-sick-days-and-
health-cost-savings-from-reduced-emergency-department-visits/
at_download/file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is the only country that does not provide paid
sick leave for a worker undergoing a 50-day cancer treatment.\19\ And
we are one of only three countries that do not provide paid sick days
for a worker missing 5 days of work due to the flu.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Heymann, J., et al. (2009, May). ``Contagion Nation: A
Comparison of Paid Sick Day Policies in 22 Countries.'' Center for
Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://
www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-sick-days-2009-05.pdf.
\20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figures on lack of access to affordable family and medical
leave are also stark.
The United States is one of three countries to guarantee no paid
maternity leave. The other countries are Papua New Guinea and Oman.\21\
Only 12 percent of private sector employees have paid family leave from
an employer.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Addati, L., et al., ``Maternity and paternity at work: Law and
practice across the world. Appendix II: Key national statutory
provisions on maternity leave, by region, 2013.'' International Labour
Organization, 2014. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.ilo.org/
wcmsp5/groups/public/_dgreports/_dcomm/documents/publication/
wcms_242615.pdf.
\22\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 32. Leave benefits: Access,
private industry workers, National Compensation Survey, March 2013.
Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/
ownership/private/table21a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That lack of pay can have disastrous impact on a family's economic
security. Studies show that 7 percent of people who filed for
bankruptcy cited the birth of a child as the cause.\23\ A significant
number of bankruptcies also happen after a worker misses 2 or more
weeks of work due to illness.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (Spring/Summer 2001).
``The Future of Children.'' Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://
futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/
11_01_FullJournal.pdf.
\24\ Boushey, H and Glynn S (2012 April). ``The Effects of Paid
Family and Medical Leave on Employment Stability and Economic
Security,'' Center for American Progress. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/
Boushey
EmploymentLeave1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forty-eight percent of family caregivers who have to take time off
to care for a family member lost income during that time.\25\ And the
number of caregivers is growing as the population ages. By 2030, the
number of Americans over 65 will be 70 million--double today's 35
million.\26\ Nearly two-thirds of Americans under the age of 60 expect
to be responsible for the care of an elder relative within the next 10
years, and by 2020 about 40 percent of the workforce will be caring for
older parents.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Aumann, K (2008). ``The Elder Care Study: Everyday Realities
and Wishes for Change, Families and Work Institute.'' Retrieved May 18,
2014 from http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/
elder_care.pdf.
\26\ A Profile of Older Americans (2011), Administration on Aging,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved May 18, 2014
from http://www.aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2011/docs/
2011profile.pdf.
\27\ Lerman, R and Schmidt, S. ``Trends and Challenges for Work in
the 21st Century,'' The Urban Institute. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/
conference/trends/trendsi.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both paid sick days and family and medical leave insurance are
common sense solutions to the dilemma our Nation faces: the very thing
that makes us good parents or children to our parents often jeopardizes
our ability to make ends meet.
cities and states are leading the way
My children and I were part of helping to win unpaid Family and
Medical Leave in Wisconsin in 1988. That win, along with similar ones
in many other States, paved the way for the national bill in 1993. They
helped disprove the predictions of job loss and business closings--
family leave in fact strengthened families and businesses by helping
people keep their jobs and their earnings. It lowers turnover costs,
boosts productivity and morale.
Now States and municipalities are developing models for both family
and medical leave insurance and paid sick days.
The 1995 Commission on Leave unanimously recommended that States
``consider voluntarily establishing or expanding existing temporary
disability insurance programs to provide wage replacement for periods
of family and medical leave.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical
Leave Policies, Depart-
ment of Labor, 1996 https://archive.org/stream/
workablebalancer00unit#page/198/mode/2up/
search/Policy+Directions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research conducted for that Commission found that nearly 1 in 10 (9
percent) of leave-takers had to rely on public assistance to support
themselves while on leave. That number was more than one in five (20.9
percent) for those earning $20,000 or less.\29\ The overall figure
increased in the most recent survey (9.8 percent).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Ibid.
\30\ Klerman, J., et al, (updated September 2013). ``Family and
Medical Leave in 2012, Technical Report,'' Abt Associates, Inc., http:/
/www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLA-2012-Technical-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, California became the first State to attempt to make
family leave affordable. Implemented in 2004, the new law expanded the
State's existing temporary disability insurance program--just as the
Commission had recommended--to help ensure working families had income
to rely on during family leave. Those needing family leave may take up
to 6 weeks at 55 percent of their pay with a cap of $533 a week in
2013. New Jersey followed in 2009. Benefits there are typically two-
thirds of the last 8 weeks of pay, up to $584 a week for up to 6 weeks.
Just last year, Rhode Island became the third State to pass such a
measure. Together these three States have brought access to family
leave insurance programs to more than 17 million people. Other States
are on their way, with Washington having passed and hoping to have
funding to implement the program next year. In New York State,
legislators are moving a bill forward, and in Vermont and Connecticut,
study commissions are laying the groundwork for legislation. Colorado
has a bill pending and a number of other States are considering similar
action. The State Paid Leave Fund, $5 million in the Department of
Labor budget, would be a significant boost to these programs.
Economists, business owners and workers alike have confirmed the
success of these programs. A recent Rutgers study shows that New
Jersey's family leave insurance (FLI) program has saved businesses
money by improving employee retention, decreasing turnover costs, and
improving productivity.\31\ Despite ``sky is falling'' claims about the
potential costs of FLI for business, research from Unfinished Business,
a book on the success of California's program, shows employers
reporting that a neutral or positive effect on employee productivity,
profitability, and turnover; most employers coordinate their own
benefits with the State's paid family leave program.\32\ Workers who
took paid family or medical leave are more likely to return to the same
employer, reducing turnover costs, which can range from nearly $5,400
to more than $18,000.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Houser, L and Vartanian, T. (2012 January). ``Pay Matters: The
Positive Economic Impacts of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses
and the Public, A Report of the Center for Women and Work.'' Rutgers
School of Management and Labor Relations. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://news.rutgers.edu/news-releases/2012/01/rutgers-study-finds-
20120118#.U3
ZiJ9JdXTo.
\32\ Appelbaum, E and Milkman, R. (2011). ``Leaves That Pay:
Employer and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California.''
Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-family leave-1-
2011.pdf.
\33\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most employees who used California's paid family leave program
reported that leave had a positive effect on their ability to care for
a child or ill family member (82.3 percent), allowed them to initiate
breast feeding (91.3 percent), had a positive effect on their ability
to arrange child care (62.5 percent) and had a positive effect on an
ill family member's health (86.5 percent).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New Jersey, women who take paid leave after a child's birth are
more likely to be employed the following year and report increased
wages than women who do not take leave. Parents who took leave report
lower levels of public assistance (about 40 percent less) in the year
following their child's birth, when compared to those without paid
leave.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Houser, L and Vartanian, T. (2012 January). ``Pay Matters: The
Positive Economic Impacts of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses
and the Public, A Report of the Center for Women and Work.'' Rutgers
School of Management and Labor Relations. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://news.rutgers.edu/news-releases/2012/01/rutgers-study-finds-
20120118#.U3Zi
J9JdXTo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another benefit of family and medical leave insurance is that it
increases men's role in caregiving by making it possible for them to be
involved without the family taking a big financial hit.\36\ In
California, for example, fathers' leave-taking for bonding with a new
child rose 12 percent from 2011 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Appelbaum, E and Milkman, R. (2011). ``Leaves That Pay:
Employer and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California.''
Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-family leave-1-
2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid family leave also promotes children's well-being. Ensuring
that new parents can take time to care for a newborn gives babies their
best start in life. Four-fifths of respondents who took paid leaves
reported they were better able to care for a new baby.\37\ New mothers
who take paid leave are more likely to take the minimum doctor-
recommended 6 to 8 weeks to recover from birth.\38\ Newborns whose
mothers take 12 weeks of leave are more likely to be breast-fed,
receive regular check-ups, and get critical immunizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Ibid.
\38\ Gomby, D., & Pei, D. (2009). ``Newborn Family Leave: Effects
on Children, Parents, and Business.'' David and Lucile Packard
Foundation publication. Retrieved 4 January 2013, from http://
www.packard.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NFLA_fullreport_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An examination of more than two decades of data from 16 European
countries showed that paid parental leave policies were associated with
lower rates of infant and child mortality.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Ruhm, C., ``Parent Leave and Child Health,'' Journal of Health
Economics 19, no. 6 (2000), 931-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And paid family leave promotes the well-being and independence of
seniors by enabling families to care for aging parents without fear of
losing all their wages and allowing seniors to age in their homes
instead of State facilities. This also saves taxpayer money.\40\ When
cared for by family members, patients in the hospital recover from
illness and injury faster, leading to shorter hospital stays, improved
health outcomes, and decreased health costs.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008 April).
``Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce.''
Retrieved May 18 2014 from http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2008/Retooling-
for-an-Aging-America-Building-the-Health-Care-Workforce.aspx.
\41\ Taylor, MRH and O'Connor, P. Resident parents and shorter
hospital stay, National Children's Hospital and Department of
Paediatrics, Trinity College, Dublin. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://adc.bmj.com/content/64/2/274.full.pdf+html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses support family and medical leave programs and
replacement income provided by FMLI goes right back into the local
economy, as workers spend it to help cover the basics.
According to Herb Greenberg, founder and CEO of Caliper, a human
resources consulting firm in New Jersey:
``Family Leave Insurance . . . has been a huge positive for
Caliper. When you think about the cost of individuals leaving,
the cost of seeking new employees, the cost of maybe hiring the
wrong person, training them, etc., and you compare that to the
pennies that Family Leave costs you--there is just no
comparison in terms of the pure balance sheet.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Family Values @ Work. ``From the Story Bank: Dr. Herb
Greenberg's Story.'' http://familyvaluesatwork.org/story/dr-herb-
greenbergs.
A survey for Small Business Majority found that 6 in 10 New York
small business owners support a family and medical leave program with
shared contributions from employers and employees.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Small Business Majority (2013 December). ``New York Small
Businesses Support Publicly Administered Family and Medical Leave
Insurance Pools.'' Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://
www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/family medical-
leave/121213-NY-FML-report.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
paid sick days
Working women also need to be able to take a day off when they or
their kids are sick. Because of the momentum behind paid sick days
policies, more than two million people previously uncovered now have
that protection. Millions more can use those sick days to care for an
ill family member and all can do so without being disciplined for using
the time they have earned.
That means mothers are not losing grocery money when their kids get
the flu; it means that workers are not going to work sick to spread the
flu. A growing body of research affirms that these policies help
strengthen families while having a positive or no negative effect on
business profitability, productivity, performance and morale.
San Francisco was the first city with the law, followed by wins in
DC, then Seattle and the State of Connecticut. 2013 saw paid sick days
measures pass in Portland, New York City and Jersey City and an
expansion to tipped workers in DC. Already this year Newark enacted
paid sick days and New York City expanded its new laws. More wins are
likely before the end of this year.
The combined impact on our economy, on our families and on
businesses is worth noting.
First, economists say job retention policies like paid sick days
help reduce unemployment and strengthen the economy,\44\ and the local
economies where paid sick days policies have been implemented are doing
well. For instance, more than two in three businesses in San Francisco
support their city's paid sick days law and six in seven employers
report no negative impact on profitability.\45\ The city experienced
better job growth than five surrounding counties without earned sick
time.\46\ PriceWaterhouseCoopers ranked San Francisco as one of the top
cities in the world to do business. Even the chief lobbyist against the
bill in San Francisco told Businessweek it's ``the best public policy
for the least cost.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Appelbaum, E and Golden, L. ``Sick days for healthy
recovery.'' April 29, 2011. Philadelphia Business Journal. http://
www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/print-edition/2011/04/29/sick-days-
for-healthy-recovery.html.
\45\ Drago, R and Lovell, V (2011 February). ``San Francisco's Paid
Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees,'' Institute
for Women's Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://
www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/San-Fran-PSD.
\46\ Petro, J (2011 January). ``Paid Sick Leave Does Not Harm
Business Growth or Job Growth,'' Drum Major Institute for Public
Policy. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://everybodybenefits.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/01/Paid_Sick_Leave_Does_Not_Harm.pdf.
\47\ Warren, J. ``Cough If You Need Sick Leave,'' Businessweek.
June 3, 2010. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_24/
b4182033783036.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Connecticut enacted the first statewide paid sick days law,
the Department of Labor reports that employment has grown in
Connecticut's Leisure and Hospitality \48\ and Education and Health
Services \49\ sectors, the two most impacted by the new law. A recent
study by Eileen Appelbaum and Ruth Milkman showed more than three-
quarters of Connecticut employers are supportive of the law.\50\ The
authors found that the law had minimal effects on businesses. Typically
businesses covered absent workers by assigning the work to other
employees, a solution which has little effect on costs. Since the
implementation of the paid sick days law, Connecticut employers saw
decreases in the spread of illnesses and increases in morale, among
many more effects.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Industry Sector Employment (CES)--State of Connecticut, State
of Connecticut Labor Market Information. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from
http://www.ctdol.State.ct.us/lmi/SecEmp.asp#
map8.
\49\ Ibid.
\50\ Kroeger, T, ``Is Paid Sick Leave Good for Business?'' Center
for Economic and Policy Research, January 6, 2014. http://www.cepr.net/
index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/is-paid-sick-leave-good-for-business.
\51\ Appelbaum, E and Milkman, R. (2014 January). ``Good for
Business? The Case of Paid Sick Leave in Connecticut. Retrieved May 18,
2014 from http://www.cepr.net/documents/presentations/
CT_PSD_Jan_2014.pptx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrators of the programs also confirm that they are not a
burden on business. Donna Levitt, Division Manager, San Francisco
Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, told Connecticut legislators in
2011, ``Since [the PSLO took effect in February 2007,] we have heard
relatively few complaints or problems with respect to implementation of
the law . . . I am not aware of any employer in San Francisco who has
reduced staff or made any other significant change in their business as
a result of the sick leave ordinance.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ http://cga.ct.gov/2011/LABdata/Tmy/2011SB-00913-R000301-
Donna%20Levitt-City%20of
%20San%20Francisco-TMY.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earned sick days strengthen families. The Healthy Families Act--and
local and State bills--would make it easier for workers to be good
employees and good parents and will let children lead healthier lives,
be more successful in school and be better prepared for the future.
Seniors will also benefit when adult children can afford to take them
to the doctor or care for them during an illness. Today, as a hospital
administrator in Atlanta testified, hospital hallways are often lined
with seniors whose adult children cannot leave work to pick them up
after a test or minor procedure.
When their parents are able to care for them at home, sick children
get better sooner and reduce the risk of spreading the illness to their
classmates,\53\ and parents with paid sick days are less likely to send
a sick child to school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Heymann, J. ``We Can Afford to Give Parents a Break,''
Washington Post, May 14, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051201817.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick days also let parents keep their children healthy by getting
them to doctor visits for detection, treatment, and vaccinations.
Earned sick days protect public health and will make our country a
safer, healthier place to live.
Small businesses support earned sick days because it's good for
their bottom line. The real experiences of small businesses show earned
sick days result in reduced turnover, which saves businesses money. Jim
Houser, owner of Houser Automotive Clinic in Portland, OR, says that
because employees know ``we care about their health and well-being,
they're loyal to us in return.'' \54\ The average tenure for his
employees is 18 years, bringing enormous savings in recruitment and
training costs. ``Any business person can calculate what that means for
overall savings,'' says Houser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Family Values @ Work and Main Street Alliance, (2011). ``How
Your Business Can Benefit from Paid Sick Days,'' retrieved May 15, 2014
from http://familyvaluesatwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Business-
Outreach-Trifold-Brochure.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid sick days boost businesses and the economy overall by keeping
money in people's pockets. Freddy Castiblanco, owner of Terraza 7 Train
Cafe in Queens, recognizes that other employers' workers are his
customers. ``If we protect the salaries, if we give job stability, we
are going to protect the purchasing power of potential customers,'' he
says. ``If you give me tax cuts, I won't be able to generate any more
jobs. What really creates jobs in my community is customers.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Community Service Society of New York (March 2013,) ``Latino
Workers Can't Afford to Get Sick,'' retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://
b.3cdn.net/nycss/8edff06bac4f0ab330_4dm6b625v
.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
Recently one of our leaders in Maryland, Melissa Broome, spent a
week at Johns Hopkins Hospital with her 4-year-old son, Owen. Both
Melissa and her husband had paid sick days that allowed them to be at
his side so they could, as Melissa put it, hold his hand and whisper in
his ear every time he was poked and prodded. Fortunately, Owen will be
fine. But it broke Melissa's heart to see how many children were alone
during the day. When they took Owen for a walk through the halls in a
red wagon, he didn't ask why so many of the kids were bald. But he did
ask, ``Where are that boy's mommy and daddy? . . . He shouldn't be all
by himself.'' \56\ Talking to a parent in the family kitchen one
evening, Melissa learned that this woman's 18-month-old daughter was
about to be discharged with a feeding tube. Her day care won't take
children with feeding tubes. ``I don't know how I'm going to be able to
keep my job,'' the woman said. ``I don't know what I'm going to do.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Melissa Broome, ``Choosing Between Your Child and Your Job,''
May 16, 2014 Baltimore Sun http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-05-16/
news/bs-ed-family-leave-20140517_1_johns-hopkins-children-owen-day-
care#.U3jS9jnS6PI.email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be very difficult to cure the diseases that afflict these
children. But it is not difficult to institute policies like paid sick
days and family and medical leave insurance so that their parents can
hold their hands and whisper in their ears.
We thank you for holding this hearing today and hope that you will
champion these policies--not as a favor to women but as a way to
strengthen families, businesses and the economy.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Bravo.
Ms. Goss Graves.
STATEMENT OF FATIMA GOSS GRAVES, VICE PRESIDENT FOR EDUCATION
AND EMPLOYMENT, NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Goss Graves. Thank you, Chairman Harkin and Ranking
Member Alexander and members of the committee, for the
opportunity to speak today on behalf of the National Women's
Law Center. We've had 50 years of laws on the books that
provide baseline protections against discrimination in the
workplace. But what we know is that employment discrimination
still takes place across the income spectrum, and workers in
low-wage jobs are hit shockingly hard by it.
Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem, and the
cases are filled with reports that seem like they must come
from another time. Women report being verbally and physically
abused and even raped on the job. One positive step is the
recently introduced Fair Employment Protection Act, which would
help provide stronger protection for workers who experience
harassment on the job from their bosses.
Despite the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, women continue to
face sex discrimination because of stereotypes about women who
are pregnant or who have caregiving responsibilities, including
being forced off the job entirely because of their pregnancy.
One of our clients, Amy Crosby's, case illustrates this
problem. She worked as a cleaner in a hospital in Florida,
lifting up to 50 pounds each day. The hospital refused her
request for an accommodation when her doctor advised that she
receive one, placed her on unpaid leave, and threatened to fire
her. Never mind that they accommodated workers who had
temporary disabilities and those that had been injured on the
job for other reasons.
Cases like Amy Crosby's are just the tip of the iceberg.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would provide a lifeline to
pregnant workers who need reasonable accommodations to be able
to stay on the job.
We also know that pay discrimination is present, even in
the lowest paying fields. In the 10 largest low-wage
occupations, women working full-time were typically paid 90
percent of what their male counterparts were paid each week.
Latoya Weaver of Maryland is one example. She worked full-time
at a hotel in Maryland, ultimately making $8.88 an hour. She
later learned that two male co-workers were paid $10 an hour
for doing the same job. The Paycheck Fairness Act would make it
easier to detect pay discrimination and provide employers with
more incentives to address it voluntarily.
We know that women who are paid low wages and who are
juggling multiple personal and caregiving and financial
responsibilities have a lot on their shoulders, and we know
they can least afford to have their livelihood threatened by
discrimination. We really owe it to these workers to make a
serious effort to address the many remaining barriers that they
face.
Thank you for having me today, and I look forward to any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goss Graves follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fatima Goss Graves
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the
National Women's Law Center on the critical issue of economic security
for working women. The National Women's Law Center has been working
since 1972 to secure and defend women's legal rights. We advance the
issues that cut to the core of women's lives in education, employment,
family and economic security, and health and reproductive rights--with
special attention given to the needs of low-income women and their
families. We believe that ending all forms of workplace discrimination
is crucial to removing barriers to women's economic opportunity.
Employment discrimination takes place across the income spectrum,
but workers in low-wage jobs are hit shockingly hard. For example,
about 50 percent of pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) between 1996 and 2005
involved the service or retail industries.\1\ Between January and
November 2011 alone, 37 percent of sexual harassment charges filed with
the EEOC came from women in the restaurant industry.\2\ These are jobs
that tend to be low-wage.
Women working in low-wage jobs, who are juggling multiple personal,
caregiving, and financial responsibilities, can least afford to have
their livelihoods threatened by discrimination. But they also
unfortunately confront systemic discrimination that shapes their basic
employment opportunities. Women are subject to sexual harassment,
experience discrimination when pregnant or caregiving, and are paid
less in nearly every occupation, even those that pay the very lowest
wages. These and other basic violations of the employment
discrimination laws continue 50 years after Congress outlawed workplace
discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and undermine the
advancement of women in jobs in nearly every sector.
i. sexual harassment remains pervasive in low-wage workplaces
Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem in workplaces
overall and in low-wage workplaces in particular. In fiscal year 2013,
the combined total number of harassment charges filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and State and local Fair
Employment Practices Agencies was over 30,000.\3\ More than 10,000 of
these charges involved sexual harassment, and 82 percent were brought
by women.\4\ But these numbers probably do not even come close to
reflecting the extent of sexual harassment. In a recent survey, 60
percent of workers who experienced harassment said they never reported
it.\5\ The pervasiveness of sexual harassment has also been well-
documented among low-wage workers.\6\ In a study of more than 1,200
predominantly low-income union workers in the Boston area, 26 percent
of women and 22 percent of men reported experiencing sexual
harassment.\7\ African-American women were more likely to report having
experienced sexual harassment (28 percent) than white women (21
percent) and Latinas (17 percent).\8\
Sexual harassment is pervasive in many low-wage sectors. For
example, a survey conducted by Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC)
United found that more than 1 in 10 workers in the restaurant industry
reported that they or a coworker had experienced sexual harassment, and
this is likely an undercount.\9\ As noted above, a 2011 review by MSNBC
of EEOC charge data found that nearly 37 percent of EEOC sexual
harassment charges from January to November 2011 came from women in the
restaurant industry.\10\ Workers have described harassment in
restaurants as simply ``an accepted part of the culture.'' \11\ Women
working in agriculture, who are often migrant workers, are also
especially vulnerable to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment and
assault is so common that farms in California have been referred to by
farm workers as the ``field of panties'' and farms in Florida as the
``Green Motel.'' \12\
More than 15 years ago, the Supreme Court put in place strong
protections against workplace harassment. Recognizing the potential for
supervisors to abuse their power over their subordinates, in Burlington
Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the
Supreme Court held that employers have a heightened legal
responsibility to protect workers from supervisor harassment.\13\
Faragher and Ellerth established an important principle: because a
supervisor's ability to harass is a direct result of the authority
given to the supervisor by the employer, the employer should be liable
for the supervisor's actions unless the employer can show that it took
steps to prevent harassment and to address harassment when it occurred,
and that the plaintiff failed unreasonably to take advantage of the
opportunities provided by the employer to report and address the
harassment.\14\ This rule encourages employers to put policies in place
to prevent harassment and to respond promptly and effectively when
harassment occurs.
However, the Supreme Court recently undermined this longstanding
principle in the narrow 5-4 decision in Vance v. Ball State
University.\15\ Maetta Vance, an African-American employee who worked
in the catering department at Ball State, filed a lawsuit against her
employer for racial harassment alleging that Saundra Davis, whom Vance
argued was her supervisor, subjected Vance to racial slurs, threats,
and intimidation.\16\ Because Davis did not have the power to take
tangible employment actions against Vance, the Court held that Davis
did not qualify as Vance's supervisor, and that Ball State could not be
held vicariously liable for Davis's actions.\17\ The decision held that
heightened protections from harassment no longer apply to harassment by
those higher-ups who direct daily work activities but do not have the
power to hire and fire.\18\ Now, workers who are harassed by their boss
must proceed under the more difficult negligence standard that applies
in coworker harassment cases, unless that boss has the power to hire
and fire.\19\ And their cases may be thrown out as a result.
Unfortunately this decision has the potential to have negative
consequences for millions of workers, and especially for low-wage
workers. Based on a review of the academic literature and an informal
survey of sector-based organizations advocating for workers, we believe
that millions of lower-level supervisors have significant power over
low-wage workers.\20\ First, our analysis shows that there are more
than 6-million lower-level supervisors in our Nation's workplaces, and
that more than half of these oversee low-wage workers.\21\ Second, our
analysis suggests that these lower-level supervisors have significant
responsibility for directing entry-level workers' day-to-day
activities.\22\ And finally, our analysis suggests that most of these
lower-level supervisors have no formal authority to hire or fire
workers, which often lies with managers.\23\ All of that tells us that
most employees with the day-to-day management authority are not the
ones with the formal power to hire or fire employees, and are therefore
not supervisors in the eyes of the law when it comes to holding their
employers liable for harassment that they might perpetrate.
Because they often have little bargaining power, workers in low-
wage jobs can be severely affected by harassment that involves
manipulation of their daily work activities.\24\ And this is exactly
the type of harassment that lower-level supervisors are well-positioned
to perpetrate. The person who tells you to clean toilets instead of
working the register, to stay late, to work on weekends, or to work the
night shift, is enough of a boss to make your life miserable.
Take 15-year-old Megan McCafferty, for example. Jacob Wayne
Peterson was McCafferty's 21-year-old shift supervisor at McDonald's,
and was often the most senior person on duty when McCafferty worked.
Peterson participated in McDonald's manager-in-training program,
assigned job duties, scheduled break time, and had authority to
authorize overtime and to send employees home when work was slow or
when an employee had engaged in misconduct. One day McCafferty agreed
to cover a shift for a coworker, and Peterson promised to pick her up
from school to give her a ride to work. But when Peterson picked up
McCafferty he told her that she did not have to report to work that
day; instead he drove her to his friend's home and then his own house,
where she alleged that he supplied her with drugs and alcohol and
repeatedly sexually assaulted her. McCafferty brought a sexual
harassment lawsuit, but the trial court dismissed her case on the
grounds that her employer could not be held liable for Peterson's
actions, since he was not a supervisor as defined in the Vance decision
because he did not have the power to hire, fire, or promote employees.
The appellate court then affirmed the lower court's dismissal on these
grounds.\25\
In March Senator Baldwin, Chairman Harkin, Representative Miller,
and Representative DeLauro introduced the Fair Employment Protection
Act, which addresses this loophole in the law.\26\ The bill would amend
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act and other Federal nondiscrimination
laws to restore strong protections from harassment by making clear that
employers can be vicariously liable for harassment by individuals with
the authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment actions or
with the authority to direct an employee's daily work activities. In
other words, workers who report to higher-ups without the authority to
hire and fire--and many of the employees making these reports will be
low-wage workers--would once again have an effective remedy if these
higher-ups abuse their power through harassment. Such robust protection
against sexual harassment is critical if women are to have a fair shot
to succeed in the workplace.
ii. women are penalized for pregnancy and for caregiving, leaving them
with lower wages and sometimes forcing them out of a job altogether
Despite women making up nearly half the labor force today, women
also still continue to shoulder a far larger share of caregiving
responsibilities than men, on average.\27\ And women continue to
experience sex discrimination at work because of employers' gender
stereotypes about the competence and commitment of women with
caregiving responsibilities. A recent study about the penalty that
women who are mothers face in the workplace illustrates this point. In
that study, employers recommended mothers for hire less often,
recommended lower starting salaries for them, and rated them as less
competent than non-mothers with nearly identical resumes.\28\ (In
contrast, fathers were recommended for hire more often, regarded as
more competent, and recommended for higher salaries than non-fathers.)
\29\ Indeed, motherhood accounts for a large proportion of the wage gap
between women and men. Women who work full-time, year-round are
typically paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male
counterparts.\30\ However, there is an even larger gap between parents:
among full-time, year-round workers, mothers earn only 69 percent what
fathers earn.\31\ Sociologists have documented a wage penalty of
approximately 4 to 15 percent per child, with low-wage workers
suffering the largest penalties.\32\ Discrimination against caregivers
based on gender stereotypes constitutes sex discrimination,\33\ and
enforcement of protections against this form of discrimination is
especially important for women in low-wage jobs.
Pregnant workers face particular burdens. Prior to the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), it was not uncommon for employers to
categorically exclude pregnant workers from particular jobs, particular
industries, or the workforce entirely. The PDA changed this forever by
providing that the right to be free of discrimination on the basis of
sex includes: (1) the right not to be treated adversely because of
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and (2) the right
for workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions to be treated as well as other employees not so affected who
are ``similar in their ability or inability to work.'' \34\
While these protections have been critical to women's advances in
the workforce, the latest data show that women continue to face
pregnancy discrimination on the job. In fact, between 1997 and 2011 the
number of pregnancy discrimination charges received by the EEOC and
State and local counterparts increased by nearly 50 percent.\35\ Today,
women are still being forced off the job because of pregnancy.
In particular, pregnant workers sometimes have a medical need for
temporary adjustments of job duties or work rules so that they can
continue to work safely and provide the income on which their families
depend. While many women will work through their pregnancies without
any need for accommodations, these adjustments are necessary for
others, especially in jobs that require running, lifting, long periods
of standing, or repetitive motions--physical activities that may pose
challenges to some women at some stages of pregnancy. However, too
often when pregnant workers ask even for modest accommodations
recommended by their medical provider, like the opportunity to sit on a
stool or drink water during a long shift, they are instead forced onto
unpaid leave, or even fired.\36\ Indeed, 35 years after the passage of
the PDA, employers continue to believe that they have no obligation to
provide reasonable accommodations to workers with limitations arising
out of pregnancy, even when they provide these accommodations to
workers with similar limitations arising out of disabilities or
injuries unrelated to pregnancy.\37\ One recent survey estimated that
more than a quarter of a million pregnant workers are denied their
requests for reasonable accommodations nationally every year.\38\
Amy Crosby's case illustrates this problem. She worked as a cleaner
in a hospital in Florida, cleaning 20 to 30 hospital rooms per shift
and lifting up to 50 pounds of trash and linens each day. After she
became pregnant, she started experiencing intense shooting pains in her
back and arms due to carpal tunnel syndrome exacerbated by her
pregnancy, and her OB-GYN advised that she not lift more than 20
pounds. But the hospital refused to accommodate her, because it said it
would only accommodate workers injured on the job or people with
disabilities and that she did not qualify under either of those
categories, since she was pregnant. Crosby knew of other cleaners in
her department who were accommodated when they had medical needs
unrelated to pregnancy, by being allowed to perform other tasks or
getting help with heavy lifting. But the hospital placed Crosby on 12
weeks of FMLA leave, which was due to run out more than a month before
her due date--and threatened to fire her if she did not return to work
without restrictions once this leave was up, even though she would be
in the middle of her last trimester.\39\
As this story shows, women working in low-wage jobs often work in
jobs that are physically demanding--for example, jobs in the retail
sector, in food service, in nursing assistance, or in housekeeping--and
are particularly likely to have a medical need for workplace
accommodations during pregnancy as a result. Yet these same sectors
often are marked by inflexible workplace cultures, which lead to
employers refusing to make accommodations as simple as providing a
stool to sit on or the right to drink water during a long shift.
Women of color and immigrant women make up a disproportionate share
of the workers in low-paying jobs that are also physically demanding.
For example, immigrant women make up just 7 percent of employed workers
but 45 percent of workers are employed as maids or housekeepers.\40\
Workers in these jobs are typically paid less than $10 an hour.\41\
Latinas make up only 7 percent of employed workers, but make up 26
percent of workers employed as hand packers and packagers \42\--jobs
that also pay only $10 per hour.\43\ These are jobs where workers can
spend the bulk of their days standing, walking, or moving and lifting
heavy objects \44\--which can be a challenge or pose a health risk for
some pregnant workers.
To address this problem, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission must follow through on its identification of pregnancy
accommodations as a strategic enforcement priority, and strengthen
enforcement of the PDA and the Americans with Disabilities Act, to
ensure pregnant workers receive the accommodations to which they are
entitled under current law. In addition, the Pregnant Workers Fairness
Act, introduced by Senator Casey, Senator Shaheen and Representative
Nadler, would provide a lifeline to pregnant workers.\45\ This bill
would make it unmistakably clear that workers who need changes in job
rules or duties because of physical limitations arising from pregnancy,
childbirth, or a related medical condition can get such reasonable
accommodations. In other words, the bill treats medical needs for
accommodation arising out of pregnancy or childbirth in the same way
that the Americans with Disabilities Act treats medical needs for
accommodation arising out of disability, requiring that employers
provide these accommodations if they can do so without undue
hardship.\46\
Low-wage jobs that are primarily held by women are also marked by
work scheduling policies and practices that pose particular challenges
for workers with significant responsibilities outside of their job,
including caregiving, pursuing education and workforce training, or
holding down a second job.\47\ The work schedules in these jobs are
often unpredictable, unstable and inflexible. For example, in some low-
wage sectors ``just-in-time'' scheduling practices, which base workers'
schedules on perceived consumer demand, often result in workers being
given very little advance notice of their work schedules\48\--a
practice that can make it nearly impossible to arrange child care, take
a second job, or enroll in post-secondary courses. Indeed, in the
retail sector workers report that they are routinely required to work
call-in shifts, which means they must call their employer to find out
whether they will be scheduled to work that day--and if they are told
to report to work, they often must do so within 2 hours.\49\ Many
workers in low-wage jobs experience unstable schedules with hours that
vary from week to week or month to month, or periodic reductions in
work hours when work is slow, leading to major fluctuations in income
that put workers and their families in financial jeopardy. And many of
these jobs require working nights, weekends or even overnight, or offer
only part-time work, despite many workers' need for full-time hours.
These challenging work schedules have a cascade of negative
consequences for both workers in low-wage jobs and their children. In
contrast, fairer work schedules benefit employees and employers alike.
Workers in low-wage jobs report that more job autonomy and involvement
in management decisionmaking led to less negative spillover from work
to their non-work life.\50\ Employees with flexible workplaces are less
stressed and have better physical and mental well-being.\51\ Less
negative spillover from work also leads to greater productivity and job
retention: lower-wage workers with flexibility are almost half as
likely as other workers to intend to leave their positions within 2
years.\52\ State and local governments have taken the lead in exploring
innovative solutions to some of the problems posed by abusive
scheduling practices, including requiring some minimum hours of pay for
workers who are called into a shift or premium pay for workers required
to work particularly challenging schedules. Some have also protected
workers' rights to request changes in their schedules at work, without
fear of retaliation--as would be protected through the Flexibility for
Working Families Act introduced by Senator Casey and Representative
Maloney.\53\ These State and local innovations suggest ways in which
Federal law could promote fairer work schedules, which is particularly
important for workers with caregiving responsibilities.
iii. women experience pay discrimination, even in the lowest paid jobs
The wage gap between women and men persists in nearly every
occupation, and affects women across the income spectrum.\54\ There are
a range of unfair factors that contribute to the wage gap including:
job segregation, and the fact that women-dominated jobs pay less than
male-dominated jobs; the lower pay that women who are mothers face, as
discussed above; and the fact that even when women are working in the
same jobs as men, they are often still paid less.\55\ The wage gap
exists even in the lowest paid fields. In the 10 largest low-wage
occupations, women working full-time were typically paid only 90.4
percent of what their male counterparts were paid each week--an average
wage gap of 9.6 cents for every dollar earned by men.\56\
Latoya Weaver is one woman who experienced pay discrimination
first-hand. She worked full-time as a Guest Services Representative at
a hotel in Maryland, ultimately making $8.88 an hour.
In 2012 she was offered another job that would pay more, but she
wanted to stay at the hotel so she asked for a raise to $9.50. Her
manager turned her down because she said that the hotel was undergoing
construction, so Weaver ended up taking the other job. During her time
at the hotel, employees were told that they were not supposed to
discuss their pay with each other. However, just before Weaver left the
hotel for her new job she saw some papers that her manager left sitting
out that showed that two men recently hired as Guest Services
Representatives were each making $10 an hour. As a single mother of
three children, being paid fairly would have made a huge difference to
Weaver, who struggled to pay $100 out-of-pocket each week for child
care. In order to finally get a job that would pay her more, she had to
travel 45 minutes from her home.
The Equal Pay Act (EPA), along with Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act, has helped to reduce pay discrimination, but the protection
offered by the EPA is weakened by court decisions that have opened
loopholes in the Act--including by allowing employers to escape
accountability for pay disparities even when they are not related to
business needs--and by the incomplete remedies the Act provides.\57\ In
addition, too often wage disparities go undetected and thus unremedied
because employers maintain policies that punish employees who
voluntarily sharelary information with their coworkers.\58\
The Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by Senator Mikulski and
Representative DeLauro, is a commonsense piece of legislation that
would strengthen the EPA in a number of important ways by making it
easier to identify and remedy discriminatory pay decisions, closing
loopholes in the law, and providing incentives for employers to
voluntarily comply with the law.\59\ For example, the bill would
prohibit retaliation against employees for discussing their pay; bring
the remedies for equal pay violations in line with those available for
other pay discrimination based on race or ethnicity by allowing
plaintiffs who win their equal pay cases to recover compensatory and
punitive damages; and tighten the defenses available to employers by
requiring employers to provide a business justification for paying
unequal wages.\60\
The Fair Pay Act, introduced by Chairman Harkin and Representative
Holmes Norton, would address the devaluation of women's work simply
because it is done by women.\61\ The bill would ensure that female-
dominated jobs receive the same pay as male-dominated jobs that require
equivalent skill level, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlined a fundamental
promise--a promise that a woman's sex or race or ethnicity would no
longer prevent her from having access to any opportunity in the
workplace. Yet, the sort of biases that underlie all of these
discriminatory practices that I've described today, and more, are
really rooted in outmoded stereotypes about women. For example, the
stereotype that women are not breadwinners and that families do not
rely on women's income and women therefore do not need higher pay often
underlies employer decisions to pay men more than women and to offer
career-track, family-supporting jobs to men only. Women are also
regularly confronted by the idea that women working particular jobs
should just put up with harassment as a part of the job, and the idea
that women cannot be productive workers and take care of their families
at the same time. It is clear that a serious effort is still required
to fulfill that promise and address the many remaining barriers to
women's economic equality, especially for those in the lowest paid
jobs.
References
1. See National Partnership for Women & Families, The Pregnancy
Discrimination Act: Where We Stand 30 Years Later Chart A (Oct. 2008),
available at http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/
Pregnancy_Discrimination_
Act_here_We_Stand_30_Years_L.pdf?docID=4281.
2. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, et al., Tipped Over the
Edge: Gender Inequity in the Restaurant Industry 23 (Feb. 2012),
available at http://rocunited.org/tipped-over-the-edge-gender-inequity-
in-the-restaurant-industry/.
3. E-mail from Indu Kundra, Senior Program Analyst, Program
Planning and Analysis Division, Office of Research, Information and
Planning, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to Lauren
Khouri, Fellow, National Women's Law Center (Feb. 27, 2014) (on file
with the National Women's Law Center).
4. Id.; E-mail from Indu Kundra, Senior Program Analyst, Program
Planning and Analysis Division, Office of Research, Information and
Planning, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to Lauren
Khouri, Fellow, National Women's Law Center (March 3, 2014) (on file
with the National Women's Law Center).
5. ABC News & Washington Post, One in Four U.S. Women Reports
Workplace Harassment (Nov. 16, 2011), available at http://
www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1130a2WorkplaceHarassment.pdf.
6. Not only does sexual harassment make working conditions for
women in low-wage jobs extremely difficult, it also operates to keep
women from moving into higher-paying traditionally male fields. Sexual
harassment plays a major contributing role in the persistence of
occupational segregation between men and women. See, e.g., Burlington
N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 58 (2006). This
occupational segregation in turn plays a significant role in women's
predominance in low-wage jobs, discussed further below.
7. Nancy Krieger, et al., Social Hazards on the Job: Workplace
Abuse, Sexual Harassment, and Racial Discrimination, 36 Int'l J. Health
Services 51, 67 (2006).
8. Id.
9. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, supra note 2, at 23.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Rebecca Clarren, The Green Motel, Ms. Magazine, Summer 2005,
available at http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/greenmotel.asp.
13. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 763-65
(1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 802-7 (1998). See
also Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 754-55 (applying the principles of agency law
to title VII employer liability).
14. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 763-65; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 801-7. See
also U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Notice No. 915.002,
Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors (1999), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/
policy/docs/harassment.html.
15. 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013).
16. Brief for the Petitioner at 6-10, Vance v. Ball State Univ.,
133 S.Ct. 2434 (2013) (No. 11-556).
17. 133 S. Ct. at 2454.
18. Id. at 2443, 2448.
19. Id. at 2448.
20. See National Women's Law Center, Reality Check: Seventeen
Million Reasons Low-Wage Workers Need Strong Protections from
Harassment (2014), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/
files/pdfs/final_nwlc_
vancereport2014.pdf.
21. Id. at 8.
22. Id. at 5-6.
23. Id.
24. Stephanie Bornstein, Work, Family, and Discrimination at the
Bottom of the Ladder, 19 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 1, 8-11 (2012).
25. McCafferty v. Preiss Enterprises, Inc., 534 F. App'x 726 (10th
Cir. 2013)
26. Fair Employment Protection Act, S. 2133, H.R. 4227, 113th Cong.
(2014).
27. National Women's Law Center, 50 Years & Counting: The
Unfinished Business of Achieving Fair Pay 14, 9 (2013), available at
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
final_nwlc_equal_pay_report.pdf.
28. Shelley J. Correll, Stephan Benard, & In Paik, Getting a Job:
Is There a Motherhood Penalty?, 112 Am. J. Soc 1297, 1315-17 (2007),
available at http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/
motherhoodpenalty_0.pdf.
29. Id.
30. National Women's Law Center, The Wage Gap Over Time (Oct.
2013), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
wage_gap_over_time
_overall.pdf.
31. Half in Ten And National Women's Law Center, Half in Ten Report
2014--Poverty and Opportunity Profile: Mothers (2014), available at
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers-poverty-
opportunity-profile.pdf.
32. Michelle Budig, Parenthood exacerbates the gender pay gap, The
Hill Congress Blog, Sept. 30, 2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-
blog/economy-a-budget/121869-parenthood-exacerbates-the-gender-pay-gap.
33. See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Enforcement
Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving
Responsibilities (2007), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/
caregiving .html.
34. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k).
35. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pregnancy
Discrimination Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: fiscal year 19k97-fiscal
year 2011, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/
pregnancy.cfm.
36. For stories of women pushed out of work because they were
denied the temporary accommodations that they sought during pregnancy,
see generally National Women's Law Center and a Better Balance, It
Shouldn't Be a Heavy Lift: Fair Treatment For Pregnant Workers (2013),
available at http://www.nwlc
.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pregnant_workers.pdf.
37. Id.
38. National Partnership for Women & Families, Listening to
Mothers: The Experience of Expecting and New Mothers in the Workplace 3
(Jan. 2014), available at http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-
library/workplace-fairness/pregnancy-discrimination/listening-to-
mothers-experiences-of-expecting-and-new-mothers.pdf.
39. See It Shouldn't Be a Heavy Lift, supra note 36, at 8.
40. National Women's Law Center calculations based on Integrated
Public Use Microdata--American Community Survey (IPUMS-USA), 2010-12
multi-year ACS (three-year estimates), Minnesota Population Center,
University of Minnesota, https://usa.ipums.org/usa/index.shtml (last
visited Mar. 24, 2014).
41. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics,
May 2013 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United
States (2014), available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes_nat.htm#00-0000. Maids and housekeeping cleaners had a median
hourly wage of $9.51 in 2013.
42. National Women's Law Center calculations based on Integrated
Public Use Microdata--American Community Survey (IPUMS-USA), 2010-12
multi-year ACS (three-year estimates), Minnesota Population Center,
University of Minnesota, https://usa.ipums.org/usa/index.shtml (last
visited Mar. 24, 2014).
43. Bureau of Labor Statistics, supra note 41. Hand packers and
packagers had a median hourly wage of $9.60 in 2013.
44. See, e.g., O*NET OnLine, Details Report for: 37-2012.00--Maids
and Housekeeping Cleaners, http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/37-
2012.00 (last visited May 16, 2014); O*NET OnLine, Details Report for:
53-7064.00--Packers and Packagers, Hand, http://www.onetonline.org/
link/details/53-7064.00 (last visited May 16, 2014).
45. Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, S. 942, H.R. 1975, 113th Cong.
(2013).
46. See National Women's Law Center, The Pregnant Workers Fairness
Act: Making Room for Pregnancy on the Job (May 2012), available at
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-making-room-
pregnancy-job.
47. See, e.g., Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Third
Shift: Child Care Needs and Access for Low-Wage Working Mothers in
Restaurants 1-2 (July 2013), available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/
161943672/The-Third-Shift-Child-Care-Needs-and-Access-for-Working-
Mothers-in-Restaurants.
48. See generally Nancy C. Cauthen, Demos, Scheduling Hourly Works:
How Last Minute, Just-in-Time Scheduling Practices are Bad for Workers,
Families and Business (2011), available at http://www.demo.org/sites/
default/files/publications/Scheduling_Hourly_Workers_Demos.pdf.
49. Stephanie Luce & Naoki Fujita, Retail Action Project,
Discounted Jobs: How Retailers Sell Workers Short 13 (2012), available
at http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/7-
75_RAP+cover_lowres.pdf.
50. James T. Bond & Ellen Galinsky, How Can Employers Increase the
Productivity and Retention of Entry-Level, Hourly Employees?, Families
and Work Institute 12 (Nov. 2006), available at http://
familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/brief2.pdf; see also Ellen
Galinsky, James T. Bond & Eve Tahmincioglu, What if Employers Put Women
at the Center of Their Workplace Policies? When Businesses Design
Workplaces that Support their Employees, Both the Businesses and the
Employees Benefit, in The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Pushes Back
from the Brink (Olivia Morgan & Karen Shelton eds., 2014) (``Overall,
55 percent of low-
income mothers surveyed said it would be ``extremely important'' to
``have the flexibility I need to manage my work and personal or family
life. . . . No one surveyed said it was `not important.' '').
51. Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College, Why Employees
Need Workplace Flexibility, http://workplaceflexibility.bc.edu/need/
need_employees (citing sources).
52. WFD Consulting, Corporate Voices for Working Families,
Innovative Workplace Flexibility Options for Hourly Workers 94-5 (Oct.
2006), available at http://www.wfd.com/PDFS/
Innovative_Workplace_Flexibility_Options_
for_Hourly_Workers.pdf.
53. Flexibility for Working Families Act, S. 1248, H.R. 2559, 113th
Cong. (2013).
54. See 50 Years & Counting, supra note 27, at 1.
55. Id. at 4-9.
56. Joan Entmacher, Katherine Gallagher Robbins, & Lauren Frolich,
National Women's Law Center, Women are 76 Percent of Workers in the 10
Largest Low-Wage Jobs and Suffer a 10-Percent Wage Gap (Mar. 2014),
available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
women_are_76_percent_
of_workers_in_the_10_largest_low-wage_jobs_and_suffer_a_10_percent_
wage_gap.pdf.
57. See National Women's Law Center, Paycheck Fairness: Closing the
``Factor Other Than Sex'' Gap in the Equal Pay Act (May 2012),
available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
factorotherthan_sexfactsheet_5.29
.12_final.pdf.
58. See National Women's Law Center, Combating Punitive Pay Secrecy
Policies (Apr. 2012), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/
files/pdfs/paysecrecyfactsheet.pdf.
59. Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 84, H.R. 377, 113th Cong. (2013).
60. National Women's Law Center, How The Paycheck Fairness Act Will
Strengthen the Equal Pay Act (2012), available at http://www.nwlc.org/
resource/how-paycheck-fairness-act-will-strengthen-equal-pay-act.
61. Fair Pay Act, S. 168, H.R. 438, 113th Cong (2013).
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Legros, please tell us your story.
STATEMENT OF ARMANDA LEGROS, LOW-WAGE WORKER, JAMAICA ESTATES,
NY
Ms. Legros. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Armanda
Legros. I live in Queens, NY, with my two young boys. It's just
them and me, and I am the sole breadwinner for our family.
I worked for an armored truck company on Long Island for 2
years before I was pushed out of my job. I was 6\1/2\ months
pregnant when I pulled a muscle in my stomach doing some heavy
lifting at work. My doctor told me to avoid heavy lifting so I
wouldn't hurt myself again. He was also concerned because I had
a miscarriage a few months earlier. My manager took one look at
the note and sent me home without pay, indefinitely.
The result was devastating. Having a child shouldn't mean
losing your job. It should not lead to fear and financial dire
straits. But the experience of having my son, without a
paycheck, was one of the hardest for my family. I had no choice
but to apply for public assistance.
When I was 8\1/2\ months pregnant, my health insurance was
cutoff. Once my baby arrived, just putting food on the table
for him and my 4-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to use
water in his cereal at times because I could not afford milk. I
was scared every time I looked in my empty fridge.
I'm doing my best to get back on my feet, but it's been
really hard. I recently started a new job, but they only give
me 17 to 18 hours per week and no benefits. I have to wait 6
months to be considered for full-time. I used to have some
security in my job. I used to be able to support my family and
myself. Now I worry what will happen if I get sick or my kids
get sick. We simply can't afford it.
The lawyers at A Better Balance are working to defend and
advance my legal rights. They have also inspired me to use my
voice to seek fairness and justice for all women. That's why
I'm here today. I implore you to stand up for women like me so
we have an equal shot in the workplace.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would help keep women
healthy and earning a paycheck when they need it the most. And
the workers in this country need paid sick days, family leave
to care for a new child or a seriously ill family member. If
you truly value families and children, then you have to make
sure that the women who bear those children and raise them can
earn the fair and equal wages we need to support them.
Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for listening.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Legros follows:]
Prepared Statement of Armanda Legros
My name is Armanda Legros. I live in Queens, NY, with my two boys,
Aveyl (age 4) and Ayden (16 months). It's just them and me--I am the
sole breadwinner for our family.
I worked for an armored truck company on Long Island for 2 years
before I was pushed out of my job. I was 6\1/2\ months pregnant when I
pulled a muscle in my stomach doing some heavy lifting at work and had
to miss the rest of the week recovering. My doctor told me to avoid
heavy lifting so I wouldn't hurt myself again, and gave me a note to
bring into work. My manager took one look at the note and sent me home
without pay, indefinitely. He said I could only work if I had no
restrictions--company policy. I knew this wasn't true: they had
accommodated my co-worker who had injured his back on-the-job. The
result was devastating.
Having a child shouldn't mean losing your job. It should not lead
to fear and financial dire straits. But the experience of having my
son--without a paycheck--was one of the hardest for my family.
I tried to get another job, but I was showing and could tell from
the interviews that no one was going to hire me. I had to go 7 months
without pay when I needed that income more than ever. My credit score
dropped and I almost lost my apartment when I fell behind on rent
payments. Even when I applied for emergency rental assistance, I didn't
qualify because I didn't have any income coming in. My employer fought
my unemployment benefits, and when they did finally arrive, it was
still only a fraction of my original salary. I had no choice but to
apply for public assistance. The experience was so draining. I almost
fainted after waiting in line for hours. I actually fell to the ground.
Thankfully, the stranger behind me was kind enough to help me up. I was
desperate to leave but dreaded the thought of going back.
When I was 8\1/2\ months pregnant, my health insurance was cutoff.
I couldn't afford the COBRA payments and had to apply for Medicaid for
my prenatal care. Once my baby arrived, just putting food on the table
for him and my 4-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to use water in
his cereal at times because I could not afford milk.
I was scared every time I looked in my empty fridge.
I'm doing my best to get back on my feet, but it's been really
hard. I had to apply for Medicaid for my kids, and have relied on food
stamps to help feed my family. I started a new job in February but they
only give me 17-18 hours of work per week, about $260/week. As a part-
time worker, I don't get any benefits. And since I work in Nassau
County, the New York City Paid Sick Time law does not protect me. If I
got pregnant again and needed a modest accommodation to maintain a
healthy pregnancy or recover from childbirth, the New York City
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act wouldn't help me either. I have to wait 6
months to be eligible for a full-time position at my new job, which
means it will be August 2015, at the earliest, before I could be
entitled to Family and Medical Leave.
I used to have some security in my job. I used to be able to
support my family and myself. Now I worry what happens if I get sick or
my kids get sick. We simply can't afford it. I can't even afford
childcare for both of my kids--care for them costs an entire month's
paycheck.
I hate knowing this happens to other women in New York and all over
the country, but I know it does. All the time. The lawyers at A Better
Balance are working to defend and advance my legal rights--I shouldn't
have been pushed out of my job for being pregnant and trying to do
right by my family. They've also inspired me to use my voice to seek
fairness and justice for all women--both in New York and nationwide.
That's why I'm here today.
I implore you to stand up for women like me so we have an equal
shot in the workplace. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure
that no expecting mother in America has to choose between her job and a
healthy pregnancy. And workers in this country need paid sick days and
family leave to care for a new child or seriously ill family member. If
you truly value families, and children, then you have to make sure that
the women who bear those children and raise them can earn the fair and
equal wages we need to support them.
Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for listening.
The Chairman. Thank you for being here and telling us your
story. We've got a lot of experts here today. You're the best
expert.
Ms. Traub, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF AMY TRAUB, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, DEMOS, NEW YORK,
NY
Ms. Traub. Thank you for the opportunity to participate
today on behalf of Demos. Demos is a nonpartisan public policy
organization working for an America where we all have an equal
say in our democracy and an equal chance in our economy, and
economic security for women is an essential part of an economy
where we all have an equal chance.
My testimony is going to focus on women in the retail
industry, a major sector of the American economy and one that's
projected to add more than a million jobs by 2022. I believe
the experience of women working in retail illuminates many of
the broader challenges facing women trying to earn a living
throughout our economy.
Currently, 7.2 million American women work in the retail
industry, and retail salesperson is the most common occupation
in the country today. Yet the typical woman working this job
earns just $10.58 an hour, a wage that keeps a family of three
near poverty, even if the employee is able to secure enough
hours for full-time work.
Erratic schedules, a lack of sufficient work hours, and a
scarcity of basic benefits like paid sick days contribute to
making hourly retail jobs insecure for American women, with
serious consequences for their families and for our Nation as a
whole. The reality is that women, who make up about half of the
retail workforce, are disproportionately represented among low-
wage retail workers and among retail's working poor.
At the same time, women still assume the majority of family
caregiving responsibilities, meaning that it's
disproportionately female retail employees who juggle care for
children and other family members with the unpredictable and
unstable work schedules that prevail for hourly workers in this
industry.
I would like to say a few words about scheduling, in
particular, because I think it's an under-appreciated problem.
In an effort to optimize labor costs, retail employers
increasingly use scheduling software to match workers' hours to
the projected need for labor that day or even that hour. This
just-in-time scheduling practice can have a highly detrimental
impact on workers' lives.
Without a stable and predictable work schedule, incomes
fluctuate and workers can't budget effectively. Ever shifting
schedules mean working mothers can't plan childcare
arrangements in advance. Efforts to move into a better paying
job might also be blocked since pursuing education or training
is more difficult with an ever-changing work schedule.
Attempts to take a second job to make up for inadequate
income in the first job are similarly problematic. In fact,
unstable and unpredictable schedules deprive working women of
both income and opportunities to rise up.
There's good news, which is that the retail industry, like
the rest of our economy, does not have to pay low wages and
offer unstable schedules. For example, successful retail chains
that we're all familiar with, like Trader Joe's Supermarkets
and Costco Wholesale Clubs, invest in their workforce, provide
stable schedules, and also offer low prices and solid business
performance.
But, historically, we know that widespread change hasn't
come mostly from voluntary actions like this from employers.
Legislation raising the minimum wage, promoting equal pay,
guaranteeing paid sick time and paid family leave, and
strengthening women's right to band together and form unions is
going to be critical to improving women's economic security in
the retail industry and really beyond as well.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Traub follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amy Traub
summary
My testimony will focus on women in the retail industry, a major
sector of the American economy, and one that is projected to add more
than a million new jobs by 2022.\1\ Retail is one of the top industries
employing women, and I believe that the experience of women working in
retail illuminates many of the broader challenges facing women trying
to earn a living throughout our economy.
Currently 7.2 million American women work in the retail
industry.\2\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, retail
salesperson is the most common occupation in the country today.\3\ Yet
the typical woman working in this job earns just $10.58 an hour: a wage
that keeps a family of three near poverty, even if the employee is able
to secure enough hours for full-time work.\4\ Erratic schedules, a lack
of sufficient work hours, and the scarcity of basic benefits like paid
sick days contribute to making hourly retail jobs--not just for
salespeople, but for cashiers, stockers, and other front-line
positions--insecure jobs for American women, with serious consequences
for their families and our Nation as a whole.
In many cases, hourly retail jobs are insecure positions for men in
the retail industry as well, but the reality is that women, who make up
about half of the retail workforce are disproportionately represented
among low-wage retail workers and among retail's working poor. It's
also the case that in retail--as in other sectors--a substantial wage
gap persists between male and female workers doing the same job: the
typical female salesperson, for example, is paid $4 less per hour than
her male counterpart. Overall in sales and related occupations, women
must work the equivalent of 103 days longer every year than their male
co-workers doing the same job in order to bring home the same
paycheck.\5\ At the same time, women still assume the majority of
family care-giving responsibilities, meaning that it is
disproportionately female retail employees who must juggle care for
children and other family members with the rigid, unpredictable, and
unstable work schedules (often with insufficient hours) that prevail
for hourly workers in the retail industry. In turn, these rigid and
unstable work schedules also impose extensive social costs on the
Nation in terms of poverty, public health, child well-being, and
educational opportunities and outcomes for retail workers and their
families. Low wages impose public costs as well, because families often
must rely on public benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid, to
supplement women's income from retail jobs. In effect, taxpayers are
subsidizing the labor costs of the Nation's largest and most profitable
retailers.
The retail industry does not have to pay low wages and offer
unstable schedules. For example, successful retail chains like
QuickTrip convenience stores, Trader Joe's Supermarkets, and Costco
wholesale clubs invest in their workforce while also offering low
prices and solid business performance.
The recent decision by The Gap to significantly raise pay for its
65,000 U.S. retail employees \6\ illustrates how a company can shift
its business model to improve compensation. Even more striking are the
steps recently taken by the Nation's largest retailer, Walmart, which
recently improved scheduling and treatment of pregnant workers after
years of organizing and strikes by its employees, as well as a lawsuit
and shareholder resolution relating to conditions for pregnant
workers.\7\ The changed business strategies at these two major
companies in the last year illustrate a growing recognition of the
inadequacy of retail jobs and the potential for retailers to improve
employment conditions when pushed by workers and political leaders.
Women working in retail are consistently the biggest beneficiaries.
______
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the HELP
Committee: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak to you about
economic security for working women, particularly the experience of
women in the retail industry. My name is Amy Traub and I am a senior
policy analyst at Demos. Demos is a non-partisan public policy
organization working for an America where we all have an equal say in
our democracy and an equal chance in our economy. Economic security for
women--who make up half of America's workforce and contribute to the
incomes of a majority of American households--is an essential part of
an economy where we all have an equal chance.
My testimony this afternoon will focus on women in the retail
industry, a major sector of the American economy, and one that is
projected to add more than a million new jobs by 2022.\8\ Retail is one
of the top industries employing women, and I believe that the
experience of women working in retail illuminates many of the broader
challenges facing women trying to earn a living throughout our economy.
Currently 7.2 million American women work in the retail
industry.\9\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, retail
salesperson is the most common occupation in the country today.\10\ Yet
the typical woman working in this job earns just $10.58 an hour: a wage
that keeps a family of three near poverty, even if the employee is able
to secure enough hours for full-time work.\11\ Erratic schedules, a
lack of sufficient work hours, and the scarcity of basic benefits like
paid sick days contribute to making hourly retail jobs--not just for
salespeople, but for cashiers, stockers, and other front-line
positions--insecure jobs for American women, with serious consequences
for their families and our Nation as a whole.
In many cases, hourly retail jobs are insecure positions for men in
the retail industry as well, but the reality is that women, who make up
about half of the retail workforce (48.7 percent) are
disproportionately represented among low-wage retail workers and among
retail's working poor. It's also the case that in retail--as in other
sectors--a substantial wage gap persists between male and female
workers doing the same job: the typical female salesperson, for
example, is paid $4 less per hour than her male counterpart. Overall in
sales and related occupations, women must work the equivalent of 103
days longer every year than their male co-workers doing the same job in
order to bring home the same paycheck. At the same time, women still
assume the majority of family care-giving responsibilities, meaning
that it is disproportionately female retail employees who must juggle
care for children, ill family members, and elderly parents with the
rigid, unpredictable, and unstable work schedules (often with
insufficient hours) that prevail for hourly workers in the retail
industry. In turn, these rigid and unstable work schedules also impose
extensive social costs on the Nation in terms of poverty, public
health, child well-being, and educational opportunities and outcomes
for retail workers and their families. Low wages impose public costs as
well, because families often must rely on public benefits, such as food
stamps and Medicaid, to supplement women's income from retail jobs. In
effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the labor costs of the Nation's
largest and most profitable retailers.
The retail industry does not have to pay low wages and offer
unstable schedules. Before I go into detail about the challenges facing
women in low-paid retail jobs, I want to highlight some bright spots:
cases where retail offers jobs that advance the economic security of
working women. For example, retail expert Zeynap Ton notes in the
Harvard Business Review, ``highly successful retail chains--such as
QuickTrip convenience stores, Mercadona and Trader Joe's Supermarkets,
and Costco wholesale clubs--not only invest heavily in store employees
but also have the lowest prices in their industries, solid financial
performance, and better customer service than their competitors.'' \12\
The recent decision by The Gap to significantly raise pay for its
65,000 U.S. retail employees \13\ illustrates how even companies with a
history of paying low wages can shift their business model to improve
compensation. Even more striking are the steps recently taken by the
Nation's largest retailer--Walmart--to upgrade its scheduling practices
for hourly workers and improve its treatment of pregnant employees.
Walmart improved scheduling and treatment of pregnant workers after
years of organizing and strikes by its employees, as well as a lawsuit
and shareholder resolution relating to conditions for pregnant
workers.\14\ While neither The Gap nor Walmart have taken sufficient
steps to offer adequately paid, sustainable jobs to the workers who
make their stores profitable, their changed business strategies in the
last year illustrate both a growing recognition of the inadequacy of
retail jobs and the potential for retailers to improve employment
conditions.
My testimony explores the challenges to women's economic security
in the retail industry in terms of wages and schedules; the public
costs of the lack of economic security for women in the retail
industry; and a discussion of the benefits of raising wages and
improving schedules for women in the retail industry, including
benefits for retailers themselves.
challenges to women's economic security in the retail industry
Poverty wages for women in retail
5.5 million American women were classified as working poor in 2012,
and millions more live just over the poverty level.\15\ The retail
industry is one of their leading employers, with 571,000 working poor
women--one in every 10 working poor women in the Nation--employed in
retail. 1.3 million women working in retail lives in poverty or near
poverty (defined as within 150 percent of the poverty line). And with
substantial job growth projected for the industry in the coming years,
the Nation can expect hundreds of thousands retail jobs that pay wages
too low to support a family if wages do not rise.
Retail jobs are a critical source of income for the families of
women working in this sector. Approximately 93 percent of women working
year-round in the retail industry are ages 20 and above, not teens
looking for extra spending money, while 36 percent of them are raising
children. Whatever the household composition, retail wages provide for
household necessities. Four out of ten (39.5 percent) of women workers
in retail contribute at least half of their family's total income. A
large number of them--more than one in five--are the sole earner of
their household. The lowest paid women in retail are even more likely
to be supporting their households single-handedly.
The gender pay gap in retail is another major concern: in sales and
related occupations, the typical woman is paid just 72 cents for every
dollar made by the typical man. The impact of that pay gap reverberates
beyond individual households to the larger economy: in 2012, lost wages
to women mounted to an estimated $40.8 billion, with steep costs for
female retail workers, their families, and the economy as a whole.
Scheduling problems for women in retail
Retail employees trying to work their way out of poverty face an
obstacle that goes beyond low wages: the lack of sufficient work hours
and predictable, stable schedules. If retail workers cannot secure
enough hours of work each week, higher wages will not be sufficient to
provide a decent standard of living and will fail to lift families out
of poverty. In 2012, nearly 1 in every 5 women employed in low-wage
retail jobs worked part-time hours despite wanting a full-time
position. Some, although officially working as full-time employees,
were simply not scheduled to work full hours every week, cutting into
their incomes. These findings are consistent with the results of the
CitiSales Study, a 2006 survey of more than 6,000 predominantly female
employees of a large retail firm which found that 33 percent of full-
time retail employees, and 43 percent of part-time employees would like
to work more hours.\16\ Our analysis of Census data suggests scarcity
of work hours was not limited to small retailers with few workers on
the payroll: among workers at the largest retail firms--which might
seem to have greater resources to offer sufficient hours to employees
eager for more work--the percentage of involuntary part-time workers
was even higher than at smaller companies.
The problem of inadequate and unstable hours in retail is not
limited to workers officially classified as involuntary part-timers:
many women trying to balance their jobs with educational pursuits,
family responsibilities, additional employment, or other commitments
choose to work only part time. Yet rigid, unpredictable, and unstable
work schedules threaten the economic stability of full and part-timers
alike. Demos' 2011 report, ``Scheduling Hourly Workers,'' documented
the rise of just-in-time scheduling practices in retail and other
service industries.\17\ In an effort to optimize their labor costs,
employers use scheduling software and measures of consumer demand such
as floor traffic, sales volume, or weather conditions to match workers'
hours to the projected need for labor on a daily or even hourly basis.
The Retail Action Project's 2012 survey of New York City retail
employees is one of the best sources of data on this growing industry
practice.\18\ According to the survey, only 17 percent of New York
retail workers--and 10 percent of part-timers--had a fixed work
schedule. For others, hours varied week to week or month to month, with
70 percent of workers reporting that they were notified of their
schedule just a week in advance.
Without a stable and predictable work schedule, incomes fluctuate
and workers cannot budget effectively. At the same time, low-income
workers may lose eligibility for public benefits that supplement their
incomes if they do not work the required amount of hours. Ever-shifting
schedules mean working mothers cannot plan child care arrangements--
meaning they may lose the opportunity to work a much-needed shift (or
the job itself) if they cannot arrange last-minute child care. Efforts
to move into a better-paying job may also be stymied, as pursuing
education or training opportunities is made more difficult, if not
impossible, by ever-changing work schedules. Attempts to take a second
job to make up for inadequate income in the first are similarly
unfeasible. In effect, unstable and unpredictable schedules deprive
women in retail of both income and opportunities to rise up.
The rigidity of retail schedules poses a related problem. If
workers are scheduled for a shift they cannot work, they may face
disciplinary measures and a loss of income. The problem is exacerbated
by the lack of paid leave, including time off for the inevitable
illness. Less than half of workers at retail trade establishments are
provided with any paid sick days \19\ and it is disproportionately low-
paid workers that lack this benefit. In a 2013 survey of low-wage
workers in a range of industries, 14 percent of workers overall, and 19
percent of working mothers, reported having lost a job because they got
sick or stayed home to care for child or parent.\20\ For women, who
still disproportionately assume the majority of family caregiving
responsibilities, a lack of paid sick time and paid family leave pose
particularly serious risks of income loss and job loss.
public costs of the lack of economic security for women
in the retail industry
Taxpayers subsidize retailers' payroll
Retail's most obvious public cost stems from large retailers paying
their employees so little that workers and their families must rely on
publicly funded benefits, such as food stamps, Medicaid, and the Earned
Income Tax Credit, to make ends meet. With women employed by large
retailers more likely to be in low-wage jobs and more likely to be
raising families, this is a key issue for women in the industry.\21\ A
recent study by Americans for Tax Fairness estimates that the Nation's
largest retail employer, Walmart, receives $6.2 billion annually in
taxpayer subsidies in the form of benefits that supplement its low
wages.\22\ The research builds on a congressional study finding that
employees at a single Walmart supercenter in Wisconsin rely on $904,542
to $1,744,590 per year in public benefits because Walmart does not pay
enough to support a family.\23\ While other retailers have not been
analyzed as systematically, a review of State-level studies by Good
Jobs First found that Walmart routinely leads the list of corporations
whose payroll costs are subsidized by taxpayers, followed by other
large retailers such as Target, Kroger, and Home Depot, as well as fast
food companies, nursing homes, and meat processors.\24\ Absent a wage
increase or other policy change, the taxpayer bill for subsidizing the
labor costs of the Nation's largest and most profitable retailers will
continue to increase as the low-paid retail workforce grows.
The public health costs of low wages and rigid, unstable schedules in
retail
A growing body of research illustrates how low wages and unstable
schedules contribute to public health crises such as the obesity
epidemic that impose steep public costs.\25\ Special concerns arise for
female workers when they are pregnant or their children are young. For
example, pregnant employees may be unable to safely carry out typical
retail tasks such a climbing ladders to bring down merchandise, lifting
heavy boxes, using harsh cleaning chemicals, or even standing on their
feet for prolonged periods. Yet as a recent lawsuit and shareholder
resolution at Walmart vividly illustrated, some retailers refuse to
accommodate pregnant workers with light duty, potentially imperiling
their pregnancy, or pushing them to take unpaid leave they cannot
afford.\26\ The lack of paid maternity leave is a related problem. Just
5 percent of workers in retail trade establishments are offered paid
leave to care for a new baby,\27\ increasing the financial pressure on
low-income mothers to return to work very soon after birth. This too
has a public health consequence, as short leaves at pregnancy are
associated with higher rates of infant mortality, lower birth weight
babies, and shorter duration of breast feeding.\28\
As children grow up, last-minute unpredictable work schedules make
it difficult to set up doctor's appointments. As noted earlier, less
than half of workers in retail have access to paid sick days,
increasing parents' risk missing regular infant and childhood medical
check-ups and immunizations. Because mothers are more likely to be the
parent taking their children to the doctor, female workers and their
families are disproportionately affected. The lack of paid sick days
also increases the risk that retail workers will go to work (and their
children will go to school or daycare) while sick, potentially
spreading the flu or other communicable diseases to customers and
contributing to outbreaks. If large retailers shifted to offer paid
sick days and more stable schedules, they could contribute to
significant public savings: the Institute for Women's Policy Research
calculates that 1.3 million hospital emergency department visits could
be prevented in the United States each year if businesses of all kinds
provided paid sick days to workers who currently lack access, reducing
medical costs by $1.1 billion annually, with over $500 million in
savings for public health insurance programs.\29\
Low wages and unstable schedules in retail block opportunity for the
next generation
Beyond public health, the unpredictable and inflexible schedules
associated with retail and other low-wage work hinder parents from
participating in their children's education and development,
constraining opportunity for the next generation of Americans and
entrenching economic inequality. No matter how much they want to, women
working the unstable schedules common in the retail industry may not be
regularly available to help children with homework, attend parent-
teacher conferences or other school events, or otherwise have sustained
involvement in their child's education. Indeed, an analysis of the
American Time Use Survey finds that low-wage women working non-standard
schedules spend less time with their families--particularly with
school-age children--than those working standard schedules.\30\ The
study also notes that retail is among the top industries employing
workers with non-standard schedules, defined as work before 6 a.m. or
after 6 p.m. or on the weekends. Researchers at New York University
examined the consequences of this time deficit, finding that low-income
parents working changing shifts at non-standard hours were more likely
to have children with behavior problems at school and lower school
performance as reported by teachers.\31\
Retail's low wages are also an impediment to opportunity for
children, with potentially devastating consequences for their future
life chances. Children of low-income parents are seven times more
likely to drop out of school than are higher income youth \32\ and are
far more likely to become parents in their teen years.\33\ Young people
whose parents hold low-wage jobs are more likely to become
``disconnected youth'' in their post-high school years, neither working
nor pursuing education or training.\34\ Considering the tremendous
societal loss, researchers at the University of Massachusetts note,
``the effects of non-high school completion are profound . . . lifelong
income loss, diminished health, and more likely reliance on publicly
funded services results in considerable societal expense. Yet,
arguably, the greatest cost to society is the loss of talents,
abilities, and affiliation of millions of young people.'' \35\
And yet, a different path is possible. Based on his studies of low-
income working parents in Milwaukee, Harvard professor Hirokazu
Yoshikawa observes that ``a work trajectory that's characterized by
full-time work with wage growth over the period of the 2-years resulted
in increases in children's school performance and reductions in their
acting out behaviors . . . positive work experiences that result in
increases in income over time . . . can help actually improve
children's school success.'' \36\ By investing in stable careers for
the women working in its stores, the retail industry can make a
positive difference for the next generation.
Low wages and unstable schedules in retail combine with high pay at the
top to fuel inequality
The United States has seen a highly unbalanced economic recovery,
with the Nation's highest earners pocketing nearly all of the economic
growth since the Great Recession, and the top 10 percent taking home
their greatest share of income in recorded history.\37\ This growing
concentration of income at the top, combined with a wave of strikes and
protests by low-wage workers--including retail workers employed by
Walmart--has brought renewed attention to the corrosive effects of
inequality. And retail is among the most unequal sectors of the
economy.
In 2012, CEOs in the retail industry earned 304 times the annual
income of the average retail worker--among the highest CEO-to-worker
ratios of any sector in the economy in any year since 2000.\38\ Over
the years between 2000 and 2012, the only economic sector with greater
average pay disparities than retail is accommodations and food
services. And the trend is worsening: after dipping briefly during the
Great Recession, pay disparities in retail have grown since 2009,
nearly recovering their pre-Recession peak. This mounting inequality
has a gendered face: while women make up more than half of the retail
labor force at large firms, they account for just 1.8 percent of retail
CEOs in the Fortune 1000, according to Catalyst.\39\
The growing inequality fueled by retail and other low-wage
industries has far-reaching effects on our society. Increasingly,
research shows that inequality is associated with slower economic
growth and volatility, as well as social instability and declines in
the quality of health and education.\40\ At the same time, studies
suggest that inequality undermines our democracy, as political
decisionmaking increasingly reflects the policy preferences of major
political donors with substantially different priorities than the
voting public.\41\ Of course, no single industry caused this damage on
its own or can fix it single-handedly. Nevertheless, as the employer of
1 in 10 working Americans--and 1 in 10 working poor women--raising
wages and improving schedules in the retail industry would be a
significant step toward reducing inequality and the harms it causes
throughout society.
the benefits of raising wages and improving schedules for women
in the retail industry
In Demos' forthcoming paper on women in the retail industry, we
model the effects of a wage increase to $12.25 an hour (the equivalent
of $25,000 a year for a full-time worker) at large retail companies. We
look at costs to retailers, the price increase for consumers, and the
impact on the Nation's gross domestic product and job creation. We also
consider the impact of improved scheduling practices such as providing
work schedules further in advance, guaranteeing workers a consistent
number of hours, and giving workers opportunities to swap shifts,
cross-train for different positions, or work in different store
locations, ensuring that both employee and employer scheduling needs
are met. While the numerical results of that study are not yet
available, this section discusses the evidence for the benefits of
raising wages and improving schedules for women in the retail industry.
Improving wages and schedules for women in retail would benefit the
economy
Families living in or near poverty spend close to 100 percent of
their income just to meet their basic needs, so when they receive an
extra dollar in pay, they spend it on goods or services that were out
of reach before. This ongoing need makes low-income households more
likely to spend new earnings immediately--channeling any addition to
their income right back into the economy. High-income households, in
contrast, put a larger portion of their money into long-term
investments such as retirement savings that do not factor into consumer
demand.\42\ Because spending patterns differ widely across income
groups, investments that enhance the budgets of low-income households
have a greater impact on the economy than money given to those at the
top. For example, the economic stimulus payments of 2008 increased
spending among low-income households far more than higher earners, with
a substantial portion of the new purchases going toward durable and
non-durable retail goods.\43\ Increasing the purchasing power of low-
income households is good economic policy during a period of flagging
demand. By raising the floor of large chain retail wages, these
businesses can provide a private sector stimulus without depending on
the government to enact the change.
The amount of economic activity generated by a wage raise is
determined by what economists refer to as the multiplier. The
multiplier indicates how many times a new dollar will circulate in the
economy before its amplifying effects fade away. When a worker receives
a raise, she will have additional money to spend--that spending becomes
someone else's new income, either the business owner where she makes a
purchase or the worker at the store who gets more hours or more money
when business is good. Multipliers differ depending on where the dollar
appears in the economy; if low-income households have an extra dollar
to spend the multiplier is higher than if that dollar goes to high-
income savers. A transfer of purchasing power to low-wage workers will
boost economic activity to the degree that the multiplier forecasts
ripple effects across consumer spending.
In order to predict how a raise for employees at large retail firms
will impact the economy, we incorporate both the positive effect of the
multiplier on household spending and the potentially negative effect on
the balance sheet of employers. Firms can either pay for the wage raise
out of profits, pass on the cost of the additional wage bill to
consumers through higher prices, or combine both tactics to cover the
cost. The extent to which retail employers will place the burden of
higher wages on their customers is unclear. Research on the
relationship between prices and the minimum wage focuses entirely on
the fast food industry and presents mixed results.\44\ But there is
reason to believe that firms will pass-through less than 100 percent of
the cost. That is because the new minimum produces gains to the firm
that offset part of the cost before either profits or consumer spending
have to make up the difference.
Employers that invest in their labor force are better able to hang
on to their best, most experienced workers, increasing operational
efficiency and cutting down on the costs of labor turnover. The
differences can be dramatic. One study from the Wharton School of
Business found that a $1 increase in payroll at retailers leads to an
additional $4 to $28 in sales each month, with a 25 percent rise in
payroll generating 2.6 percent more in sales.\45\ Revenue grows because
well-paid, experienced employees are better able to provide the
essential services that customers need--with knowledge of inventory,
products, brands, and prices--and satisfied customers spend more money
in the store.\27\ The benefits of the new wage floor appear on the
balance sheet as profits, mitigating a part of the wage bill so that
customers and firms take on only the remaining part of the cost. A
raise for retail wages is an investment in the labor force, increasing
productivity and translating to lower costs and higher sales for the
firm, and negating a portion of the wage bill before it ever reaches
consumers.
Higher wages and better schedules lead to higher sales
The reality is that large retail firms won't have to cover the
entire wage bill or cost of improving scheduling because these
improvements to retail jobs have the potential to pay for themselves,
at least in part. A large body of research shows that paying higher
wages in the retail sector results in greater productivity and higher
sales. Zeynep Ton, an expert on the retail sector at MIT, has shown
that businesses that make an investment in their retail workforce find
that well-paid, knowledgeable, and experienced employees can be a
driver of sales, rather than costs.\46\ Paying for high quality workers
who can answer customer requests and identify priorities meets the
long-term goals of the business, as opposed to simply satisfying short-
term cost minimization.
Ton's close study of retailers like Home Depot and the defunct
Borders bookstore chain leads to similar conclusions about scheduling:
retailers' efforts to precisely match labor supply to consumer traffic
often fall short because just-in-time scheduling strategies fuel
employee turnover, absenteeism and tardiness. This means that despite
sophisticated scheduling software, retailers ``don't know who will
quit, who will be late tomorrow, and who just won't bother to show
up.'' \47\ Finally, Ton concludes that a misguided effort to cut labor
costs leads many retailers to under-staff their stores, losing sales
and passing up profits. Missed sales opportunities could be recaptured
if, for example, retailers drew on the pool of more than 1 million
women working part-time retail jobs who report wanting full-time hours.
Ton's findings are supported by other research on the performance
of retail firms. For example, the CitiSales study conducted by
researchers at Boston College and the University of Kentucky finds that
giving retail employees more control over their work schedules
optimizes recruitment among the hourly workforce, boosts retention of
key talent, promotes employee productivity, engages employees,
cultivates quality customer service, and reduces costs associated with
turnover.\48\ Researchers have also compared Costco, a high-wage retail
employer that guarantees employees a set number of hours per week, with
its warehouse club rival, low-wage employer Sam's Club, revealing a
substantial payoff to paying fair wages and offering stable schedules:
sales per employee at Costco are nearly double the average sales per
employee at Sam's Club.\49\ Across the retail sector higher payroll
levels and more stable schedules are associated with customer
satisfaction, which translates to more money in the register.
conclusion
The retail industry has tremendous potential to offer good, family
sustaining jobs to the 7.8 million American women projected to work in
the industry in the next decade. To realize this potential, and advance
women's economic security, retailers must raise wages and improve
scheduling policies for their workforce. Recent movements toward
increasing pay at the Gap and improving schedules at Walmart have been
encouraging, but broad change is likely to occur only as a result of
legislation. Legislation to increase the minimum wage, strengthen the
Equal Pay Act, facilitate union organizing, and guarantee a minimum
number of paid sick days and paid family leave would enhance the
economic security of women in the retail industry and throughout the
economy. Congress should also consider the models offered by State laws
on reporting pay, which compensate employees for a minimum number of
hours during a work shift for which they have been scheduled.
Endnotes
1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the retail industry
will employ approximately 16 million Americans by 2022, a number of
private employees exceeded only by health care and social assistance
(22 million workers) and professional and business services (21 million
workers). See The Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employment by major
industry sector, 2002, 2012, and projected 2022,'' 2013. http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t03.htm.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March
Supplement, 2012.
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Occupational Employment and Wages,
May 2013'' 2014. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf.
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March
Supplement, 2012.
5. Demos calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
6. Gap, ``Gap Inc. Announces Increase in Minimum Hourly Rate for
U.S. Employees,'' Bloomberg, February 19, 2014, http://
www.bloomberg.com/article/2014-02-19/aM2Qeuhus_2E.html.
7. Lydia Depillis, ``Under pressure, Wal-Mart upgrades its policy
for helping pregnant workers,'' Washington Post, April 5, 2014 http://
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/05/under-pressure-
walmart-upgrades-its-policy-for-helping-pregnant-workers/.
8. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the retail industry
will employ approximately 16 million Americans by 2022, a number of
private employees exceeded only by health care and social assistance
(22 million workers) and professional and business services (21 million
workers). See The Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employment by major
industry sector, 2002, 2012, and projected 2022,'' 2013. http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t03.htm.
9. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March
Supplement, 2012.
10. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Occupational Employment and
Wages, May 2013'' 2014. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf.
11. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March
Supplement, 2012.
12. Zeynep Ton, ``Why `Good Jobs' Are Good for Retailers,'' Harvard
Business Review, January-February 2012, http://hbr.org/2012/01/why-
good-jobs-are-good-for-retailers.
13. Gap, ``Gap Inc. Announces Increase in Minimum Hourly Rate for
U.S. Employees,'' Bloomberg, February 19, 2014, http://
www.bloomberg.com/article/2014-02-19/aM2Qeuhus_2E.html.
14. Lydia Depillis, ``Under pressure, Wal-Mart upgrades its policy
for helping pregnant workers,'' Washington Post, April 5, 2014 http://
www.washingtonpost
.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/05/under-pressure-walmart-upgrades-its-
policy-for-helping-pregnant-workers/.
15. Meaning they were in the labor force for at least 27 weeks in
the last year, their household incomes did not rise above the poverty
level http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf.
16. Cited in: Liz Watson and Jennifer E. Swanberg, ``Flexible
Workplace Solutions for Low-Wage Hourly Workers,'' May 2011, http://
workplaceflexibility2010.org/images/uploads/whatsnew/
Flexible%20Workplace%20Solutions%20for%20Low-
Wage%20Hourly%20Workers.pdf.
17. Nancy K. Cauthen, ``Scheduling Hourly Workers,'' Demos, March
14, 2011, http://www.demo.org/publication/scheduling-hourly-workers-
how-last-minute-just-time-scheduling-practices-are-bad-workers.
18. Stephanie Luce and Naoki Fujita, ``Discounted Jobs,'' Retail
Action Project, January 2011, http://retailactionproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/01/FINAL
_RAP.pdf.
19. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ownership/private/
table21a.htm.
20. The survey defined ``low-income'' as holding a job paying $14
or less. Oxfam America, ``Hard Work, Hard Lives,'' 2013, http://
www.oxfamamerica.org/static/oa4/low-wage-worker-report-oxfam-
america.pdf.
21. There 35 percent more women than men among low-wage earners at
large retailers. 40.3 percent of women employed at large retailers has
children, compared to 30.3 percent of men.
22. Americans for Tax Fairness, ``Walmart on Tax Day,'' April 2014,
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-
Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-1.pdf.
23. Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and
the Workforce, ``The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,'' May 2013, http://
democrats.ed
workforce.house.gov / sites / democrats.edworkforce.house.gov / files /
documents / Wal
MartReport-May2013.pdf.
24. Good Jobs First, ``Hidden Taxpayer Costs,'' July 24, 2013,
http://www.good
jobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs.
25. Lisa Dodson, Randy Albelda, Diana Salas Coronado and Marya
Mtshali, ``How Youth Are Put At Risk by Parents' Low-Wage Jobs,''
Center for Social Policy, University of Massachusetts Boston, Fall
2012, http://cdn.umb.edu/images/centers
_institutes/center_social_policy/Youth_at_RiskParents_Low_Wage_Jobs_
Fall_121.pdf.
26. A Better Balance, ``Pregnant Workers at Walmart,'' 2014. http:/
/www.abetterbalance.org/web/ourissues/fairnessworkplace/293-pregnant-
workers-at-walmart.
27. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``National Compensation Survey,''
March 2013, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ownership/private/
table21a.htm.
28. Curtis Skinner and Susan Ochshorn, ``Paid Family Leave,''
National Center for Children in Poverty, April 2012, http://
www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text
_1059.pdf.
29. Kevin Miller, Ph.D., Claudia Williams and Youngmin Yi, ``Paid
Sick Days and Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Department
Visits,'' Institute for Women's Policy Research, November 2011, http://
www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/paid-sick-days-and-health-cost-savings-
from-reduced-emergency-department-visits.
30. Urban Institute, ``Nonstandard Work Schedules and the Well-
being of Low-Income Families,'' July 31, 2013, http://www.urban.org/
publications/904597.html.
31. Working Nonstandard Schedules and Variable Shifts in Low-Income
Families. Hsueh, JoAnn; Yoshikawa, Hirokazu. Developmental Psychology,
vol. 43 issue 3 May 2007. p. 620-32.
32. Lisa Dodson, Randy Albelda, Diana Salas Coronado and Marya
Mtshali, ``How Youth Are Put At Risk by Parents' Low-Wage Jobs,''
Center for Social Policy University of Massachusetts Boston, Fall 2012,
http://cdn.umb.edu/images/centers_
institutes/center_social_policy/Youth_at_RiskParents_Low_Wage_Jobs_Fall
_121.pdf.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Hirokazu Yoshikawa, ``Making it Work: Low-wage employment,
family life, and child development,'' http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/
decisions/audio-DD101-uk_hy_q1.html.
37. Emmanuel Saez, ``Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top
Incomes in the United States,'' UC Berkeley, September 3, 2013, http://
elsa.berkeley.edu/ saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf.
38. Catherine Ruetschlin, ``Fast Food Failure,'' Demos, 2014.
http://www.demos.org/publication/fast-food-failure-how-ceo-worker-pay-
disparity-undermines-industry-and-overall-economy.
39. ``Pyramid: Women in U.S. Retail Trade,'' Catalyst, 2014. http:/
/www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-us-retail-trade-0.
40. Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg, and Charalambos G. Tsangarides,
``Redistribution, Equality, and Growth,'' International Monetary Fund
Research Department, February 2014, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/
ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402
.pdf.
41. See, for example: Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, ``Testing
Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average
Citizens,'' April 9, 2014, https://www.princeton.edu/ mgilens/
Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/
Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf.
42. BLS Consumer Expenditures Survey, Table 1202. Income before
taxes: Annual expenditure means, shares, standard errors, and
coefficient of variation, 2012 http://www.bls.gov/cex/#tables.
43. Jonathan A. Parker, Nicholas S. Souleles, David S. Johnson, and
Robert McClelland, ``Consumer Spending and the Economic Stimulus
Payments of 2008,'' NBER Working Paper No. 16684, January 2011, http://
www.nber.org/papers/w16684.
44. James MacDonald and Daniel Aaronson, ``How Do Retail Prices
React to Minimum Wage Increases? '' Federal Reserve of Chicago Working
Paper 2000-20, 2000, http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/
publications/working_papers/2000/wp2000_20.pdf Carrie Colla, Will Dow
and Arindrajit Dube, ``The Labor Market Impact of Employer Health
Benefit Mandates: Evidence from San Francisco's Health Care Security
Ordinance,'' NBER Working Paper 17198, 2011, http://www.nber.org/
papers/w17198.
45. Fisher, M., J. Krishnan and S. Netessine. ``Retail Store
Execution: An Empirical Study,'' Wharton School Working Paper,
Philadelphia, PA: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2006,
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1336.pdf.
46. Zeynap Ton, The Good Jobs Strategy: How the Smartest Companies
Invest in Employees to Lower Costs and Boost Profits. Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt, 2012.
47. Zeynap Ton, The Good Jobs Strategy: How the Smartest Companies
Invest in Employees to Lower Costs and Boost Profits. Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt, 2012. p. 142
48. Jennifer E. Swanberg, Jacquelyn B. James, and Sharon P.
McKechnie, ``Can Business Benefit By Providing Workplace Flexibility to
Hourly Workers? '' University of Kentucky CitiSales study, http://
www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin/citisales/_pdfs/IB3-HourlyWorkers.pdf.
49. Wayne F. Cascio, ``Decency Means More than `Always Low Prices':
A Comparison of Costco to Wal-Mart's Sam's Club,'' Academy of
Management Perspectives, August 2006, http://www.ou.edu/russell/UGcomp/
Cascio.pdf.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Traub.
Ms. Pelletier.
STATEMENT OF LORI PELLETIER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER,
CONNECTICUT STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, ROCKY HILL, CT
Ms. Pelletier. Thank you, Senator Harkin, Senator
Alexander, Senator Mikulski and, if I may, Senator Murphy from
Connecticut. My name is Lori Pelletier, and I'm the executive
secretary-treasurer of the Connecticut AFL-CIO. Today, I have
the honor of being here representing what is the largest
women's organization in the Nation with 6.5 million working
women of the AFL-CIO.
I think that our point here is exactly what Senator
Alexander talked about in his opening remarks about jobs and
about flexibility, and that jobs need to pay. We have a
consumer-driven economy, and so the more that people make, the
more money they can put into the economy and spend, and more
jobs are created. If we are looking to create more low-wage
jobs, again--and we wonder why our economy may sputter.
As far as flexibility goes, I will say to you that the best
flexibility is a collective bargaining agreement, when both
sides can come to the table and decide on what's important,
what needs to be looked at, issues like family medical leave
that first of all was passed in Connecticut over 20 years ago
and brought to this august body by then-Senator Chris Dodd.
The flexibility--as a member of the Machinist Union, a rank
and file member at the time, when we were trying to implement
the family medical leave in our shops, it was very helpful that
as a union representative, I could sit down with the employer
and try to figure out how this was best implemented.
The idea that since the 1970s, the pay equity problem is
becoming more and more rampant, also goes hand in glove with
the fact that the labor movement has also been in decline and
has gotten worse as far as the percentage of the workforce.
Again, I'm honored to be here today. I'm thrilled to be able to
answer any questions you have, and thank you for the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pelletier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lori Pelletier
Good morning, my name is Lori Pelletier, and I am president of the
Connecticut AFL-CIO. As a woman in the labor movement, I know 6.5
million women stand with me everyday. We're the largest working women's
organization in the country.
I want to focus on the importance of unions and collective
bargaining for the economic security of women. I also want to explain
why we in the labor movement are among the strongest supporters of
labor standards like the minimum wage and paid sick days and the Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and why we believe so strongly in the
funding of agencies that enforce our labor standards.
There has been a lot of attention given lately to the growth of
economic inequality and the stagnation of workers' wages since the late
1970s. One important reason why wages have stagnated is that the
percentage of workers who belong to unions is a lot lower now than it
was then. The decline of unions has had a bigger impact on men's pay
than on women's, but it also had a big impact on women. About one-fifth
of the growth of wage inequality among women workers from 1973 to 2007
was because of the decline of unions.
Unions today continue to be critical to the economic security of
working women and their families, who still face an uphill battle in
the workplace. What we are seeing in Connecticut is more and more jobs
moving offshore and being replaced with lower paid jobs without
benefits, and this puts women's economic security at risk.
When women are protected by a mutually agreed upon collective
bargaining agreement, it gives them an important weapon to combat the
undermining of their economic security. Collective bargaining raises
women's wages by 12.9 percent, and the union difference is even higher
for African-American women, Latino women, and women who have immigrated
recently.
The union difference is especially pronounced for women who have
less formal education, and for women workers in low-wage industries. In
the retail food industry, where women workers are now the majority,
unionized women workers earn 31 percent more than their non-union
counterparts.
Collective bargaining is one of the best solutions for gender
discrimination because a union contract sets standard rates for
different positions. As a result, the gender pay gap for workers
covered by a union contract is much smaller--91 cents on the dollar--
than for non-union workers. As women become the majority of the
workforce, it is even more important for them to join together
collectively to protect themselves and their families.
Collective bargaining also gives women workers more economic
security by increasing their chances of having employer-provided health
insurance and pension benefits. The share of women workers who have
employer-provided health insurance is 18.4 percentage points higher for
union women, and the share of women workers who have an employer-
provided retirement plan is 22.8 percentage points higher.
Two other ways that collective bargaining helps union workers are
paid family leave and short-term disability benefits. Union workers are
more likely than non-union workers to have both.
Finally, collective bargaining levels the playing field when it
comes to training and opportunities for advancement. When employers
offer training programs, often one big issue is whether child care and
elder care will be available for workers who want to participate.
Without this training, women workers may be put in the position of not
being qualified for a promotion, which hurts them and their families.
But the availability of child care and elder care is the kind of thing
you can negotiate collectively through the union.
I've seen the same kind of productive and fruitful bargaining when
it comes to implementation of legislation passed by Congress. Take for
example the Family and Medical Leave Act, the FMLA. When it came time
to implement the FMLA, collective bargaining made things so much
simpler for the workers, for management, for everybody. When we hit
bumps in the road, we were able to smooth them out through the union.
And when it came time to educating our members about how the new law
worked, well, that's one of the things the union does best. Everybody
benefits from that.
Speaking of which, I want to say just a few words about labor
standards legislation. We believe legislation and collective bargaining
go hand in hand. One of the best ways for unions to protect our members
is by working with our representatives to pass legislation. We in the
labor movement have always been among the strongest supporters of
increasing the minimum wage, paid sick days, and paid family and
medical leave, and we always will be.
In Connecticut we were the first State in the country to pass
legislation requiring paid sick days. That would not have happened
without the labor movement. Our members are not the main beneficiaries,
but we understand that everybody does better when everybody does
better.
In the Connecticut General Assembly, we also a have a task force
working on paid family and medical leave. The FMLA was a giant step
forward, but too many workers can't afford to take FMLA leave.
We in the labor movement strongly support an increase in the
Federal minimum wage to $10.10. We understand that women are over-
represented in low-wage occupations. Almost a quarter of women workers
would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, and that more than
half the workers who would benefit are women.
We also understand the importance of raising the minimum wage for
tipped workers, such as restaurant servers, bartenders, and
hairstylists, which has not been raised since 1991. Almost three
quarters of tipped workers are women. Tipped workers are paid 40
percent less than other workers, on average, and they are twice as
likely to be poor.
I hear people in the business community complain about these labor
standards and demand less regulation because they say the ``free
market'' will take care of things. But what that boils down to in
reality is a lower paid, less safe, and a more exploitable workforce.
It's the role of government to ensure that people are protected and are
not treated like the property of the business owner.
By claiming ``government doesn't work'' and then gutting the budget
of enforcement and protection agencies because they represent ``big
government,'' they are making sure government doesn't work as well as
it should. They are rendering these agencies powerless. Employers in
Connecticut know that the chance of an OSHA audit are very low, and an
inspection by a State DOL wage and hour investigator is not likely to
happen.
So I just want to put in a good word for the funding of enforcement
agencies. When Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in
1938, there was one wage and hour investigator for every 11,000
workers. By 2007, there was only one investigator for every 164,000
workers. In 1980 there were about 50 percent more investigators per
employee than there are today.
One way for workers to be protected in the workplace is when the
employer is responsible and treats people with dignity and respect. But
in my experience this is often not the case. That's why collective
bargaining and legislation and enforcement are so important for women
workers.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Pelletier.
Ms. Troy.
STATEMENT OF GAYLE E. TROY, SPHR, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER, GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, PITTSFIELD, NH
Ms. Troy. Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, Senator
Alexander, and other Senators. Thank you for inviting me to be
here today. My name is Gayle Troy. I'm the Human Resources
Manager for Globe Firefighter Suits--that's our trade name--in
Pittsfield, NH. I'm pleased to be here to represent the Society
for Human Resources Management, or SHRM, of which I've been a
member for 28 years.
This topic is particularly relevant to Globe. Our workforce
is 71 percent female, so it's very important to us. We are the
world's largest manufacturer of firefighters' protective
clothing. We produce over 100,000 garments per year for
firefighters in more than 80 countries, including approximately
one-third of the gear sold here in the United States. I'm
especially proud to say that our products helped to clothe and
protect many of the brave first responders on and after
September 11th.
Ensuring that Globe is a great place to work is very
important to our company owners. One of the best ways we
support our workforce is by helping our employees with work-
life fit through our flexible hours program. This program
allows our non-exempt employees, almost all of them--about 90
percent of our employees are non-exempt--to choose their start
time, between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m., and to end their work day
eight and a half hours later, between 2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Interestingly, most of those people, about 80 percent, have
chosen the 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift, likely to maximize time
with their families.
In addition, Globe instituted a new approach to paid time
off in response to high turnover rates, especially among new
employees. Our new flexible approach to paid time off is known
as Globe Time Off or GTO. Under GTO, non-exempt employees
receive 12 days off per year to use for any purpose, meaning
the time could be used to care for a sick child or for the
employees themselves, to run errands, or as a vacation day. Six
of these days are paid, and six are unpaid, and any unused paid
time is given as a bonus at the end of the year.
All these practices are voluntary. We're not required to
offer these benefits. But we do because they work well for our
employees and help us attract and retain the best people.
Because one-size-fits-all mandates limit employer
flexibility and innovation, pending legislation such as the
Healthy Families Act actually could curtail leave flexibility.
Life cannot always be divided between sick and vacation
buckets. Sometimes an employee needs to chaperone a school trip
or they need to renew a driver's license. Are these examples of
sick time or vacation time? Requiring employees to use leave
for very specific reasons does not provide the flexibility
valued by employees in meeting their work-life needs.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share
Globe's story and the impact new Federal leave mandates would
impose on employers. SHRM remains committed to working with the
committee to ensure that employers can continue to provide
workplace flexibility to employees in a manner that does not
threaten existing benefits or create unnecessary and
counterproductive regulations.
Thank you again for allowing me to share my views, and I
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Troy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gayle E. Troy, SPHR
introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and
distinguished Senators. My name is Gayle Troy, and I am the Human
Resources Manager at Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC at our company
headquarters in Pittsfield, NH. I am pleased to appear before you today
on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Thank
you for this opportunity to participate in this roundtable discussion.
SHRM is the world's largest association devoted to human resource
(HR) management. Representing more than 275,000 members in over 160
countries, the Society serves the needs of HR professionals and
advances the interests of the HR profession. Founded in 1948, SHRM has
more than 575 affiliated chapters within the United States and
subsidiary offices in China, India and United Arab Emirates.
By way of introduction, I have been a SHRM member for nearly 28
years, and have twice served in a volunteer leader role as President of
the Human Resources Association of Greater Concord, my local chapter of
SHRM. I have 32 years of experience as an HR professional, including 28
years working in human resources for Globe. With 424 employees across
four States including Oklahoma, Virginia, and Maine, today Globe is the
world's largest manufacturer of firefighters' protective clothing,
producing over 100,000 garments (coats or pants) every year in more
than 80 countries, including approximately one-third of all garments
sold in the United States.
Globe opened in 1887 in Lynn, MA and was moved to Pittsfield, NH,
in 1901. Business operations and manufacturing continue today from this
small New Hampshire town and the business is currently owned and
managed by the fourth generation of the Freese family. The owners live
locally so they tend to meet our employees everywhere--at the grocery
store, the movies, or the motorcycle rally. It is extremely important
to the owners to know that they are offering their employees a quality
place to work.
In order for my company to be an employer of choice, remain
competitive and promote economic security, Globe actively works to
create an environment that encourages employee development and
retention. At Globe, we focus on employee retention by frequently
connecting our employees to our mission. For example, firefighters will
occasionally visit the company and share how their lives were saved by
the gear produced by employees. During these visits, our team gathers
in the cafeteria to meet these professionals, examines the remains of
the garments, and asks questions. One firefighter brought a letter
``written'' by his toddler-aged daughter, thanking us for saving her
Daddy so he could go in the pool with her--a moment none of us will
ever forget.
In addition, we are diligent about promoting from within the
organization. Our two most senior production managers (each with more
than 40 years of service) both started as front-line workers. Each of
them was eager to learn, and took the bold step of asking for more
responsibility. Neither has formal education beyond a high school
diploma, but both are absolutely star performers for the company.
In my testimony, I will share with you how Globe's rich benefits
and workplace flexibility practices promote economic security, describe
the merits and challenges inherent in both current and proposed Federal
leave mandates, reveal recent SHRM research on employer practices,
offer SHRM's workplace flexibility policy recommendations to Congress
and discuss SHRM's effort to educate HR professionals about the
importance of effective and flexible workplaces.
promoting economic security through workplace flexibility
The purpose of today's roundtable is to discuss ways to promote
economic security for working women across our country. This topic is
particularly relevant and important for Globe's workforce which is made
up of 71 percent women.
As I mentioned earlier, ensuring Globe is a great place to work is
very important to the owners. As such, we are a company that invests in
our people, by focusing on recruiting, retaining, and advancing our
skilled workforce. We have found that one of the best ways to retain
talented and dedicated employees is to create an effective and flexible
workplace, with generous benefits and innovative workplace flexibility
policies. At Globe, our employees are treated like true professionals
with more control over their work time and schedules, which helps
improve engagement and morale, increases productivity, retains top
performers, and, ultimately, improves business performance.
Our workplace flexibility practices help meet the work-life needs
of our workforce while also ensuring business operations continue. In
other words, our policies and programs work for both our employees and
for our company. As a small company, Globe is creative in providing
employee benefits and flexible work strategies. These employee benefits
have contributed to our company's 93 percent employee retention rate.
Higher employee retention leads to greater economic security and
stability for our workforce. Organizations like ours want to be able to
continue to manage our workplace in ways that work for our company
culture and that help us meet our business objectives, including our
financial sustainability.
Below I have outlined some of Globe's total rewards offerings that
help ensure we are an employer of choice. These include:
Flexible Work Hours--Offering flexible work hours is one
of the best ways we help employees meet their work and life
obligations. Our Flexible Hours program allows most non-exempt
employees to choose their start time between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. and
correspondingly, to end their workday 8.5 hours later, between 2:30
p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Employees may choose to change their start and end
times at any time as long as they have their supervisor's approval.
Interestingly, almost 80 percent of eligible employees have chosen the
6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift. I believe many employees choose this shift
to maximize time with their families.
Globe Time Off (GTO)--Globe instituted a new approach to
paid time off in reaction to high turnover rates, especially with our
new employees. In order to keep the best talent, we developed a
comprehensive package of benefits, which included a flexible approach
to paid time off, that we termed, ``Globe Time Off.'' Under the Globe
Time Off program, non-exempt employees (90 percent of our workforce)
receive 12 days off per year to be used for any purpose. The time could
be used to care for a sick child or for the employees themselves, to
run errands, or as a vacation day. Six days are paid, and 6 days are
unpaid. Any unused paid time is paid as a bonus at the end of the year.
Paid Vacation Days--In addition to GTO, Globe offers 10 to
20 paid vacation days, depending on length of service. Any unused
vacation time is paid as a bonus at the end of the year.
Paid Leave Days--In addition to the GTO program and paid
vacation days mentioned above, Globe offers additional paid-time-off
policies important to our workforce. For example, we remove some of the
disincentives associated with blood donation by ensuring workers
continue to be paid while traveling to and from the donation site. As a
manufacturer of firefighter suits, we believe it is important to offer
Volunteer Firefighters Time, allowing for unlimited paid time off
during working hours to respond to fires and other serious emergencies
in our community. To further incentivize employee advancement and
growth, we offer paid time (at half their regular rate) for employees
to attend classes to become certified as a firefighter and we provide
paid time provisionally for disaster relief in other areas of the
country. Additionally, we provide unlimited time off at full pay for
jury duty and for time spent in criminal cases where the employee is a
crime victim or if the employee is a witness to a crime and is called
upon to testify. All employees receive 10 paid holidays as well.
Disability--Our short-term disability program is paid 100
percent by the company and provides 70 percent of regular pay for up to
26 weeks in a 2-year period. Our long-term disability program is also
paid 100 percent by Globe; it begins after 26 weeks and continues as
needed.
Equipping Our Workers--At Globe, we want to ensure that
our employees have the tools needed to be safe and successful in the
workplace. That is why we provide a shoe allowance of $75 per year to
spend on appropriate footwear for employees whose jobs require them to
stand or walk for most of the day. In addition, the company provides
all general safety equipment; however, if an employee prefers to
purchase prescription safety glasses, the company will reimburse 50
percent of the cost, up to $150, every 2 calendar years.
Employee Well-Being--Globe offers high-quality health care
to our employees, contributing 87 percent toward the single health
insurance plan and 81 percent of the family health insurance plan. In
addition, we provide dental insurance and Flexible Spending Accounts
(FSA), which allow employees the opportunity to set aside pre-tax
dollars to pay for medical expenses not covered by their health
insurance. In order to encourage participation and promote employee
well-being, Globe contributes $100 to the FSA for each employee who
participates. Another way Globe encourages employee health and well-
being is through our smoking cessation program. When an employee is
smoke-free for 1 year, our company pays half of the smoking cessation
program and the employee is taken to a celebratory lunch by the three
company owners.
Employee Financial Health--Promoting long-term economic
security through competitive pay and a variety of retirement and
profit-sharing tools is a major component of our compensation package.
Globe provides an array of retirement tools to help our employees and
their families prepare for the future. Through Globe's 401(k) plan, the
company matches 50 percent of our employee's contributions up to 6
percent and offers a 3 percent company contribution.
Mr. Chairman, these offerings, whether employee benefits or
workplace flexibility strategies, are intended to improve employee
engagement and retention while improving business results. All of these
practices I described are voluntary. We are not required to offer these
benefits at Globe, but we do because they work well for our employees
and help us attract and retain the best people. However, if Globe's
benefits were forced onto another employer in New Hampshire, or across
the State or the country, these benefits might not work as well in
meeting the business needs of the organization and the personal needs
of its employees. What works at one company may not be appropriate for
another organization's culture, business structure or industry.
the family and medical leave act?
To date, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is the only
Federal statute that mandates employee leave. While SHRM supports the
spirit and intent of the Act, it is an example of a well-intended
Federal employment law that has had unexpected consequences and
burdensome administrative requirements.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, 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. The
Act also provides specific protections for employees who have family
members that have been called up to serve on active duty in the
military, and for employees to take care of a covered service member
who has suffered an injury or illness incurred in the line of duty.
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
counterproductive attempt to anticipate 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. For
example, one of my human resources staff members has estimated that she
spends up to 65 percent of her time on FMLA compliance work. In my
office, there are only three of us, so that accounts for one-fifth of
my team.
Vague FMLA rules mean that practically any ailment lasting 3
calendar days and including a doctor's visit now qualifies as a serious
medical condition. Unfortunately, if the doctor has written the
certification without great care, the employer has little to no
recourse. Although Congress intended medical leave under the FMLA to be
taken only for truly serious health conditions, sometimes I'm concerned
that employees use this leave to avoid coming to work. This behavior is
damaging to employers and fellow employees alike.
At Globe, our challenges with the FMLA center on the definitions of
a serious health condition, intermittent leave, and medical
certifications. In particular, Globe has struggled with intermittent
leave for episodic conditions. Intermittent leave means that employees
can basically be absent from work on any random day as long as it fits
the parameters given by the medical provider. Currently, more than 10
percent of my workforce could be out on any given day. A few years ago,
25 percent of our workforce could be out on any given day. When large
segments of your employee population can take this time off, without
much advance notice, production and output is negatively impacted.
proposed leave mandates
Congress's examination of proposals to help employees navigate
their work-life needs should focus on encouraging or incentivizing
employers to voluntarily adopt workplace flexibility offerings that
work for the organization and the employees, not on additional, rigid
mandates.
For example, the one-size-fits-all mandate contained in S. 631, the
``Healthy Families Act'' (HFA) raises serious concerns. The bill would
require public and private employers with 15 or more employees to
provide 56 hours--effectively 7 days--of paid sick leave annually to
each employee. Employees who work for 20 or more calendar workweeks in
the current or preceding year would be eligible for HFA leave.
If organizations are required to offer paid sick leave as
envisioned in the HFA, 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. Keep in mind that many
employees may prefer higher wages or other benefits over receiving more
paid sick leave--yet another way the HFA's one-size-fits-all approach
will not meet the needs of all employees.
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, proscriptive attempts to micromanage
how, when and under what circumstances leave must be requested,
granted, documented and used would be counterproductive to encouraging
flexibility and innovation. If a paid sick leave mandate were enacted,
an employer's focus would have to be on documentation of incremental
leave and the reasons for the leave, rather than on seeking innovative
ways to help employees to meet the demands of both their work and
personal lives.
As mentioned, Globe provides over 20 days of paid leave, plus 10
paid holidays and other leave. It is unclear whether the HFA would
require Globe to provide another 7 days of leave in addition to our
vacation and GTO. In this economy, many employers cannot afford that.
Even those that can afford it will have to cut employee benefits
somewhere else. At Globe, profits are shared with the employees through
our 401(k) and profit sharing programs. The cost of adding 7 additional
days of paid leave, on top of our 30-plus days of leave, would have to
come from somewhere and would therefore curtail or remove some other
benefit, or would lessen our profit sharing.
We provide generous paid leave so that we can continue to be an
employer of choice for employees and applicants in our area. What we do
not want is a government-imposed paid-leave mandate to take away our
competitive edge over other employers.
shrm research
Today's roundtable is well-timed with the recent release of a new
report by SHRM and the Families and Work Institute (FWI), the 2014
National Study of Employers, which looks at changes in the workplace
since 2008. First conducted by FWI in 1998, the National Study of
Employers is the most comprehensive and far-reaching study of the
practices, policies, programs and benefits provided by U.S. employers
to address the changing needs of today's workforce and workplace,
including workplace flexibility, health care and benefits, caregiving
leave and elder care assistance.
The study found that more employers are adopting flexibility
policies over when and where full-time employees work. This includes
options such as working remotely occasionally (telecommuting) and
control over overtime. The most common forms of flexibility are control
over taking breaks, time off for important family and personal needs,
and flextime. Overall, from 2008 to 2014, the study found employers
have continued to increase their provision of options that allow at
least some employees to better manage the times and places in which
they work. These include occasional flex place (67 percent in 2014
compared with 50 percent in 2008); control over breaks (92 percent in
2014 compared with 84 percent in 2008); control over overtime hours (45
percent in 2014 compared with 27 percent in 2008) and time off during
the workday when important needs arise (82 percent in 2014 compared
with 73 percent in 2008).
The data show that employers continue to find ways to offer
flexibility to their employees, despite the economic challenges they
face. Employers are dealing with lingering economic instability by
trying to accomplish more with fewer employees. While it may have been
expected that employers would cut back on flexibility entirely during
the economic downturn, we are seeing employers leverage flexibility to
remain competitive.
shrm's recommendations for a 21st century workplace flexibility policy
Because HR professionals are on the front lines of devising
workplace strategies to create effective and flexible organizations,
SHRM and its members have given careful consideration to the role
public policy can play in advancing the adoption of workplace
flexibility. It is our strong belief that public policy must not hinder
an employer's ability to provide flexible work options. Rather, public
policy should incentivize and enhance the voluntary employer adoption
of workplace flexibility programs.
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 navigate 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' families.
In 2009, SHRM developed a set of five principles to help guide the
creation of a new workplace flexibility public policy. 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 that 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.'' The principles are as follows:
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 that 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 to
voluntarily 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 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
navigate work and personal needs. A Federal policy should:
Amend Federal law to allow employees to manage work
and family needs through flexible work options such as
telecommuting, comp time, flextime, a part-time schedule, 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.
One approach to providing additional workplace flexibility that
works for both employers and employees and that meets the principles
outlined above is legislation to allow for compensatory (comp) time off
in the private sector. S. 1626, the Family Friendly and Workplace
Flexibility Act of 2013, would allow more U.S. workers to access comp
time. Specifically, the bill would modernize the application of the
Fair Labor Standards Act to the private sector by permitting employers
to offer employees the voluntary choice of taking overtime in cash
payments, as they do today, or in the form of paid time off from work.
Currently, Federal employees are offered a similar benefit.
At Globe, we are in close proximity to our State capital of
Concord. Many current Globe employees are former State employees and
are often surprised when they learn that compensatory time is not
available to private-sector employees. Since comp time has worked well
within the public sector at the State and Federal level for nearly
three decades, I think it is disappointing that Congress has not
extended this same benefit to private-sector employees.
workplace flexibility educational efforts
As SHRM continues to advocate for public policy proposals that
encourage or incentivize employers to create effective and flexible
workplaces, the Society has also formed a multi-year partnership with
the FWI to educate HR professionals about the business benefits of
workplace flexibility. The primary goal of the SHRM/FWI partnership is
to transform the way employers view and adopt workplace flexibility by
combining the research and expertise of a widely respected organization
specializing in workplace effectiveness with the influence and reach of
the world's largest association devoted to human resource management.
Although FWI is an independent non-advocacy organization that does
not take positions on these matters, and the position of SHRM should
not be considered reflective of any position or opinion of FWI, I'd
like to mention one of the key elements of the SHRM/FWI partnership,
When Work Works, a national initiative to bring research on workplace
effectiveness and flexibility into community and business practice.
When Work Works partners with communities and States around the country
to:
Share rigorous research and employer best practices on
workplace effectiveness and flexibility.
Recognize exemplary employers through the Sloan Award for
Excellence in Workplace Effectiveness and Flexibility.
Inspire positive change so that increasing numbers of
employers understand how effective and flexible workplaces benefit both
employers and employees, and use this information to make work ``work''
better.
Change is constant in business. We know that in order for
organizations to remain competitive, they must employ strategies to
respond to the changes in the economy, the workforce, and work itself.
By highlighting strategies that enable people to do their best work,
When Work Works promotes practical, research-based knowledge that helps
employers create effective and flexible workplaces that fit the 21st
century workforce and ensures a new competitive advantage for
organizations.
conclusion
In the global, 21st century economy, workplace flexibility policies
help both multinational corporations and small businesses meet the
needs of their employees. At its core, workplace flexibility is about
improving business results by providing employees with more control
over how, when and where work gets done. In order for workplace
flexibility strategies to be effective, however, they must work for
both the employer and the employee.
SHRM remains committed to working with the committee and Congress
to ensure employers can continue to provide workplace flexibility to
employees in a manner that does not threaten existing benefits or
create unnecessary and counterproductive regulations. We believe it's
time to pursue a new approach to this issue absent rigid, unworkable
mandates.
Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Troy.
Ms. Riner.
STATEMENT OF RHEA LANA RINER, PRESIDENT, RHEA LANA'S, INC.,
CONWAY, AR
Ms. Riner. Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and
members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to
testify today.
In 1997, I began my small business as a young mom after my
family transitioned from a corporate salary to a ministry
salary. I loved cute clothes but did not have the budget to
dress my children the way I hoped. So I invited a few friends
to a small event in my living room to buy and sell children's
clothing.
From this humble beginning, my heart swelled for families
with budget struggles trying to provide for their children. I
wanted to offer them the opportunity to save money. The moms,
grandmoms, and husbands who joined together to host consignment
events like ours create a marketplace in which their families
can both sell and purchase gently used children's clothing,
toys, and baby equipment.
My business, called Rhea Lana's, is simply a facilitator.
We help these families succeed and we love it. Rhea Lana's
offers families the same types of real world opportunities that
E-bay offers its participants in the virtual world. Like Rhea
Lana's, E-bay offers a marketplace where buyers can find low-
price products from people looking to sell their goods.
Everyone understands that E-bay participants are looking out
for their own interests, just like Rhea Lana's consignor
volunteers.
In 2013, I encountered a huge obstacle to my business'
success. The Department of Labor ruled that my best customers
should be classified as employees. The DOL then sent letters to
these customers suggesting that they sue me. The DOL also
warned if we did not follow their advice, we could be penalized
for willful violations with astronomical fines.
In doing so, the DOL ignored zero complaints against us;
ignored a favorable ruling by the State of Arkansas; ignored
interviews with our consignors, none of whom support the DOL's
conclusions; and ignored the benefits of a nationwide industry
faithfully serving millions of moms, dads, and children over
the past 25 years. Frankly, the actions of the DOL have been
the exact opposite of economic security for this working woman.
We were forced to file a complaint against the Department
of Labor in Federal court. The case was brought by cause of
action, and we now ask your support of S. 1656 sponsored by
Senators Pryor and Boozman, which was referred to this
committee.
Members of the committee, I support our government's duty
to verify the lawfulness of the actions of its citizens.
However, the Department of Labor is acting to oppose struggling
families who are seeking to help themselves. I believe the
government should instead do more to honor a precious American
resource, the ingenuity and courage of America's entrepreneurs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Riner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rhea Lana Riner
In 1997, I began my small business as a young mom after my family
transitioned from a corporate salary to a ministry salary. I loved cute
clothes, but did not have the budget to dress my children the way I
hoped. So, I invited a few friends to a small event in my living room
to buy and sell children's clothing.
After that very first sale, my husband suggested that we
computerize everything so that consignors could enter their items
online, and we bar coded our tags. From that time until now, we have
worked hard on developing our unique, copyrighted software and we
continually strive to increase and improve our technology. We value the
precious little time that moms have to do all that they must do. Our
events are about loving and serving people.
From this humble beginning, my heart swelled for families with
budget struggles trying to provide for their children. I wanted to
offer them the opportunity to save money. The moms, grandmoms, and
husbands who join together to host consignment events like ours create
a marketplace in which their families can both sell and purchase gently
used children's clothing, toys and baby equipment. My business, called
Rhea Lana's, is simply a facilitator. We help these families succeed,
and we love it!
In 2008 we took a huge step and expanded our business. We now
support seventy new business women who serve many thousands of families
in their own communities. We are proud of these ladies! They have had
the love and courage to step out of their comfort zones. It is my
heart's desire to add value to the lives of families by providing
excellent quality merchandise at affordable prices. And it is also my
desire to help women learn to gracefully wear those hats that we all
wear--and to mature personally, professionally, spiritually and
emotionally.
The last 17 years have been an incredible journey. I never intended
to be a business person. But I am deeply thankful to God for putting
this desire in my heart, pushing me out of my comfort zone, and
blessing my attempts in building this business. Just as with any
pursuit, there have been highs and lows, victories and challenges. But
I was raised to be a hard worker and to never give up.
Please allow me to tell you how my current struggle began.
In Spring 2011, I sent an e-mail to central Arkansas families
announcing an upcoming Rhea Lana's event. The e-mail mentioned that
moms could volunteer at the event if they were interested in helping
out. One of these e-mails went to a family member of an Arkansas
Department of Labor employee that had signed-up for our mailing list.
Arkansas Labor officials soon began investigating Rhea Lana's to
determine if we were violating any laws by allowing volunteers to help
at events. We cooperated fully, and in the end, received a favorable
response from our State. After slightly tweaking our business model, we
signed a Consent Agreement with Arkansas in January 2012 that allowed
us to continue using consignor-volunteers. The State then audited Rhea
Lana's in June 2012 and utilized the Consent Agreement to interpret
their findings.
While our experience with the Arkansas Department of Labor resulted
in significant legal expense to our small company, we ultimately were
very satisfied with the result. In fact, I would like to commend the
Arkansas Department of Labor for applying a common sense approach to
Rhea Lana's business model that allows us to continue operating and
serving Arkansas families.
But then, in January 2013, we were contacted by the U.S. Department
of Labor. There are over 2,000 consignment events held each season
nationwide, and we have never heard of any of them being investigated.
Yet now, we were about to undergo our second investigation in 2 years!
We learned at a hearing before a joint session of the Arkansas Senate
and House Insurance and Commerce committees that the State of Arkansas
had originally referred Rhea Lana's to the U.S. DOL, which at first
declined to investigate us. Only after the State of Arkansas completed
their investigation and signed our Consent Agreement did the U.S. DOL
decide to investigate us.
Our initial meeting with the U.S. DOL was held in Little Rock on
February 28, 2013. Staff members from Congressman Griffin and Senator
Boozman's office attended, along with Denise Oxley, Counsel for the
Arkansas Department of Labor. In the spirit of full cooperation, we
provided DOL with the contact information of 10 moms who had
participated as consignor-volunteers for the DOL to interview. These
moms come from all walks of life. For example, two were teachers, one
was a stay-at-home mom, two were nurses, and one was a radiologist. We
thought that once the U.S. DOL spoke with these moms and recognized
that they were participating on a limited basis for their own benefit,
not because Rhea Lana's had some control over them, the U.S. DOL would
realize they are not employees. We also shared with the U.S. DOL the
Consent Agreement we had entered into with the Arkansas State
Department. Unfortunately, this did not satisfy the U.S. Department of
Labor. DOL asked for all of our payroll records going back 2 years,
submitted formal questions to us that required the assistance of
lawyers to respond, and unpredictably showed up at one of our events to
surreptitiously interview our moms. The moms told us that they told the
DOL that we are all in this together, and that they choose to
participate to help their families.
Ignoring the moms' input, in a letter responding to Congressman
Griffin, the DOL cited a 1985 Supreme Court case involving cult leaders
who used adults and children in horrible ways that violated the law.
The DOL's target in this 1985 Supreme Court case, Tony Alamo, is a
convicted child offender who exploited cult members. By relying upon
this case, the DOL appears to be comparing me and my children's
consignment business to a criminal who preyed upon and manipulated many
families here in Arkansas.
This should come as no surprise to you, but Rhea Lana's does not
abuse its volunteers! Moms love Rhea Lana's, and they are certainly NOT
exploited cult members.
The DOL also told us that the participating moms should be
considered employees because they volunteer at our event location. Our
consignment events are like multi-family garage sales in many ways.
Certainly the DOL does not expect neighbors to issue W-2's for
participating in the neighborhood garage sale. Hopefully, government
regulations will never come to this, but this is the same type of model
under which Rhea Lana's operates.
Incredibly, the U.S. DOL even sent letters to all of our consignor-
volunteers, asserting they had the right to sue us. The letter was also
mailed to our past employees and implied that we may not have paid them
for their labor--which we certainly did. We note that we have received
ZERO complaints from our consignor-volunteers and employees. None of
them took action against us--even after DOL's prompting.
In August 2013, DOL sent us a letter citing legal provisions that
``provide for the assessment of a civil money penalty for any repeated
or willful violations . . . in an amount not to exceed $1,100 for each
such violation.'' After being investigated for 2 years, when I received
that letter it was my most terrifying and discouraging experience.
However, we at Rhea Lana's will not be victims. We are defending
ourselves against the U.S. DOL's seemingly arbitrary position. We have
two bills in Congress. House Bill H.R. 3173 is sponsored by our
Representative Tim Griffin, and co-sponsored by all of Arkansas's
Congressmen--Rep. Tom Cotton, Rep. Steve Womack and Rep. Rick Crawford,
as well as Missouri Congresswoman Vicki Hartzley. Senate Bill S. 1656
is sponsored by both Senator Mark Pryor and Senator John Boozman. We
are mobilizing moms nationwide to help Congress to understand that moms
have the right to join together to help their families. If you have
suggestions about how we can mobilize Members of Congress outside our
State, we are very open to hearing from you.
Also, on January 6, 2014, Cause of Action, an advocacy group for
economic freedom, filed a legal complaint on our behalf against the DOL
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Again, we
believe the Fair Labor Standards Act and case law are on our side.
Members of the committee, I understand and support our government's
duty to verify the lawfulness of the actions of its citizens. This is
part of living in a civilized world. However, unlike our own State of
Arkansas, the Federal Government is now acting to oppose and frustrate
struggling families. It is acting in this chilling manner even after
fully investigating the intentions and activities of our industrious
moms. I am doing all I can to protect my business and the rights of
these precious women from their own government. I am grateful for a
chance to speak with you, and I hope you will join me. Our children--
and their moms--deserve our best.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Riner.
Thank you all very much for your very concise statements. I
read over your statements last evening. They're all excellent
written statements, and I appreciate it very much.
We'll start a round--as I said, we'll do just one question
each, and then we'll get through that, and maybe we'll get some
discussions going. Like I said, if a question is asked of the
panel, and if you would like to respond to it, just, as Senator
Mikulski showed you, turn your name up like that.
So I'll have the first question, and it is a panel
question. I understand that much of the developed world has
already implemented many of the public policies that we're
discussing here today. Can any of you address what some of
those policies are, and how successful have they been for women
in some of these other countries, if you're aware of any such
thing like that?
I've heard of Canada, and I've heard of some European
countries and others in the OECD countries. Are any of you
aware of what they've done in any other countries?
Ms. Bravo.
Ms. Bravo. When I was pregnant with my first child in the
late 1970s, I had a good friend who lives in France who said,
``I feel so sorry for you that you have to have this baby in
the United States.'' And I was shocked to learn how backward we
were in comparison to the rest of the world.
You mentioned developed countries. It isn't only developed
countries. I used to give a quiz when I taught a class for
master's level students on family practices, and I put up,
``Which of these countries don't have paid family leave, Iran,
Mongolia, Kenya?'' And we were the only one besides Papua New
Guinea and then Swaziland--now it's Oman--who don't have paid
leave for mothers, and many have paid leave for fathers.
One of the things that's really great is that many
countries who have far more time than we do have studied what
the impact is on fathers' involvement with their kids. For
example, countries like Denmark and Sweden and Norway require
fathers to spend at least a certain amount of time with their
newborn or the family loses it. And it has hugely changed their
involvement, not just with their infants, but with their kids
throughout their lives.
The Chairman. Did you want to respond to that also?
Ms. Tanden. Yes. I'll just briefly say that our economic
competitors, Germany, China--they all offer paid leave
proposals. So if you're thinking about this from a
competitiveness perspective, those countries have recognized,
as all other developed nations have recognized, that ensuring
that women participate is an important economic challenge.
Countries like Italy and Japan are actually trying to increase
their women's participation rate in the workforce, because they
recognize it's a competitive advantage, not a disadvantage.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Riner, that's a really interesting story you tell about
your company and the special efforts you've made to give
volunteers a chance to have an advantage. You've got a
bipartisan bill by both the Democratic and Republican Senators
from Arkansas to change the attitude of the Department of
Labor. If the Department of Labor were to be successful in
requiring you to treat your volunteers as employees, what would
be the cost to your company, and what would be the effect on
your company?
Ms. Riner. There would be a tremendous cost, sir. That's
why we're fighting for it. It would definitely negatively
affect us. We have moms, our consignor mom volunteers, that
just volunteer a few hours. We hold events twice a year. So to
have to have the added burden and regulation and the red tape
that goes into classifying them as employees would be an
incredible burden.
We have definitely felt targeted and singled out. There are
consignment events going on all over the country, and we
disagree with their position, quite frankly. We feel--the
Supreme Court has said that when you apply the Fair Labor
Standards Act that you look at the economic reality of the
whole situation. So we use our common sense to look at the
whole work activity.
The work activity of our business is that it's moms coming
together to work for themselves. They're co-venturing with us
to sell their children's items. So they're not our employees,
and that decision by the DOL would negatively affect our
business and our opportunity, quite frankly, to serve our
customers.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. On my list, I have Senator Mikulski, Senators
Franken, Casey, Warren, and Murphy.
Statement of Senator Mikulski
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to
both you and Senator Alexander for convening this hearing.
Women in this country have always worked. There is somehow or
another this myth that there are these little ladies at home
that suddenly emerged after radical feminism flamed their
desires to join the workforce in the 1960s.
Whether it was the founding mother, like Abigail Adams, who
kept the farm going while John came down and wrote the
Constitution, to women who kept farms and others going during
wars, to some who came to this country to escape chains, some
in chains, worked, and we know about the sweat shops. Women
have always worked. But the work has often been undervalued,
underpaid, or made invisible.
Then we have a modern employer, and my question goes to
you, Ms. Troy. First of all, congratulations to this company
making stuff to protect our firefighters. Second, you have to
be competing with China. We understand that you're a global
competing company. How does a company like yours offer these
benefits and still remain competitive in this world?
And I gather you also turned a profit, because you're
turning every argument against what we want to do on its head.
Can you speak from the business perspective about how you're
able to do this, and does it actually increase profitability?
Ms. Troy. Yes. Thank you. I thank you for your kind
comments. We are a family-owned and -operated company. We've
been in the same family for 127 years. We invented the fire
suit, so we have a leg up on the competition, and it was ours
to lose, I guess. We actually do not compete with China or any
other overseas entities, mostly because our garments are
customized.
What is not well-known outside of our very small niche
industry is that every single garment we make, all 100,000-plus
of them, are measured to fit a particular firefighter. And then
we add onto that different selections of materials, different
selections of various components, and then after we do all
that, we put on options. Options are pockets and snaps and
various things that you can attach your rope to. So you can't
make them in China.
We make them one at a time for an individual firefighter.
We have 1.7 million combinations of options that can go on a
fire suit, and we can make all 1.7 million combinations in our
two main manufacturing facilities in New Hampshire and in
Oklahoma.
The owners have always been committed to working with the
employees. They live in town with us. It's a small town. I
don't live in the town, but I think it's 5,000 people or so.
Senator Mikulski. Apart from wanting to be a good employer,
do you feel that these practices increase productivity and
profit, or are they kind of neutral, or are they negative?
Ms. Troy. There are some of each. Some things increase
productivity. We have a nice profit sharing plan where we do a
quarterly profit sharing bonus to all employees if the company
meets its goals. We all have to work together in order to be
both productive and efficient and to meet our quality
standards. That certainly motivates employees. They get a
weekly report as to how they're doing, and then a bonus is paid
out quarterly to every employee if we meet those goals. We do a
lot of things like that.
We spend a lot of time actually talking with our employees
and working with them. We listen to them when they have
concerns or when things come up, and we try to balance our
programs and our policies around the issues that come up in the
workplace to make sure that we're meeting their needs as well
as the company's. And, yes, we are profitable.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Casey. No, I'm sorry. Senator Franken. I apologize.
Statement of Senator Franken
Senator Franken. It's quite all right. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Ms. Bravo, I was very taken with your testimony about the
children in the hospital with no parent there. Quite a while
ago, a friend of mine--their child was very, very sick, and I
went to visit the family, and both parents were able to be
there. They were able to do that. But as I went around this
pediatric ward, I saw there were kids that didn't have a
parent.
We have this sort of philosophical debate. I think Senator
Alexander said a mandate versus not. We have the Family Medical
Leave Act, which is mandated, so you can have medical leave for
your kid, but it's not paid. So parents who can't afford to
take the medical leave don't do it, and their kid is there, and
the kid is alone.
What I wonder about is what is it like in other countries?
Do we have children alone--very sick children alone in the
hospital without their parents, or do they have paid medical
leave? And if they do, is it a mandate? What's the tradeoff
here? It broke my heart, and these parents of the child I was
visiting were very cognizant of these other children and so was
that child. What is that like around the world, and what is it
like here, and what's it like in California? This is open for
anyone.
Ms. Tanden. Around the world, there's a mandate for leave,
and you can take it for sick children in many countries. But
you ended with California----
Senator Franken. Is it paid, though?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, it's paid leave in other countries. We
stand out as a country that does not offer paid leave, and,
therefore, we have bigger burdens on workers and their families
and their children. I also think we should just look at the
example of California, which has a paid leave model. That model
is one where the workers pay out, so it's not a particular
burden just on employers, but workers pay into a system, and
then they get basically paid leave insurance.
We have lots of data about this so-called tradeoff, and
businesses--the vast majority of businesses report that it's a
positive or neutral on the bottom line. It increases
productivity. It helps keep workers. It helps retain high-
quality workers. It helps retain women workers. Women are too
often forced to come out of the workforce and then come in at a
lower salary than they otherwise would.
So you see a lot of economic benefits, not in another
country, but in a State like California, and New Jersey is
another one. It's a model that shouldn't be foreign to us,
because we have good examples that work here.
The Chairman. Ms. Bravo.
Ms. Bravo. I have references to all these studies that show
that impact on kids, on health, as well as on businesses'
bottom line in my written remarks. But, you know, in 1995,
there was a bipartisan commission appointed by Congress to
study the impact of the then unpaid Family Medical Leave Act,
and I was one of those 12 people.
I remember one of the more striking things--because as
someone who fought for the bill, we were told over and over
that it isn't necessary, that employers are doing it on their
own. Of those employers who are covered, let's never forget
that 40 percent of the workforce isn't covered, and the
majority of employers aren't required to offer it.
Two-thirds of the covered employers had to change one or
more of their policies in order to comply. Do you know what
that often meant? Covering adoptive parents, covering dads,
covering people to take care of their aging parents or to take
care of a kid with cancer. It was a really good thing that we
did this, and now the 2012 survey on FMLA showed that most
employers find it easy to deal with and a good thing, and that
will happen with these other laws, too.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Traub, I'll give you a short answer. We're out of 5
minutes on this one.
Ms. Traub. Yes, sorry about that. I always think I talk
fast, and then I do. I think about, thankfully, not all of us
have a child who is sick for a long time. But anyone who is a
parent--you're going to have a child that is sick from time to
time. Everyone gets sick. And so a basic benefit like paid sick
days is--you know, everybody gets sick, and yet not every job
accommodates somebody--that very human reality that every child
gets sick, every adult gets sick at one time or another, and we
need time to take care of ourselves and our children.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken.
Senator Casey.
Statement of Senator Casey
Senator Casey. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
members of the panel for being here. It's a great panel, and
we're learning a lot as we listen and as we hear the questions.
I wanted to focus specifically on the issue of
discrimination in the workplace as it relates to pregnant
women. A number of you mentioned the legislation that Senator
Shaheen and I have, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
I have to say when I heard the very personal testimony that
you provided, Ms. Legros, that you did, what I've been trying
to do for months, which is to summarize in one or two sentences
what it's all about.
We have a problem that we thought we fixed a long time ago.
We had a Pregnancy Discrimination Act passed in 1978, but--we
later found it had a gaping hole in it. We didn't do for
pregnancy what we were able to do, thankfully, for disabilities
in 1990. So instead of having a provision, as we did in the
ADA, which passed with overwhelming support under George
Herbert Walker Bush, the first President Bush, the so-called
reasonable accommodations. What we're trying to do with this
bill is to provide that same protection.
I wanted to ask you one question, in particular. But I
wanted to re-read to everyone what you said earlier. You said,
``Having a child shouldn't mean losing your job. It should not
lead to fear and financial dire straits.'' You have
encapsulated the problem with that sentence--or both sentences,
really--and you've encapsulated the reason why we need to pass
the bill.
I guess I would ask you, in your own experience, in terms
of the work you were doing, after you had pulled a muscle--you
pulled a muscle, and you're told not to strain yourself. Your
doctor gives you a note. You hand the note to the employer and
he says, ``Go home.'' That's a quick summary. But in your
workplace, what was the accommodation or change that would have
helped you to stay on the job and do the job, even as you were
pregnant?
Ms. Legros. Thank you, Senator. With my job, I had
different duties. I could have been accommodated by doing
clerical duties instead of the heavy lifting. It was just a
minor accommodation to have someone else to lift those, but it
was just only me at the time. So they did not want to have
somebody else help me at the time. But it could have been done.
They were accommodating others at the time, but when it came to
me, he just decided not to.
Senator Casey. Does anyone else want to comment on that, in
particular?
Ms. Goss Graves.
Ms. Goss Graves. Ms. Legros' story is very consistent with
the type of intake we get at the National Women's Law Center.
We thought we had solved this problem with the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act, and what we're finding is that some
employers are basically saying that everyone can be
accommodated if their doctor tells them that they need it,
except for women who are pregnant. And that's the exact
opposite of what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was supposed
to do.
Sometimes it's even basic accommodations, like having a
step stool if you're working at a cash register, having the
ability to go to the bathroom or take a water break. These
aren't huge accommodations, and with Amy Crosby, the example I
gave, lifting 20 pounds was OK. It was just 50 pounds that her
doctor advised her.
Senator Casey. I'll conclude with this. The individuals in
this category, in terms of the whole workforce, are 1.5 percent
of the workforce. It seems that we could come up with something
to protect 1.5 percent of the workforce.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey.
Senator Warren.
Statement of Senator Warren
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Alexander. We've heard today how the deck is stacked against
women, particularly working moms, and about how it's getting
worse. We also know that two out of every three minimum wage
workers is a woman, and that a mother working full-time at
minimum wage cannot keep herself and a baby out of poverty.
Minimum wage workers have not received an increase in their
wages in 7 years. Women also make up about three-quarters of
tipped minimum wage workers, and they haven't received a raise
in 23 years. This is bad for women. It doesn't reflect our
values. CEOs got raises. Managers got raises. But the mothers
who cook and clean and work hard are just kept at the same
poverty level wages.
We could change this if Congress would raise the minimum
wage to $10.10 an hour. More than 15 million women and their
families would have a chance to lift themselves and improve
their economic prospects. So what I'd like to ask the panel is
how increasing the minimum wage would lift women and their
families, to expand on what it means if we move to a $10.10 an
hour minimum wage, and what kind of opportunities that would
create for working families.
Anyone? Yes, please.
Ms. Pelletier. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the
question. In Connecticut, we did just pass legislation that
raised it to $10.10. For about 80,000 women and men, that's
going to mean that they'll have more money to spend in the
economy.
When their wages go from $8.65 to $10.10, that's going to
mean more to the local baker. That's going to mean more to the
local dry cleaner. And in turn, that will then allow the local
baker and dry cleaner to go out and buy some other product or
do some other service.
Again, the idea that women making $7.25 on the Federal
level after 40 hours, or roughly $300 a week, or $1,200 a
month--how they make ends meet--clearly, they're magicians. We
need to make sure that the minimum wage gets raised. For tip
workers, again, the idea that they haven't had a raise since I
was very young is heartbreaking, and these are hardworking men
and women who are trying to make ends meet but haven't gotten a
raise.
Thank you.
Senator Warren. Thank you.
Ms. Goss Graves.
Ms. Goss Graves. I just want to add that we have a new
study out that highlights that one in five working moms are
working in very low-wage jobs. This is an issue for women
overall. It's an issue especially for working moms.
Senator Warren. Thank you. That's important to note.
Ms. Tanden.
Ms. Tanden. I would just like to add that I know that
there's a lot of concern about tight Federal budget dollars
these days, and, unfortunately, a lot of low-income women rely
on food stamps. The Center for American Progress recently
issued a report that showed that increasing the minimum wage to
$10.10 an hour would save $46 billion in food stamps and would
lift a lot of women, obviously, out of poverty. But I think for
those members of the committee concerned about tight Federal
dollars, increasing the minimum wage would be a phenomenal way
to have more fiscal stability.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Ms. Bravo.
Ms. Bravo. Minimum wage workers without paid sick days are
sub-minimum wage workers. Paid sick days is a way of keeping
your pay as well as keeping your job, and we so appreciate your
comments on that. Thank you.
Senator Warren. Thank you.
I want to thank the panel on this. I just want to summarize
here if I can, Mr. Chairman. What we hear is that if we would
raise the minimum wage, it would be good for the economy, that
it would reduce Federal spending at least to the tune of $46
billion, that it would affect one in five working mothers, and
from the data we already know, it would permit 15 million women
and their families to lift their economic circumstances and
build a fighting chance for their children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
Senator Murphy.
Statement of Senator Murphy
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to this fantastic panel. You've all been
excellent. I want to drill down on one particular subject, and
I'll maybe point the question to my great friend, Lori
Pelletier, and then ask others to comment if you'd like.
I wanted to talk about specific industries that have
disproportionate shares of males versus females. I think of an
article that was in the Wall Street Journal at the end of last
year, particularly on the issue of manufacturing--and that's
Ms. Pelletier's background--that said that we are at a 20-year
low in terms of the number of women who are working in
manufacturing today, 27 percent of the workforce.
And yet we've added a couple of hundred thousand
manufacturing jobs over the past couple of years, and there are
all sorts of estimates to suggest that this is going to be one
of the primary growth areas for our economy, and yet only one
of four individuals working in manufacturing are women. I'd
look at military service in the same way. This is an area of
huge employment opportunity, and yet women are tremendously
underrepresented. We've had some changes in combat rules which
may change that dynamic.
But I'll maybe ask the question specifically with respect
to manufacturing and, more broadly, in terms of other
industries. How can we try to remedy some of these disparities,
especially within industries like manufacturing, where we see
tremendous job growth over the next several years or several
decades?
Ms. Pelletier. Thank you, Senator. I think that one of the
best things that we can do is invest in the science,
technology, education, and math schools for our kids, for our
young women. I was very fortunate. I had two parents that never
said that as a young girl I couldn't play little league, and I
was the first girl in my town to play little league. And it was
OK for me to go out and to enjoy math and enjoy science,
although I do wish I had been part of the AV squad with all the
computers today instead of the softball team.
But that's what we need to do. We need to encourage young
women and say to them, ``Hey, it's OK to like math. It's OK to
go into the sciences. It's OK to learn how to be a mechanic on
a jet engine.'' I look at my niece, Gabriella, who is going to
be 13 in a couple of weeks, and she loves math, and she loves
science. For me and for all of us, we should be encouraging
more of that, and then that way, those jobs that pay well, that
have good benefits, that are here to stay, women can be part
of.
Senator Murphy. Any other comments on this question?
Go ahead, Ms. Goss Graves.
Ms. Goss Graves. I was just going to add that there's a
leaky pipeline in STEM. But some of it is sort of the
environment that women who are in those jobs are working in
now, and some of the barriers that we talked about, including
harassment. It comes up in manufacturing. You hear about
rampant pregnancy discrimination and other barriers. I think
encouragement and recruitment is critical. But we also need
reinforcement of our civil rights laws.
Senator Murphy. A quick question to you, Ms. Tanden. It
seems as if the debate over repeal of the healthcare law has
maybe been set on the sidelines for now. But can you just give
us a quick minute and a half on the economic consequences for
women if the repeal efforts were successful?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator. I welcome the day that
there's no longer controversy with the ACA. There's really two
sets of economic impacts of the ACA. First, particularly,
there's a range of benefits championed by many people in this
room. Senator Mikulski was a lead champion of ensuring that
there was a range of preventive benefits that are available for
women and, most importantly, that women would no longer be
discriminated against in insurance protections.
Women, before the ACA, paid much more, often 20 percent to
30 percent more for their insurance. That is no longer possible
with the ACA. It is a mandate, but I think it is a fair
mandate. I also would note, though, that, as importantly, costs
for healthcare are reducing, the level of cost in the
Affordable Care Act. And I know, Senator, that you have shown
tremendous leadership on the issue of healthcare costs and put
forward many ideas.
But as we reduce healthcare costs, that is also going to be
a benefit to employment, because in the United States,
employers and employees bear the cost of health insurance
directly. As we lower those costs, we will lower barriers to
employment. In both ways, women workers are benefiting from the
Affordable Care Act, and I think it would be a tragedy to reach
out and take those protections away from them.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Baldwin.
Statement of Senator Baldwin
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. We have the basic premise in
America that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should
have a fair shot at getting ahead. It's just a basic premise
that we all agree on, but we know that for too many, it is not
the case. So I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for
convening this roundtable to discuss some of the barriers that
we see to realizing it.
One of the barriers that I would like to explore a little
further is the role of discrimination and harassment, in
particular, sexual harassment in the workplace and how that
threatens the economic security of women and their families.
Just a few statistics on this topic--the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission says that they're receiving annual
claims of sexual harassment of over 10,000 per year, and yet
according to polls and other research, it's drastically
underreported. Only 41 percent of women surveyed indicate that
they have reported harassment out of those who have actually
experienced it.
Now, workplace sexual harassment was already clearly a
significant threat to the economic security of working women.
But last year, I think there was a significant setback when the
U.S. Supreme Court worsened an already difficult environment by
stripping away some critical protections against workplace
harassment in Vance v. Ball State University.
In Vance, the court made it harder to hold employers
accountable when the harassment was perpetrated by what you
could describe as lower level supervisors, in other words, a
supervisor who doesn't have hiring and firing authority over
somebody that they supervise, but may yet have all sorts of
other control or ability to affect the working lives, and
beyond, of those that they supervise. So in response--and I
think before I was able to arrive, there might have been some
reference to it--I have introduced the Fair Employment
Protection Act, which would basically restore the critical
protections that were stripped away in the Vance decision.
But I wonder if I might ask you, Ms. Goss Graves--in the
Vance case, the Supreme Court weakened the employer liability
for harassment by lower level supervisors. These people,
nonetheless, control daily activities of many workers,
particularly those in low-wage positions.
So I'll ask, in your experience, can't those supervisors,
nevertheless, use their leverage, their control that they have
in the workforce, whether it's to set hours or assign tasks
relating to other workplace conditions, to harass and
discriminate against or sexually harass their subordinates?
Ms. Goss Graves. That's absolutely right. In her dissent in
the Vance decision, Justice Ginsburg said that this new rule
was really out of touch with the realities of the workplace. In
large part, that's because there are a lot of lower level
supervisors who control the day-to-day activities of workers.
They're the people who say what shift you work, whether you
work weekends, whether you're cleaning the toilets or working
the register. It is a way to aggravate the harassment. So in
her dissent, she said the ball is in Congress' court, and we
are grateful to you and others for taking it up through the
Fair Employment Protection Act.
Senator Baldwin. Any other comments on the issue of sexual
harassment in the workplace?
My friend, Ms. Bravo.
Ms. Bravo. I wanted to talk about another form of
discrimination that you have addressed and that Senator
Alexander referred to--people who are working part-time. Part
of the problem is that we have no law that says if you and I do
the same job for the same company, but I do it fewer hours a
week, I have to get treated the same in any way--base pay, any
benefits.
We have a situation where the FMLA, for example, excludes
many part-time workers, and I appreciate your having championed
getting rid of that exclusion. We need part-time parity. I may
work fewer hours, but I'm full-time every hour I'm on the job.
And if we did that, we'd have more jobs that were better jobs.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
Senator Murray.
Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
having this hearing. I think the issue of economic security for
working women is critically important to our Nation today as we
try to grow our economy. I just had a hearing in my Budget
Committee on this issue last week--what are the policies, what
are the things we need to be doing as a nation today to make
sure that women can participate fully in the workforce,
everything from minimum wage to childcare?
I think we have to be looking at our country to say, ``What
are we doing?'' I appreciate your holding this hearing and my
thanks to all of our witnesses who are here today.
Let me focus my time on a slightly different end of the
spectrum for women, and that's retirement security. We know
that only about half of the workers in the private sector today
have access to an employer-based retirement plan. That is a
figure that drops to about 30 percent for workers in businesses
with fewer than 100 employees. And, surprisingly, in such a
wealthy nation, about 45 percent of all of our workers have no
retirement assets at all--45 percent.
That is pretty bad news for everyone. But, in particular,
it does lead to worse retirement conditions for women. Among
people 65 and older, women have less retirement income and face
a greater risk of poverty than men, and one in three women
today depends on social security as their sole source of
income. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that we have
a crisis in America today when it comes to retirement for
women, in particular. And I wanted to open it up to any of you
who would like to comment on that.
Ms. Tanden, we'll start with you.
Ms. Tanden. I agree on the points you're making and really
thank you for your leadership on this issue, Senator Murray,
and on issues like universal Pre-K and childcare that are so
critical to working families. I would just note that issues of
pay disparity for women have retirement implications, because
as women are paid less throughout their career, that
accumulates also in having a disparate pay in their retirement
benefits, which are tied to salary.
So as we look at retirement issues and the real anxiety
that so many women, especially older women, have about being
able to face retirement, we also need to recognize that what
happens in the employment practice and the fact that we still
have these disparities replicate themselves in retirement as
well.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Ms. Pelletier.
Ms. Pelletier. Thank you, Senator. In Connecticut, a study
was done--and, again, we're a wealthy nation, and Connecticut
is a wealthy State. But one out of four seniors lives in
poverty in Connecticut. If you think about the fact that women
as a whole, if, over the course of their work career, are
continually making 23 cents less, basically, on a 40-year work
life, they work 10 years for nothing. That absolutely has
something to do with retirement security.
In Connecticut this past year, we were able to work with
the Governor's office and get a study to look at a potential
retirement for all, a State-run, employee-contributed
retirement fund so that people may have a chance to put some
money away. If people are working seven or eight different jobs
in their career, and they're not staying at the same employer,
this would at least give them the security to know that they
can still put money in, even----
Senator Murray. Have you implemented that now?
Ms. Pelletier. Yes. The committee is supposed to convene by
July 1st and work and come back with specific recommendations.
It's very important. Again, in Connecticut, one out of every
four seniors lives in poverty.
Senator Murray. And how many of those are women?
Ms. Pelletier. I don't know.
Senator Murray. Ms. Bravo.
Ms. Bravo. Making sure that women have access to affordable
time for caregiving will also help their retirement income.
Fewer people will lose their jobs, and fewer people will lose
their income that affects the pay disparities that Neera was
talking about. That's another thing, and thank you so much for
bringing this up.
Senator Murray. I think sometimes we don't connect all the
policies we talk about today that we think are so important,
whether it's making sure you have childcare so that you can
stay at work, whether it's pay equity and how that impacts your
finances both today and when you retire, or the issue that so
many women come in and out of the workforce when they have kids
because our policies today make it tough.
What happens is all of a sudden, you're retired, and your
only source of income is social security. I think it's about
$13,000 or a little more than that a year for somebody to exist
on if their sole source of income is social security, and one
in three women, as I said, today depends on that small amount
of money. It's a huge economic issue.
Anybody else? Oh, I am out of time. But this is something I
welcome your input on, and I hope that we can focus on this
issue, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
We'll start another round.
Ms. Bravo, you said that the United States is the only
country that does not provide paid sick leave for a worker
undergoing a 50-day cancer treatment. We are one of only three
countries that do not provide paid sick days for a worker
missing 5 days of work, say, due to the flu. Does that strike
anybody but me as kind of odd? I mean, what's going on here?
I've known a lot of employers in this country and in my
State and otherwise, and it just seems to me that those who do
a better job of taking care of their employees, providing for
these kinds of contingencies, paid maternity leave--my daughter
works in California. They have a great system in California.
She's had three children now, and it's just great, the
maternity leave in California.
Why don't other businesses see the benefit they get from
productivity, loyalty, low turnover, lack of absenteeism, when
people have a baby and they come back to work? I don't get it.
What is it that we're not getting here that other countries and
some States are getting? What is it we don't understand?
Ms. Bravo. The role of lobbyists. Unfortunately, I think
the lobbyists for big corporations do a real disservice to
business owners. As I said, every one of our coalitions has
business partners. They already do it, because they see it's
the smart as well as the right thing to do, and they also
support there being minimum standards to guarantee protection
for everybody.
Unfortunately, we have lobbyists who get in the way, and in
their name--I call it identity theft--say that this is bad for
business. You can go back--there's a great Web site called Cry
Wolf, and it shows all these quotes, and you think, ``Oh,
that's so and so from Today.'' But, in fact, it was--you know,
they had their real estate board in New York after the Triangle
Shirtwaist Factor Fire arguing against fire escapes and not
being able to lock the workers in while they were on the job--
the simplest things. We've heard that the sky will fall and
business will flee.
The Chairman. Ms. Traub, did you want to respond to that?
Ms. Traub. I do. I think that, in addition, there's a
challenge for employers in that employee benefits are easily
seen as a cost, and wages are seen as a cost. And the benefits
that an employer can get in terms of more productive employees,
in terms of employees who may spend more money in the case of
retail at the business itself, will have more money to spend to
strengthen their community and will be more productive when
they have that time home with their families. That may be more
intangible to a business and harder to realize that all those
benefits really are there.
At the same time, I think that Ms. Bravo's point about
lobbyists that don't speak for the companies they purport to
represent is true in our experience, as well. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would just add that sometimes, some of our
larger employers do a better job. Sometimes the biggest ones do
the best job.
Ms. Legros, did you want to respond to that?
Ms. Legros. Yes. I just wanted to clarify something. I just
wanted to also add that if I was accommodated at work, there
wouldn't have been a lot of things that followed afterwards,
not being able to support my family, and having to rely on
public assistance and government assistance and all those
things. I just wanted to point that out, also.
The Chairman. Very true. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Ms. Troy, let me ask you this question,
and there may be others who want to comment on it. I've enjoyed
the testimony. I still am puzzled at how, at a time when the
big problem is the lack of jobs in America--and we're talking
about jobs for working women, women who work outside of the
home as well as inside the home--that we keep getting back to
the major cure for that being a raise in the minimum wage,
which Congressional Budget Office Director Elmendorf sat right
there and told us would destroy 500,000 jobs.
Now, he said it could be as few as not many jobs destroyed,
or it could be as many as a million jobs destroyed. But he is
obligated by law to tell us what the truth is, that is what we
pay him for. He said it would destroy 500,000 jobs. So we're
talking about the need for good jobs, and the No. 1 solution is
to destroy 500,000 jobs. How does that make any sense? It
doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Then-CBO Director Elmendorf told us that 80 percent of the
benefits go to people who are members of families above the
poverty level. We also know that two-thirds of minimum wage
workers earn a raise within 1 year of starting employment.
If our goal is to help working women and men who are not
making enough money, why would we take action that would cost
500,000 Americans jobs? I mean, each of those persons have
names. Most of them must be women, according to the testimony
we've heard today. Why don't we find some better policy?
So let me suggest some and ask for your comments. Since
Federal workers already have the opportunity to request comp
time, which is paid time off instead of overtime pay, Ms. Troy,
why shouldn't private workers be allowed to do that?
And, second, why should we not consider the reform and
expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit as a way to help
women and men who are working and not making enough money? In
the case of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the money, we know,
goes to low-income people who work. It goes to people who need
the money, and so far as I know, there is no suggestion that it
would cost jobs. Those are two other ways to address the issue
of women who work outside the home. Do you have a comment on
either of those?
Ms. Troy. I am honestly more familiar with the comp time
than the Earned Income Tax Credit. That's not something that we
deal with a lot. Comp time--I can't speak specifically for my
company, because we haven't discussed it at great length.
But it makes sense that employees and employers could
choose whether to allow comp time at the same time and a half
rate, so that employees would not be harmed by that. And if the
employee would rather have time off over the summer or when
something is going on in their own family, instead of taking
the overtime pay that same week, I think they should be given
that choice.
I think we would discuss it very seriously as a company and
decide whether it was something that made sense for us to
offer. And I suspect some employees would really be happy to do
that, and some would still choose to take the time-and-a-half
pay. I think having the choice would be great.
I know we have employees who are very close to the State
capital of Concord, NH, and we have employees who are coming to
us after having worked for the State. And they tend to get
upset with us that they can't have comp time, and it's not us.
I'm trying to explain to them, yes, there are rules, but the
rules apply differently if you work for the government than if
you work in the private sector, and it's very difficult.
We do get that question fairly frequently. ``Well, why
can't I save my time and have some extra vacation or to take
care of some personal business?''
Senator Alexander. Thank you. I believe there are two or
three others, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I don't know who had theirs up first.
Ms. Traub, go ahead.
Ms. Traub. Thank you. With all due respect to the
Congressional Budget Office and their study, there's a lot of
evidence, really, that raising the minimum wage does not harm
job creation and may encourage it. There's sort of two sets of
studies on this, some that use economic models and some that
look at the experience of States that really have raised the
minimum wage and what the impact has been. In the studies that
look at the experience of States that have recently raised the
minimum wage, there are not findings that this has been
detrimental to job creation.
Senator Alexander. I know there are lots of different
studies, but that was the Congressional Budget Office testimony
after a review. And then President Obama's new chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board was asked if CBO was competent to make
that review, and she said they're as good as anybody to study
it. They are non-partisan. We have to take somebody's judgment
on that.
Ms. Traub. Senator, I do think that the Earned Income Tax
Credit is a wonderful supplement to an increase in the minimum
wage and can be a big part of the solution.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
The Chairman. Yes. Go ahead, Ms. Goss Graves.
Ms. Goss Graves. The only other thing that I want to add to
that is that I think today's roundtable has shown how
interconnected these issues are, and that the reality of
women's lives is that there's two-thirds of working adult women
who are minimum wage workers. Having an increase in the minimum
wage would make a big difference. But also having an Earned
Income Tax Credit makes a big difference. I think things like
support for childcare is going to make a big difference.
When you pair all of that with the conversation around
flexibility, the conversation that we hear at the Law Center a
lot is around schedules that are unpredictable and unstable and
workers who aren't able to deal with their family needs because
of that reason. So I think these are interconnected issues, but
I don't think it's a situation where you have to do one or the
other.
Senator Alexander. I think there's one other comment.
The Chairman. Did you have--OK, fine.
Senator Alexander. There's one over here.
The Chairman. Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Riner.
Ms. Riner. Thank you, sir. I just wanted to bring a little
different perspective as a business owner, a small business
owner, that I love and care for my employees as if they are our
family. So just a little different perspective. I'm not an
expert in all the regulations that are being discussed today.
But just a reminder that when we do apply these regulations
across the board, it really hurts small businesses like myself,
and it can hurt with undue regulations.
One of the things that we offer in our business is
franchise opportunities to women. That's a way I have really
enjoyed approaching the economic challenges of women in the
workforce. We provide an entry level opportunity for a woman to
be a business owner.
I know, Senator Alexander, you discussed flexibility, and
from my discussions with women across the country, that is what
women want. We actually want it all. We want to provide and
help our families financially, but we also want to be present
with our families. So when we are able to be a business owner,
we have more control over our schedules, and I just love
offering that to women.
We actually have a single mom who is a franchise owner in
Kansas. That's what being a business owner has provided for
her. It's given her a chance to own and operate her business
and be very present with her child. I just wanted to share just
another perspective.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Riner.
Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, women
hold a disproportionate number of low-wage jobs, making up
about 76 percent of the workers in the 10 biggest low-wage job
categories in America. And these include some of the fastest
growing occupations in the country. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics projects that over the next decade, about half of
the fastest growing occupations will be in low-wage, female
dominated, service occupations. That's the direction we're
headed in.
Now, many of these jobs lack predictable schedules or
hours. Many of these workers have little control over their
work hours. It makes juggling a family, a home, and work for
many people almost impossible. According to the Retail Action
Project, about a fifth of retail workers receive their
schedules only 3 days in advance.
As a result of these practices, these workers often have to
struggle to cobble together childcare and transportation at the
last minute. And even after all of that, some of them get to
work only to be told to turn around and go home because
business is slow.
In Massachusetts, we have something called the 3-hour rule.
If you're scheduled for more than 3 hours and you show up for
your shift, then you must be paid for at least 3 hours at no
less than minimum wage. That law has been in place for over 30
years, and it seems to have worked pretty well. We've also
heard of other examples of States enacting innovative policies
to help working families.
So my question for the panel is this: Are there innovative
approaches at the State or local level that would curb abusive
scheduling practices and that would give families a fair shot
at trying to put together their lives?
Anyone--yes, Ms. Traub.
Ms. Traub. Massachusetts is such a great model of a
reporting pay law, and I think this is something that Congress
could consider. Eight States now offer laws on reporting pay
which compensate employees for a minimum number of hours during
a work shift for which they have been scheduled.
Many of these laws guarantee that if a worker is called in
for a shift, she has to be paid for a certain number of hours.
It might be 3 hours, 4 hours, even 1 hour. But it at least
guarantees that workers have that opportunity. If they've set
up childcare, if they've arranged for transportation, however
they've done it, to get to work, then they are guaranteed at
least a minimum amount of pay.
Senator Warren. Good. Very helpful. Thank you.
Ms. Goss Graves.
Ms. Goss Graves. In addition to the reporting time pay
laws, there are also laws out there that discourage split
shifts. I think that DC has an example, and California has an
example of that type of law. And there's also the laws that
allow for workers to request flexible schedules without
receiving a penalty. That's another example, and Vermont has
one.
What we know is that the consequences for workers who have
these unstable and inflexible schedules is that they can't also
have stable childcare arrangements and they can't also have
additional educational opportunities. So, another point about
all of these issues being linked.
Senator Warren. Actually, I should add to that people who
are trying to work two jobs and how impossible that becomes for
many.
Ms. Bravo.
Ms. Bravo. In California, the right to request is combined
with studying the predictable scheduling problem and looking
for solutions. That's a good model. There's another aspect of
this, which is enforcement. There are a lot of temp workers who
get told,
``You must show up to see if your name is on the
list. If you don't do that, you won't be called for
weeks. But you're not going to get paid for showing up
to see if your name is on the list.''
Or people who get driven in a van are told they can only
get the job if they go in the van, and they wind up sitting
there an hour, and they don't get paid for that time. Those
could be violations of wage and hour that we could change.
Senator Warren. Very helpful. I just want to ask, since my
time is up, if we could have more ideas sent in to the
committee. This is where we need to push the conversation. We
can't always be fighting on defense. It's time to talk about
where we could make changes that would help families.
And when we think, particularly, about the direction that
we're headed in the workforce and the rise in the number of
female dominated, low-wage jobs, the importance of being able
to focus on things like the scheduling issues, I think, could
really be powerful. So I invite your continued conversation on
this.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I want to talk about paid sick
time, or actually, more specifically, about the 40 percent of
working people who don't have those protections, because it
obviously leads to these horrible choices between taking care
of your own health or the health of a family member and losing
out on a paycheck or perhaps even a job entirely.
There was some testimony today about the steps forward that
have been achieved at the local and State level on this issue.
The old, good news in Wisconsin was that in 2008, voters in
Milwaukee approved a local ballot measure for mandating paid
sick days. But, troublingly, the bad news is that in my State
of Wisconsin and Ellen Bravo's State of Wisconsin, in 2011, a
law was passed to forbid localities from requiring paid time
off.
I wonder, starting with you, Ms. Bravo, if you could talk
about the trends at the State and local level on paid sick
days. I'm curious to know whether Wisconsin is an anomaly with
regard to cutting off local measures like this, or whether
there are other States that have done the same.
Ms. Bravo. Thank you so much, Senator Baldwin. There's lots
of progress, and we're going to see more in Senator Warren's
home State. I think we'll see increases in both paid sick time
and minimum wage under the umbrella of Raise Up Massachusetts,
and we're going to see a number of other places that will add
it.
But, alas, Wisconsin was not the only State. This is
another form of attack on democracy, trying to limit not only
who can vote, but what we can vote for. It's really
frightening, and it's, surprisingly, being done by people who
claim to care about local control. But it is, in essence, an
attack on local control for broader protections.
I remember when it was being stolen from us in Milwaukee,
the conservative columnist at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
wrote a column saying, ``I hate paid sick days.'' But local
control is local control. You can't take it away. But we're
fighting it. We've stopped in several places, and you'll see.
The Chairman. Ms. Tanden.
Ms. Tanden. I would just say, you know, Florida is an
example where there was a move afoot at the local level to have
paid sick days, and then statewide there was a move afoot to
stop that ability to have that happen. I would just say to the
committee that for those who support federalism and say that
States should be able to innovate without Federal intervention,
we should have the same level of experimentation at the city
level.
We're seeing paid sick days around the country--San
Francisco, New York City. These are experiments, and they
should not be thwarted by statewide action, either.
The Chairman. Ms. Pelletier.
Ms. Pelletier. Thank you, Senator. In Connecticut, we
passed paid sick days. It was a 3- or 4-year battle. The sky
was supposed to fall when it happened, and it did not. This
past year, a study was released that showed that it had no
negative impact on businesses at all.
And, what really drove it home was those service sector
jobs where people--we had testimony of people who in the food
industry had to go to work, serve customers, knowing they were
sick. One woman who stayed out because she had the flu for 2
days got fired by her employer.
So it was those sort of testimonies that really drove the
point home, because we can all picture ourselves going into a
fast food restaurant or any restaurant and thinking, ``My gosh.
The person who just served my food--were they sick or not?'' It
was a battle, but we continue to bring that out. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Troy.
Ms. Troy. Thank you. As an employer, we have issues with
the idea of just calling it sick time, because sick time means
you have to be sick, and I have to define that on who is
covered and what the documentation looks like, and there's a
lot of paperwork. As an employer, we said we don't want people
to have to wait until Thursday night or Friday morning and pick
up the phone and cough at the last minute into the phone and
pretend to be sick and call us because they need a day off. We
want them to be honest with us. We want them to be adults. We
want them to plan their time.
We already had between 10 and 20 vacation days, depending
on how long you've been with the company, and we added these 12
GTO days to say,
``Look, we know you have other reasons you need time
off. You might be sick, and if you have a family,
there's a bigger chance you need some sick time because
you have additional family members. But maybe you're a
single person and you don't get sick very often, but
you have a dog that you love that has to go to the vet,
or you have all those other things that happen in our
lives. You have to pick up mom at the airport. You have
to do those things.''
As an employer, we need to be encouraged to have time off
for people that's appropriate, but the sick time bucket is the
one-size-fits-all that doesn't fit everybody. It just doesn't.
To mandate sick time--we're not going to add to sick time if
someone mandates 7 sick days. We're not going to have 20 days
of vacation plus 12 days of GTO plus add 7 sick day plus jury
duty plus military plus--we're not going to add 7 more.
We're going to revamp our GTO time to say, ``OK. Now it's
sick time,'' and that's going to hurt some employees. It's
going to hurt some women employees who have other things to do
that have nothing to do with being sick, but they need the time
off. I think it's really important to think about the
unintended consequences.
The idea of it is wonderful. People need time off to take
care of family members and themselves, absolutely, positively,
and the good employers recognize that, and I don't think those
are the ones we're really talking about as much today. But the
good employers recognize that and try to do something. I'd just
caution you to be careful.
Ms. Bravo. I'm so happy to correct the misunderstanding
here. We applaud you, Ms. Troy, for the flexibility that you
have. Every one of these laws is written to say that any paid
time that the employer provides can be used to comply, as long
as it can be used in the same manner for the same reason,
meaning that if my child is sick, I can use my sick time, and
that I can use it without being punished. But, absolutely, your
policy would comply. Not a problem.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
Ms. Legros, I want to talk to you again. You had this job
for 2 years at this armored truck company. Did you like your
job?
Ms. Legros. Yes, I did. I did enjoy my job. It was very
difficult for me to not be able to work while I was pregnant,
especially since my employer did accommodate other disabled
people that were working for the same company. I wasn't
protected under the same law that they were.
The Chairman. Did you belong to a union?
Ms. Legros. No, I did not belong to a union.
The Chairman. Did any of your fellow workers belong to a
union?
Ms. Legros. No, they did not.
The Chairman. There was not a union there. So you liked
your job. You worked there for 2 years, and then you got
pregnant, and you had this physical problem, and your manager
sent you home without pay indefinitely. Let me ask you this.
Had they provided you accommodations, and you'd had your child,
and if you'd had some decent time off to nurse, that type of
thing, would you have gone back to work for that armored
company?
Ms. Legros. Yes, I would have. I did not have any
complications with my pregnancy. My doctor just advised me from
heavy lifting to prevent me from further injury from pulling a
muscle in my stomach.
The Chairman. And then you say later that your employer
fought your unemployment benefits.
Ms. Legros. Yes, they did. I went 7 months without any pay.
The Chairman. Why did they fight your unemployment
benefits?
Ms. Legros. I believe because I did not fall under the
short-term disability terms, and they did not want to
compensate me for being out.
The Chairman. And then your health insurance was cutoff.
You didn't have COBRA, and you had to go on Medicaid. Now you
have a part-time job. Is there a reason why you don't have a
full-time job?
Ms. Legros. Currently, I'm working a part-time job because
of--after having my baby, I did go back to work with the help
of A Better Balance, and I did go back full-time. Things did
get slow, and I started getting cut in hours. So I looked for a
part-time job to compensate for the hours that I was losing. I
was recently laid off of my full-time job in March again.
The Chairman. So you were actually doing two jobs?
Ms. Legros. I was doing two jobs at the time. But,
currently, I'm just working a part-time job.
The Chairman. How many hours were you working when you were
doing both jobs?
Ms. Legros. I'm sorry?
The Chairman. How many hours a day were you working when
you had the full-time job and a part-time job?
Ms. Legros. The full-time job gave me probably 26 to 30
hours a week, and I'm currently working 17 to 18 hours a week.
The Chairman. But you were working both at one time.
Ms. Legros. Yes, I did both at one time because I was
working less hours at the full-time job because work was slow.
So I needed something to compensate for the loss of hours. And
I won't be eligible for full-time at my part-time job for
another 6 months. That's their policy.
The Chairman. I think what we tend to forget is there are
millions of people, women, in America who have your same
situation. That's what we're trying to address. For a lot of
different reasons, they find themselves in tough circumstances,
and as someone said, you shouldn't have to be choosing between
your job and the health of your kids and the well-being of your
family.
Certainly we're a rich enough country to be able to afford
that--a modicum of decency, of support. Again, I say if other
countries can do it, and we're only one of three--that doesn't
make sense that other countries can do it and we can't. We
can't afford it? We're the richest nation in the world. We're
the richest nation in the history of the world. And if we're
the richest nation in the history of the world, why do we have
all these problems?
It seems to me that we need to have some societal type
agreements that put some floors underneath this, that provide
for people like Ms. Legros, who are pregnant or who have a
medical problem--that there's accommodations made. Should a
person like Ms. Legros just be at the whim of whoever the
employer is? You say, ``Well, he owns the business, or she owns
the business.'' I don't know. But some people have the attitude
that if you own a business, you can do whatever you want.
Businesses get tax advantages. They do other things.
They're involved in our society. It seems to me there ought to
be some fundamental rules that apply to workers in our country,
and, of course, one of those is minimum wage, which I've been
pushing, which is my bill. And I'm going to give Senator
Alexander a chance to rebut me on this, my good friend that he
is, and he knows that. We just have a difference on this.
I would say I want to correct this, though. CBO did not do
their own study. They did not do a study. They only looked at
the literature that was out there. They added it all up, and
they said there could be jobs lost of anywhere from zero to a
million. Senator Alexander mentioned that. They said they just
picked 500,000 as the median point.
But some of those studies were old studies, and there's new
studies, and the quality is quite different. I've often used
the example of when I was an engineering student once, back
when we used a transit and we used a chain and a rod, and we'd
do surveying that way, you know, get boundaries like George
Washington used to do. We plotted different things.
Today, however, they use GPS and lasers. Now, if they were
to plot the same land that I plotted 60 years ago, they'd
probably be a little bit more accurate than I was. So if you're
saying,
``Well, we want to know what that plot of land really
is, so we'll take Harkin's, which is 60 years old, and
we'll take the new one, and we'll just even them up,''
that doesn't make sense. If you've got something that's better
and more accurate, you take that.
The fact is we have better and more accurate studies that
have been done in the last few years on the impact of raising
the minimum wage that show, basically, that there hasn't been
an impact on unemployment. But there has. I mean, the CBO did
say that almost a million people would be lifted out of
poverty, and $31 billion would flow to--not people in poverty,
but people below three times the level of poverty. So that's a
debate that continues.
Senator Alexander, do you want to say anything?
Senator Alexander. I've made my point. I thank the
witnesses for being here today. It's been very helpful, and
I've enjoyed listening to them.
The Chairman. I, too. And, Ms. Legros, I especially
appreciate your putting a human face on this. It's a small
comfort. But there are a lot of people in this country in your
same situation, and I think we have a responsibility as a
Federal Government to respond to a national, I think, crisis
that we have in families, especially with women and single
mothers and single parents in this country.
I think that as we progress in our ideas of what society
should be like and how we should advance our social awareness,
I think this is one of the areas where we're way behind. Paid
sick leave, I think, maternity leave, Senator Casey's bill on
the pregnancy act are just things I think that make our society
more caring, more inclusive, and more considerate of one
another. And I don't think that's a bad thing.
Thank you all very much for being here. Great testimony. We
appreciate your being here. Thank you.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
June 3, 2014.
Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Dear Chairman Harkin: On behalf of the National Partnership for
Women & Families, I commend you for holding the May 20th roundtable on
Economic Security for Working Women. I write to urge you and your
colleagues to support the policies the panelists discussed, including
paid sick days, paid family and medical leave, pregnancy accommodations
and equal pay. These policies would modernize our Nation's workplaces
to reflect the urgent needs of our families.
Across the Nation, families are struggling to get by. The economy
is recovering unevenly, and the jobs that are being created don't
provide the wages or the protections that workers need. Women dominate
the industries and fill the lower-paying jobs that offer little access
to basic paid time off for illness or family and medical needs.
Nineteen of the 30 fastest growing jobs pay annual wages below the
national median wage, and most of these jobs will be held by women.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, December 19).
Occupations with the most growth, 2012 and projected 2022 (Table 1.4).
Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women bring home a significant share of their families' income and
are the primary caregivers for children and elders in their families.
Women are the primary or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of
households,\2\ and two-thirds of all family caregivers are female.\3\
Overwhelmingly, mothers have primary responsibility for selecting their
children's doctors, accompanying children to appointments and helping
to ensure they obtain recommended care.\4\ Women are also more likely
than men to care for elderly parents.\5\ They are more likely to drop
out of the workforce rather than reduce their work hours to manage
caregiving responsibilities, leading to long-term financial
consequences.\6\ People across the country are working hard to make
ends meet and take care of their families, yet the Nation fails to
provide the support they need and that businesses and our economy need
to thrive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Glynn, S. (2012, 16 April). The New Breadwinners: 2010 Update.
Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
labor/report/2012/04/16/11377/the-new-breadwinners-2010-update/.
\3\ National Alliance for Caregiving. (2009, November). Caregiving
in the U.S. National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP publication.
Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://www.caregiving.org/data/
Caregiving_in_the_US_2009_full_report.pdf.
\4\ Kaiser Family Foundation. (2011, May). Women's Health Care
Chartbook: Key Findings from the Kaiser Women's Health Survey.
Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://kaiserfamily
foundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8164.pdf.
\5\ MetLife Mature Market Institute. (2011, June). The MetLife
Study of Caregiving Costs to Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for
Baby Boomers Caring for Their Parents. Retrieved 30 May 2014, from
https://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/caregiving-cost-working-
caregivers.
html#key%20findings.
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is on an unsustainable path. It is past time for
Congress to adopt basic standards to help people manage the dual
demands of work and family and promote their families' financial
stability. These policies include job-protected paid sick days, paid
family and medical leave, fair pay and work schedules, affordable child
care and job-protected time away from work to attend children's school
meetings or preventive medical care appointments. Other policies, such
as raising the minimum wage, protecting workers' ability to earn
overtime pay and protecting the right of workers to organize, are also
critically important to prosperity and mobility.
The National Partnership is proud to convene a national coalition
that advocates for many of these policies. In particular, this
coalition of organizations representing women, children, low-wage
workers, health care providers, business leaders, faith leaders, and
the civil rights community urges Congress to take immediate action in
support of:
The Healthy Families Act (S. 631/H.R. 1286), which would
allow workers to earn up to seven paid sick days to use to recover from
illness, access preventive care or care for a sick family member; and
The Family And Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act)
(S. 1810/H.R. 3712), which would create a national insurance program to
support workers and businesses by providing workers a portion of their
typical wages when they need time away from their jobs to address their
own serious health condition, care for a loved one with a serious
health condition, care for a new child or address the exigencies of a
family member's military deployment.
Our broad and diverse coalition supports these policies because
they improve working families' economic security, improve health
outcomes and reduce health care costs. Moreover, evidence from States
and cities that have adopted these policies show they are working well
for workers, families, businesses and communities.
We look forward to working with you and the HELP Committee to
ensure that American workers are able to meet their responsibilities on
the job and to their families. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Debra L. Ness,
President.
______
Attachment 1.--Coalition Letter in Support of the Healthy Families Act,
June 3, 2014.
June 3, 2014.
Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations, urge
you to support the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286/S. 631) a common
sense bill that would allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days a
year to recover from short-term illnesses like the flu, access
preventive care, care for a sick family member or seek assistance
related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Without paid
sick days, workers are forced to make impossible choices when illness
strikes: stay home, lose pay and risk their jobs; or go to work sick,
risk their health and spread disease to their co-workers and
communities. Establishing a national paid sick days standard will help
make businesses and governments more efficient while giving working
families more financial stability--leading to a stronger economy for
all.
No one should face the impossible choice between caring for their
health and keeping their paycheck or job. But more than 43 million
workers--nearly 4 in 10 private sector workers--must make this decision
every time illness strikes because they don't have access to earned
paid sick days.\1\ And millions more lack paid sick time to care for a
sick child or other family member. Working families need the job and
economic security paid sick days provide.
The lack of paid sick days is acute in jobs requiring frequent
contact with the public--with potentially grave public health
consequences. Three in four food preparation and service workers don't
have a single paid sick day.\2\ Without paid sick days, workers are
forced to take unpaid leave or work sick. In the restaurant industry,
the result is that nearly two-thirds of servers and cooks report that
they have served or cooked while ill.\3\ This puts workers, customers
and businesses in danger. Similarly, the vast majority of workers in
child care centers and nursing homes cannot earn paid sick days.\4\
When these workers have no choice but to work sick, they risk spreading
contagious diseases to the very young and the very old.
Ensuring all workers can earn paid sick days will significantly
reduce public expenditures. Workers without paid sick days are more
likely to seek treatment at an emergency department because they can't
take time off to get care during regular business hours.\5\ A 2011
study found that if all workers had paid sick days, 1.3 million
emergency room visits could be prevented each year, saving $1.1 billion
annually. More than half of these savings--$517 million--would accrue
to taxpayer-funded health insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.\6\
Businesses benefit when their employees have access to paid sick
days. When sick workers are able to stay home, the spread of disease
slows and workplaces are both healthier and more productive. Plus,
workers recover faster from illness and obtain timely medical care--
enabling them to get back to work more quickly and holding down health
care costs. Paid sick days also reduce ``presenteeism'', the
productivity lost when employees work sick, which is estimated to cost
our national economy $160 billion annually and surpasses the cost of
absenteeism.\7\ In addition, workers who earn paid sick days are 28
percent less likely than workers who don't earn paid sick days to be
injured on the job--with an even greater difference among workers in
high-risk occupations.\8\
Paid sick days enable working parents to care for their children
when they are sick--shortening child recovery time and reducing
community contagion. Unfortunately, more than half of working parents
are unable to earn even a few paid sick days to use to care for a sick
child.\9\ Parents without paid sick days are more than twice as likely
as parents with paid sick days to send a sick child to school or day
care.\10\ When parents have no choice but to do so, children's health
and educational attainment is put at risk--as is the health of
classmates, teachers and child care providers.
Paid sick days policies have been enacted successfully at the State
and local levels. Connecticut, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and
Seattle have all successfully implemented paid sick days laws, and in
2013, Portland, Oregon and New York City have become the latest cities
to pass paid sick days. San Francisco's paid sick days law has been in
place since 2007. Since its passage, the number of businesses and jobs
in the city has increased relative to the surrounding five counties
without paid sick days laws.\11\ And workers and their families have
benefited with little to no burden on employers.\12\ The momentum for
paid sick days policies is growing in States and cities across the
country, but illness knows no geographic boundaries and access to paid
sick days should not be dependent on where a worker is employed. That
is why the national paid sick days standard proposed in the Healthy
Families Act is so important.
The Healthy Families Act would:
Allow workers in businesses with 15 or more employees to
earn up to 7 job-protected paid sick days each year to be used to
recover from their own illness, access preventive care or provide care
for a sick family member;
Allow workers who are survivors of domestic violence,
stalking or sexual assault to use their paid sick days for recovery or
to seek assistance; and
Allow employers that already provide paid sick days or
paid time off to maintain their existing policies, as long as they meet
the minimums set forth in the bill for the amount of time, types of use
and method of use.
Working people should not have to risk their financial health when
they do what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urge,
and what we all agree is the right thing to do when illness strikes--
stay home to recover. Setting a minimum paid sick days standard will be
good for America's workers, families, communities and businesses. When
people have the financial and job security they need, our economy gets
stronger.
We urge you to demonstrate your strong commitment to our Nation's
working families by becoming a co-sponsor of the Healthy Families Act.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Attachment 2.--Coalition Letter in Support of the Family And Medical
Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act)
May 21, 2014.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the 437 undersigned
organizations and the tens of millions of working families we
represent, we urge you to become a co-sponsor of the Family and Medical
Insurance Leave Act of 2013 (FAMILY Act). The FAMILY Act, legislation
that would create a national family and medical leave insurance
program, epitomizes our Nation's commitment to the fundamental well-
being of its people, especially women, children and seniors. Such a
program has the support of three-quarters of voters--with majority
support or more across demographic, partisan and regional line\13\--
because Americans know that a national paid leave program would
strengthen the workforce, families, businesses and our economy.
The FAMILY Act would create a paid family and medical leave
insurance program. Employees would earn a portion of their wages for a
limited period of time (up to 60 workdays, or 12 workweeks in a year)
to address their own serious health issue, including pregnancy or
childbirth; to deal with the serious health issue of a parent, spouse,
domestic partner or child; to care for a new child; and/or for specific
military caregiving and leave purposes. Employees and employers would
contribute a small amount in each paycheck to a self-sustaining fund,
administered through a new Office of Paid Family and Medical Leave.
Fund contributions would cover both benefits and administrative costs.
Eligibility rules would allow younger, part-time, low-wage and
contingent workers to contribute and benefit, regardless of their
employer's size or their length of time on the job.
Many employer and public workplace policies are currently not
meeting the basic health and economic needs of workers and their
families. A mere 12 percent of workers in the United States have access
to paid family leave through their employers, and less than 40 percent
have access to personal medical leave through an employer-provided
temporary disability program.\14\ Just 50 percent of new mothers take
even a few paid days away from their jobs to care for a new child.\15\
And lower-wage workers and workers of color are even less likely to
have basic access to paid leave,\16\ yet they are often most in need of
financial resources when a family or medical need arises.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has been a tremendous help
to families, but too many people today cannot afford to take unpaid
leave. The most common reason cited by those who are eligible for FMLA
leave but do not take it is that they cannot afford to do so. Nearly
three-quarters (74 percent) of people who are employed say that they or
their families would be likely to face significant financial hardship
if a serious personal or family illness occurred or a new child was
born or adopted.\17\ Many others cut their leave time short, dip into
savings or go into debt in order to take the time they need to care for
their loved ones or their own health.\18\
The American people want to have strong families, to be good
parents, and to have a job and succeed at it, but they are too often
forced to choose one of these priorities over another--and that weakens
the entire country. We can do better, and we can be stronger.
The FAMILY Act will mean a stronger workforce. Many women and men
today are both breadwinners and caregivers, and paid time off for
family and medical purposes helps workers --particularly women--stay
and succeed in their jobs and earn higher wages over time. Most women
work prior to and after the birth of their first child; most families
with children have all adults in the workforce; and most women and men
who provide care to an ill family member also hold paying jobs.\19\
People are working longer and retiring later, meaning older workers
with health needs are increasingly part of the workforce.\20\ In
addition, employees are increasingly working part-time or on a
contingent basis, diminishing their access to paid time off when family
and medical needs arise.\21\ The FAMILY Act would create a national
labor standard that recognizes these fundamental changes in the way
people live and work.
The FAMILY Act will help to bring the United States in line with
the rest of the world. The United States is one of just eight countries
in the world that do not guarantee paid maternity leave to new
mothers,\22\ one of five highly competitive countries that do not
guarantee paid parental leave to new fathers,\23\ and the only highly
competitive country that does not guarantee paid medical leave for
serious illness.\24\
The FAMILY Act will strengthen the economic security of working
people and their families. Paid leave provides income stability for
working people and families at critical moments in their lives. Having
a baby is the most expensive health event that families face during
their childbearing years,\25\ and a new child's entry into a household
is a leading trigger for a family's entry into poverty.\26\ Paid leave
also promotes financial independence, especially for growing families.
In the year following a birth, new mothers who take paid leave are 54
percent more likely to report wage increases and 39 percent less likely
to need public assistance than mothers who do not, taking other related
socioeconomic factors into account; fathers who take paid parental
leave are also less likely to need public assistance in the year
following a child's birth.\27\
The FAMILY Act will mean stronger, improved health outcomes for
all. Paid leave contributes to improved newborn and child health. New
mothers who take paid leave are more likely to take the amount of time
recommended by doctors,\28\ and their children are more likely to be
breast fed, receive medical check-ups and get critical
immunizations.\29\ An additional 10 weeks of paid leave for new
parents, on average, reduces post-neonatal mortality by up to 4.5
percent.\30\ Children with illnesses also recover faster when cared for
by their parents. The presence of a parent shortens a child's hospital
stay by 31 percent.\31\ And active parental involvement in a child's
hospital care may head off future health care needs and costs, which is
particularly true for children with chronic health conditions.\32\
Paid leave also allows ill or injured adults to get critical care
and needed recovery time. And it enables people to help their loved
ones, including older family members with health problems, recover from
illness, fulfill treatment plans, and avoid complications and hospital
re-admissions,\33\ which reduces health costs. Currently, 48 percent of
family caregivers who have to take time off to meet their care
responsibilities lose income when they do so.\34\
The FAMILY Act will mean stronger businesses. A majority of small
business employers say they support paid family and medical leave
insurance because it gives employees the financial security they need,
without harming business.\35\ Paid leave keeps people in their jobs and
spending money in their communities while also reducing turnover costs
and increasing employee loyalty. Companies typically pay about one-
fifth of an employee's salary to replace that employee.\36\ But new
mothers who take paid leave are more likely than mothers who do not to
be working 9 to 12 months after giving birth.\37\ And in California,
one of the three States where a successful family leave insurance
program exists, workers in low-wage, high-turnover industries are much
more likely to return to their jobs after using the State's
program.\38\
Paid leave also leads to cost savings for high-road employers who
already provide paid time off because their policies can be coordinated
with the Federal program. In California, 60 percent of businesses
surveyed reported coordinating their benefits with the State program,
likely reducing their out-of-pocket costs.\39\ Creating a national
standard would also level the playing field for those businesses that
want to provide paid leave but currently cannot afford to do so.
The FAMILY Act will mean a more secure retirement for all and a
stronger Social Security system. Paid leave safeguards the income and
retirement security of workers while complementing our Nation's well-
established Social Security system. Social insurance has a long record
of success in the United States, lifting millions of children and
elders out of poverty. The FAMILY Act builds on that success.
On average, a worker who is 50 years of age or older who leaves the
workforce to take care of a parent will lose more than $300,000 in
wages and retirement income.\40\ By keeping new parents, ill workers
and family caregivers attached to the workforce, a national paid family
and medical leave insurance program would keep people paying taxes,
which would help correct projected Social Security shortfalls down the
road.
In addition, the paid leave fund would be entirely separate from
the Social Security Trust Fund and Social Security Disability
Insurance. The funding would be used to administer the program and
provide benefits. The program would build on Social Security's existing
benefits determination and payment infrastructure, and any additional
demands on the system would be covered through new revenue.
The FAMILY Act will mean a stronger economy. The benefits of
establishing a national paid family and medical leave insurance program
for our workforce, families' economic security, businesses and the
Nation's retirement system will all contribute to a healthier, more
stable economy for all. When people have to miss a paycheck or lose a
job because a serious medical or caregiving need arises, they often
jeopardize their ability to provide for their families and struggle to
afford even the most basic necessities. This hurts workers, their
families, and the businesses that depend on revenue from these
purchases, and it stifles the growth of our economy.
We know paid leave insurance programs like this work--but people
should have access to affordable family and medical leaves no matter
where they live. The FAMILY Act builds on State family and medical
leave insurance programs, which have a strong record of success.
Personal medical leave through State temporary disability insurance
programs has been working well for many decades in California, Hawaii,
New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. Family leave
insurance programs have existed in California since 2004 and New Jersey
since 2009. Rhode Island passed a family leave insurance program in
2013 that will be implemented in 2014. Analyses of California's law
show that both employers and employees benefit from the program.\41\ In
New Jersey, the program costs are even lower than expected, leading to
a payroll tax cut.\42\ More State progress is on the horizon but a
national standard is both necessary and more efficient.
It is well past time for a stronger America that meets our Nation's
needs, lives up to the values we all share, and truly honors America's
families. The American people know that there is nothing more important
than being able to care for family--whether you have an ill parent or
loved one or a new baby on the way. That is why we need a law that
guarantees that people can care for themselves and their loved ones
while still making ends meet and contributing to the economy. The
FAMILY Act is that law. We urge you to sponsor this critically
important legislation today.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Endnotes
1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March). Employee
Benefits Survey Table 32. Leave benefits: Access, private industry
workers, National Compensation Survey. Retrieved 25 March 2013, from
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2012/ownership/private/
table21a.pdf; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, February 1).
Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry
detail, seasonally adjusted (Table B-1a). Retrieved 19 February 2013,
from http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm (Unpublished
calculation).
2. Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. (2010, March).
Expanding Access to Paid Sick Leave: The Impact of the Healthy Families
Act on America's Workers. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://
www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files
.Serve&File_id=abf8aca7-6b94-4152-b720-2d8d04b81ed6.
3. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United. (2010, September 30).
Serving While Sick: High Risks and Low Benefits for the Nation's
Restaurant Workforce, and Their Impact on the Consumer. Restaurant
Opportunities Centers United publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from
http://rocunited.org/roc-serving-while-sick/.
4. Hartmann, H. (2007, February 13). The Healthy Families Act:
Impact on Workers, Business, The Economy and Public Health. Testimony
before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/Hartmann.pdf.
5. Smith, T., & Kim, J. (2010, June). Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and
Experiences. National Opinion Research Center at the University of
Chicago for the Public Welfare Foundation publication. Retrieved 19
March 2013, from http://www.publi
cwelfare.org/resources/DocFiles/psd2010final.pdf.
6. Miller, K., Williams, C., & Yi, Y. (2011, October 31). Paid Sick
Days and Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Department Visits.
Institute for Women's Policy Research publication. Retrieved 19 March
2013, from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/paid-sick-days-and-
health-cost-savings-from-reduced-emergency-department-visits/.
7. Stewart, W., et al. (2003, December). Lost Productive Health
Time Costs from Health Conditions in the United States: Results from
the American Productivity Audit. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 45. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://
www.workhealth.org/whatsnew/whnewrap/Stewart%20et
al_lost%20productive%20work%20time%20costs%20from%20health%20conditions%
20in%20the%20US_%20Results%20from%20the%20American%20Productivity%20
Audit%202003.pdf.
8. Asfaw, A., et al. (2012, September). Paid Sick Leave and
Nonfatal Occupational Injuries. American Journal of Public Health,
102(9), e59-e64. Retrieved 19
March 2013, from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/
AJPH.2011.
300482.
9. Smith, K., & Schaefer, A. (2012, June). Who Cares for the Sick
Kids? Parents' Access to Paid Time to Care for a Sick Child. Carsey
Institute at the University of New Hampshire publication. Retrieved 19
March 2013, from http://www.carsey
institute.unh.edu/sites/carseyinstitute.unh.edu/files/publications/IB-
Smith-Paid-
Sick-Leave-2012.pdf.
10. See note 5.
11. Petro, J. (2010, October). Paid Sick Leave Does Not Harm
Business Growth or Job Growth. Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://
paidsickdays.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer
/Petro_DMI_Paid_Sick_Leave_Does_Not_Harm_2010_Unabbr_.pdf?docID
=7721.
12. Drago, R. & Lovell, V. (2011, February). San Francisco's Paid
Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees. Institute
for Women's Policy Research publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/San-Fran-PSD.
13. Lake Research Partners & Chesapeake Beach Consulting survey of
1,024 registered voters, January 23-28, 2013.
14. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013,
September). National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the
United States, March 2013 (Table 32). Retrieved 5 November 2013, from
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ebbl0052.pdf.
15. Laughlin, L. (2011, October). Maternity Leave and Employment
Patterns of First-Time Mothers: 1961-2008. U.S. Census Bureau
publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.census.gov/
prod/2011pubs/p70-128.pdf.
16. Ibid.; Glynn, S., & Farrell, J. (2012, November 20). Latinos
Least Likely to Have Paid Leave or Workplace Flexibility. Center for
American Progress publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http:/
/www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/11/GlynnLatinosPaidLeave1.pdf.
17. Lake Research Partners & Tarrance Group for the National
Partnership for Women & Families. (2012, November). Election Eve/Night
Omnibus. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
go.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Lake_
Research_and_Tarrance_Group_Omnibus_Poll_Results_fo.pdf?docID=11581.
18. Abt Associates. (2012, September). Family and Medical Leave in
2012: Technical Report. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/fmla2012.htm.
19. Laughlin, L. (2011, October). Maternity Leave and Employment
Patterns of First-Time Mothers: 1961-2008. U.S. Census Bureau
publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.census.gov/
prod/2011pubs/p70-128.pdf; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013,
April 26). Families with own children: Employment status of parents by
age of youngest child and family type, 2011-2012 annual averages (Table
4). Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/news.
release/famee.t04.htm; National Alliance for Caregiving. (2009,
November).
Caregiving in the U.S. 2009. National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP
publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
www.caregiving.org/data/Care
giving_in_the_US_2009_full_report.pdf.
20. Lee, D. (2012, September 4). More older workers making up labor
force. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
articles.latimes.com/2012
/sep/04/business/la-fi-labor-seniors-20120903.
21. American Rights at Work. The Growth of the Exploited,
Contingent Workforce. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
www.americanrightsatwork.org/dm
documents/ARAWReports/contingentworkforce_final.pdf.
22. Out of 188 for which data are available. Heymann, J., &
McNeill, K. (2013, February). Children's Chances: How Countries Can
Move From Surviving to Thriving. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
23. National Partnership for Women & Families research.
24. Heymann, J., et al. (2009, May). Contagion Nation: A Comparison
of Paid Sick Day Policies in 22 Countries. Center for Economic and
Policy Research publication. Retrieved 18 March 2013, from http://
www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/contagion-nation/.
25. Amnesty International. (2010). Deadly Delivery: The Maternal
Health Care Crisis in the USA. Amnesty International publication.
Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.amnestyusa.org/dignity/
pdf/DeadlyDelivery.pdf.
26. Rynell, A. (2008, October). Causes of Poverty: Findings from
Recent Research. Heartland Alliance Mid-America Institute on Poverty
publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
www.woodsfund.org/site/files/735/69201/260704/
363127/causes-of-poverty_report_by_Heartland_
Alliance.pdf; McKernan, S., & Ratcliffe, C. (2005, November 11). Events
that Trigger Poverty Entries and Exits. Social Science Quarterly 86,
1146-69.
27. Houser, L., & Vartanian, T. (2012, January). Pay Matters: The
Positive Economic Impact of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses
and the Public. Center for Women and Work at Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site
/DocServer/Pay_Matters_Positive_Economic_Impacts_of_Paid_Family_L
.pdf?docID=9681.
28. Gomby, D., & Pei, D. (2009). Newborn Family Leave: Effects on
Children, Parents, and Business. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.packard.org/
wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NFLA_fullreport_final.pdf.
29. Berger, L., Hill, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Maternity Leave,
Early Maternal Employment and Child Health and Development in the U.S.
The Economic Journal, 115(501), F44.
30. Ruhm, C. J. (2000). Parental leave and child health. Journal of
Health Economics, 19(6), 931-60.
31. Heymann. J. (2001, October 15). The Widening Gap: Why America's
Working Families Are in Jeopardy--and What Can Be Done About It. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
32. Heymann, J., & Earle, A. (2010). Raising the global floor:
dismantling the myth that we can't afford good working conditions for
everyone. Stanford, CA.: Stanford Politics and Policy.
33. See e.g., Institute of Medicine. (2008, April 11). Retooling
for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce, 254.
Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2008/
Retooling-for-an-Aging-America-Building-the-Health-Care-Workforce.aspx;
Arbaje, et al. (2008). Postdischarge Environmental and Socioeconomic
Factors and the Likelihood of Early Hospital Readmission Among
Community-Dwelling Medicare Beneficiaries. The Gerontologist 48(4),
495-504. Summary retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.rwjf.org/
grantees/
connect/product.jsp?id=34775.
34. Aumann, K., et al. (2010). The Elder Care Study: Everday
Realities and Wishes for Change. Families and Work Institute
publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/elder_care.pdf.
35. Lake Research Partners for Small Business Majority survey of
707 small business owners nationwide, conducted from January 24-
February 1, 2013.
36. Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. (2012, November 16). There Are
Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees. Center for American
Progress publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads
/2012/11/CostofTurnover.pdf.
37. Houser, L., & Vartanian, T. (2012, January). Pay Matters: The
Positive Economic Impact of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses
and the Public. Center for Women and Work at Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/Doc
Server/Pay_Matters_Positive_Economic_Impacts_of_Paid_Family_L.pdf?doc
ID=9681.
38. Appelbaum, E., & Milkman, R. (2011). Leaves That Pay: Employer
and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California. Center for
Economic and Policy Research Publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013,
from http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/leaves-that-
pay.
39. Ibid.
40. MetLife Mature Market Institute. (2011, June). The MetLife
Study of Caregiving Costs to Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for
Baby Boomers Caring for Their Parents. Retrieved 16 September 2013,
from http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/
mmi-caregiving-costs-working-caregivers
.pdf.
41. Appelbaum, E., & Milkman, R. (2011). Leaves That Pay: Employer
and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California. Center for
Economic and Policy Research Publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013,
from http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/leaves-that-
pay.
42. Press of Atlantic City. (2010, November 15). Paid Family Leave/
Working well. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://
www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion
/editorials/article_0d6ba980-3a1d-56f7-9101-
258999b5d9d0.html.
______
Response by Ellen Bravo to Questions of Senator Harkin
Question 1. Many businesses provide leave from work through a PTO
(or paid time off) policy, which allows a limited amount of leave but
for a wide variety of purposes.
Could you please clarify whether companies that provide significant
PTO would be compliant with the Healthy Families Act? How would the HFA
apply to a company like Globe Manufacturing, which offers PTO (called
Globe Time Off), which includes 6 paid and 6 unpaid days, as well as 10
to 20 paid vacation days, in addition to other types of paid leave?
Answer 1. The Healthy Families Act states,
``An employer with a leave policy providing paid leave
options shall not be required to modify such policy, if such
policy includes provisions for the provision, use, and
administration of paid sick leave that meet the requirements of
subsections (a) through (f).''
As long as employees may use the time to care for a sick family
member as well as themselves and are not given disciplinary points for
taking the time, the Globe Time Off policy should be in compliance.
Question 2. Some business organizations, such as the Society for
Human Resource Management, have advocated for a policy known as ``comp
time'' or compensatory time off, in lieu of traditional overtime pay.
Ms. Troy also lauded the concept of ``comp time'' in her testimony.
However, I am concerned that what results is not paid time off when
workers need it, but rather unpaid overtime that keeps workers away
from their families without any guarantee they can use their ``comp
time'' when they most need it.
What are your thoughts on the concept of ``comp time''? Do you
believe it would help working families? Do you have concerns about the
proposal and if so, please explain those.
Answer 2. All employees need flexibility to manage work and family
responsibilities. What people want is more time to spend with their
families. Under the comp time bill, however, individuals get more time
with family only after they have been forced to spend more time away
from their family, working extra hours. Overtime pay was meant as a
disincentive for employers to require overtime. By removing the pay
penalty, this measure would lead to an increase in overtime and in
burdens on families.
In addition, flexibility requires control, but the control in this
initiative rests with the employer. The employer choose whether to
offer comp time, who gets to work overtime and when workers may take
their comp time.
Comp time could easily result in loss of pay for those who need
extra money. In assigning overtime, the employer might well favor those
who agree to take comp time rather than overtime pay.
Finally, employers right now can offer, as many do, flexibility in
schedules so that workers can take time to attend a school play and
come in earlier or stay later to make up the time. Employers right now
can ensure, as many do, that workers earn paid sick days to use when
they or a loved one is ill. We do not need to open the floodgates for
unscrupulous employers by weakening overtime protections.
Proponents of comp time argue that government workers have such a
program and employees in the private sector should as well. But many
government workers feel cheated by comp time. When that provision was
added in 1985, it was framed as a cost-saving measure for cash-strapped
government agencies, not as a form of flexibility for families. The
U.S. Department of Labor had to sue to recover over $35 million in back
wages--unpaid comp time--from the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
A similar lawsuit is pending in Mississippi. According to the
Clarion Ledger, State prison guards have been forced to work more than
135 hours of overtime with a promise of time off. Myia Norwood has
already banked the hours but she was denied the comp time. If the
amount of overtime worked were paid as overtime, Norwood would have
received $7,100 last year. Her family could use this money.
Importantly, many government workers participate in collective
bargaining and have union representatives to negotiate fair use of comp
time provisions. Most employees of private companies have no such
protections.
Response by Rhea Lana Riner to Questions of Senator Harkin
Question 1. Rhea Lana's, Inc., is a for-profit company, and your
testimony notes its growing financial success and expanding business.
Could you please provide your gross revenues and profits for 2013?
Answer 1. A 2013 audit of Rhea Lana, Inc. by an independent
accounting firm shows gross revenues of about $1.4 million, of which
about $1.0 million were promised payments to moms, grandmoms and dads
who consigned in our events. We returned approximately 70 percent of
sales to the families who participate. These families use these funds
to clothe and buy toys for their children. Rhea Lana's is a small
business which had less than $200,000 in profits in 2013.
Question 2. Based on the agreements you reached with the Arkansas
and Federal Departments of Labor, could you please confirm whether you
had been properly paying overtime to employees dubbed ``managers.''
Could you please share the total amount of back wages owed to these
workers? Have you changed your policies to ensure that these workers
will be paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours per week?
Answer 2. The Arkansas Department of Labor affirmed in their 2012
audit that our original payment of ``managers'' was a correct business
practice. However, the DOL determined we should have classified our
managers as employees. The DOL then calculated back wages owed. Rhea
Lana, Inc. agreed to pay this $6,400 amount for the DOL audit period.
However, we categorically disagree with any attempt of the DOL to
classify our consignor-volunteers as employees.
Rhea Lana's has always strived to treat both our customers and
employees fairly and according to the law. Since the DOL investigation
Rhea Lana, Inc. has modified its policies related to ``managers'' while
our complaint against the DOL is being considered in Federal court.
We ask the Senate HELP committee to approve S. 1656, which would
provide much-needed clarity in the Fair Labor Standards Act as to the
nationwide children's consignment event industry. S. 1656 is co-
sponsored by Ranking Member Lamar Alexander. S. 1656 is industry-
specific. S. 1656 has bi-partisan support and would help any American
family with children. S. 1656 would give guidance to both the DOL and
small businesses while allowing this important industry to continue to
serve families.
Response by Neera Tanden to Questions of Senator Alexander
Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed
to request compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-
time schedules, i.e., 80-hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better
balance work and family life?
Answer 1. The Center for American Progress believes that effective
workplace policy solutions must recognize and respond to the needs of
both employers and employees. Strong policies that offer employees
greater flexibility to address the dual demands of work and family
without jeopardizing their family's economic stability are critical--
and forcing employees to choose between caring for their families and
making ends meet is not a real solution. The most recent so-called
``comp time'' proposals that have been debated in Congress would do
more harm and less good by requiring employees to work for no pay for
the hope--but not the promise--that the time worked could be used for
other purposes later. Greater workplace flexibility and fair pay for
time worked are not mutually exclusive goals, rather both are
critically important to creating strong workplaces and strengthening
working families.
Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is
working for Federal and other government workers, why shouldn't private
sector workers have the same option?
Answer 2. The impact of compensatory time policies in the public
sector merits close scrutiny and study, particularly to examine
workers' experiences and the scope of potential barriers to flexibility
in how such policies are implemented. The assumption that such policies
should be replicated in the private sector in their entirety without
such rigorous analysis is misguided. This is particularly true given
the fact that nearly one-third (31.4 percent) of Federal Government
workers are represented by unions and thus covered under collective
bargaining agreements that provide them with additional protections
against abuse.
Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to
full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time
increments be?
Answer 3. Adopting a unilateral rule mandating that all sick leave
be limited to full-day increments is inconsistent with other laws, such
as the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allow for leave increments
of less than a full day for medical purposes. Workers who need to make
use of sick leave, for example to receive medical treatment or take a
family member to a doctor's appointment, should not be penalized
because they do not need a full day off from work. FMLA leave may be
taken in the smallest increment of leave that an employer allows for
other forms of leave, as long as that increment is no longer than 1
hour. Determining the appropriate time increments for sick leave should
be guided, in part, by factors such as legislative history, consistency
with other rules, and reasonable employer practice, all of which can
inform the regulatory process.
Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today
have varying levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due
to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these
employers. What do you believe is an appropriate small business
exemption threshold?
Answer 4. Legislation promoting better work-life balance for
workers should always begin with the goal of extending benefits as
equitably and universally as possible. Exemptions for small businesses
should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, as the costs and impacts of
different proposals vary. Because the funding mechanisms work so
differently, work-family policies that are controlled by the employer,
such as sick leave, should be considered separately from social
insurance programs, such as a Federal paid family and medical leave
program.
Response by Ellen Bravo to Questions of Senator Alexander
Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed
to request compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-
time schedules, i.e., 80-hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better
balance work and family life?
Answer 1. All employees need flexibility to manage work and family
responsibilities. What people want is more time to spend with their
families. Under the comp time bill, however, individuals get more time
with family only after they have been forced to spend more time away
from their family, working extra hours. Overtime pay was meant as a
disincentive for employers to require overtime. By removing the pay
penalty, this measure would lead to an increase in overtime and in
burdens on families.
In addition, flexibility requires control, but the control in this
initiative rests with the employer. The employer choose whether to
offer comp time, who gets to work overtime and when workers may take
their comp time.
Comp time could easily result in loss of pay for those who need
extra money. In assigning overtime, the employer might well favor those
who agree to take comp time rather than overtime pay.
Finally, employers right now can offer, as many do, flexibility in
schedules so that workers can take time to attend a school play and
come in earlier or stay later to make up the time. Employers right now
can ensure, as many do, that workers earn paid sick days to use when
they or a loved one is ill. We do not need to open the floodgates for
unscrupulous employers by weakening overtime protections.
Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is
working for Federal and other government workers, why shouldn't private
sector workers have the same option?
Answer 2. Many government workers feel cheated by comp time. When
that provision was added in 1985, it was framed as a cost-saving
measure for cash-strapped government agencies, not as a form of
flexibility for families. The U.S. Department of Labor had to sue to
recover over $35 million in back wages--unpaid comp time--from the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
A similar lawsuit is pending in Mississippi. According to the
Clarion Ledger, State prison guards have been forced to work more than
135 hours of overtime with a promise of time off. Myia Norwood has
already banked the hours but she was denied the comp time. If the
amount of overtime worked were paid as overtime, Norwood would have
received $7,100 that year. Her family need this money.
Importantly, many government workers participate in collective
bargaining and have union representatives to negotiate fair use of comp
time provisions. Most employees of private companies have no such
protections.
Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to
full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time
increments be?
Answer 3. Increments for paid sick time should match the need. If
an employee needs to go to or take a child or parent to a doctor's
appointment or procedure and can come back to work, that helps the
employee and their co-workers. Requiring a full day for such an event
is not cost-effective or beneficial to employee or employer.
Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today
have varying levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due
to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these
employers. What do you believe is an appropriate small business
exemption threshold?
Answer 4. The business partners in Family Values @ Work coalitions
are often quite small. They feel strongly that these provisions are the
smart as well as the right thing to do because they lower turnover,
boost productivity and quality, and lead to greater sales by ensuring
that workers can keep their pay and their jobs. Proposals can take into
account smaller businesses in various ways, including the amount of
time to implement, but all should be covered.
Response by Fatima Goss Graves to Questions of Senator Alexander
Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed
to request compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-
time schedules, i.e., 80-hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better
balance work and family life?
Answer 1. Women make up the majority of workers in low-wage jobs,
and hold these jobs while also shouldering most family caregiving
responsibilities. And unfortunately too many of these women struggle
with employment practices that shift the risk of doing business onto
workers and make no accommodation for workers' lives outside of their
jobs. In many workplaces, all of the flexibility is in the hands of the
employer--leaving employees in search of predictability and stability,
not just flexibility.
Enabling private sector workers to work flexible schedules can
generally be beneficial to both employees and their employers, so long
as the decision to request and accept a flexible schedule remains
solely with the workers, and the worker cannot be forced to exchange
other critical employment benefits for flexibility. The Flexibility for
Working Families Act (H.R. 2559/S. 1248)--which would protect workers'
rights to request changes in their work schedules without fear of
retaliation--is one example of a policy that would increase flexibility
for workers who need it.
The concept of compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay sounds
like a good idea in the abstract, but the current legislative proposals
would fail to meet the work and family needs of many low-wage workers
and would undermine many of the existing critical protections
guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing employees to work
unwanted overtime without the financial benefit overtime work is
supposed to provide.
For example, the Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1406/S.
1623) could encourage employers to force their employees to take on
unwanted overtime. Although the bill states that accepting compensatory
time off in lieu of overtime pay should be voluntary, private sector
workers often lack basic workplace protections that public sector
workers typically have--such as unionization and job security--and so a
voluntary measure like this one could be perceived as a mandate. In
addition, legislation like the Working Families Flexibility Act could
discourage employers from providing paid time off. The bill would
enable, and may even encourage, employers to force their employees to
earn all of their time off by working extra hours instead of providing
paid time off as part of a standard employee benefits package or paid
sick, medical or family leave to meet the urgent needs of employees.
Furthermore, the Working Families Flexibility Act does not allow
employees to use their earned compensatory time at a time of their
choosing. Instead, employers are allowed to deny employees' request to
use their compensatory time if the employer feels it would ``unduly
disrupt'' the business.
Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is
working for Federal and other government workers, why shouldn't private
sector workers have the same option?
Answer 2. Unlike in the public sector, such a rule runs the risk of
private sector employers forcing workers to accept compensatory time in
lieu of overtime pay as a means of increasing profits. Employees who
protest risk retaliation, and given the widespread wage theft in some
industries, employees should not face yet another hurdle to being
compensated for their time worked. Additionally, government employees
are more likely to be unionized, enabling them to more effectively
bargain for contracts that protect their interests in providing for pay
or work schedule arrangements. Private employees as a whole are much
less likely to belong to a union, making them more vulnerable to
exploitation and abuse.
Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to
full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time
increments be?
Answer 3. Paid sick leave should not be limited to full-day
increments. Many cities have successfully implemented paid sick leave
policies that allow workers to accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for
every 30 hours worked. These cities have placed different caps on the
maximum number of paid sick days employers are required to allow an
employee to accrue in a year. For example, San Francisco allows
employees to earn up to 72 hours, or 9 8-hour days, worth of paid sick
leave, while Portland, OR allows employees to earn up to 40 hours, or 5
8-hour days, worth of paid sick leave. The Healthy Families Act (H.R.
1286/S. 631) would implement a similar national policy, and allow
employees working in businesses with 15 or more employees to accrue 1
hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours (7 8-
hour days) each year.
Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today
have varying levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due
to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these
employers. What do you believe is an appropriate small business
exemption threshold?
Answer 4. There is a longstanding tradition in our civil rights and
labor laws to exclude some businesses from these protections, but
studies have shown the many benefits to employers of all sizes when
they do adopt measures that provide greater economic security and
opportunity for their employees. As just one example, providing
pregnant workers with reasonable accommodations can reduce workforce
turnover, increase employee satisfaction and productivity, and save
workers' compensation and other insurance costs. Regardless of the size
of a small business exemption in a particular law, businesses of all
sizes can reap benefits by complying.
The appropriate threshold for such a small business exemption will
vary depending on the nature of the proposal at issue, the protections
that it provides, and the existing laws that it amends (if any). Some
States have extended protections against workplace discrimination and
harassment in particular to all workers. Similarly, the Family and
Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act (H.R. 3712/S. 1810)--which
provides a paid leave insurance fund--applies to all companies,
regardless of size.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends its protections
to employers with 15 or more employees. Following that model, the
proposed Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286/S. 631), which provides for 7-
earned paid sick days, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R.
1975/S. 942), which clarifies that pregnant workers who need
accommodations must receive the same sort of accommodations as workers
with temporary disabilities, both exempt private employers with less
than 15 employees. The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377/S. 84),
meanwhile, references the same small business exemption as the Fair
Labor Standards Act, applicable to businesses with an annual gross
volume of sales under $500,000.
Response by Amy Traub to Questions of Senator Alexander
Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed
to request compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-
time schedules, i.e., 80-hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better
balance work and family life?
Answer 1. Workers should be allowed to request time off in addition
to any overtime pay they are legally owed, not in lieu of overtime. At
a time when workers are struggling with both stagnant wages and work
schedules that offer insufficient time to care for their families,
pitting basic needs for time and income against each other would take
U.S. workplaces in the wrong direction. Because most American employees
lack bargaining power at work, legislation allowing compensatory time
as a substitute for overtime pay would effectively enable employers--
not their employees--to determine when compensatory time or overtime
pay is granted, providing additional control and flexibility to
employers without contributing to the work-family balance of employees.
In addition, permitting the replacement of overtime pay with
compensatory time would further undermine the Fair Labor Standards
Act's guarantee of a fair work week by removing the financial incentive
for employers to limit work weeks to 40 hours. As a result, employees'
efforts to achieve work-life balance would be impeded rather than
advanced by legislation that enables employers to avoid paying
overtime. Guaranteeing employees paid sick time, paid family leave, and
a right to request flexible schedules without retaliation would be more
effective ways to help workers balance work and family life.
Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is
working for Federal and other government workers, why shouldn't private
sector workers have the same option?
Answer 2. Demos has not had an opportunity to study the extent to
which public sector workers feel that they genuinely benefit from
receiving compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay. However the
origin of this policy is clear: in 1985 Congress amended the Fair Labor
Standards Act to substitute compensatory time as part of an effort to
enable Federal, State, and local government employers to save money on
overtime compensation, not to improve work-life balance for employees.
To the extent that government employees have found compensatory time
off to be helpful, their greater workplace bargaining power is likely
an important part of the reason. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, approximately 35.3 percent of public sector workers are
union members, compared to just 6.7 percent of private sector workers.
As a result, public sector employees have much greater power to
negotiate contracts covering their use of compensatory time and
overtime pay than the typical private sector employee, giving public
workers greater ability to promote the implementation of comp time
policies that work for themselves and their families.
Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to
full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time
increments be?
Answer 3. Guaranteed sick leave should not be limited to full-day
increments, as work days are of different lengths and employees may
require only a brief leave to attend a medical appointment, take a sick
child to the doctor, or cope with an illness that develops over the
course of a work day. In San Francisco, the American jurisdiction with
the longest-standing legislation on paid sick leave, workers earn 1
hour of paid leave for every 30 hours of paid work until they reach the
maximum accrual. Leave may then be taken in increments of 1 hour, or in
smaller increments if an employer permits this use. The Federal Family
and Medical Leave Act also permits that leave be taken in shorter
increments.
Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today
have varying levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due
to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these
employers. What do you believe is an appropriate small business
exemption threshold?
Answer 4. Ideally, legislation should aim to create a level playing
field for businesses, improving standards for all workers without
exemption. Instances where legislation would impose a
disproportionately high burden on smaller firms should be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis to determine the scope of any exemptions or
variance in standards.
Response by Lori Pelletier to Questions of Senator Alexander
Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed
to request compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-
time schedules, i.e., 80-hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better
balance work and family life?
Answer 1. No. The notion behind overtime pay is to encourage
employers to hire more people to work instead of over-working their
employees. ``Comp time'' legislation would allow management to require
overtime work without paying time-and-a-half up front, and that would
make mandatory overtime cheaper for employers in several ways. If you
make mandatory overtime cheaper for employers, you reduce their
incentive to avoid overworking their employees, leading to more
unpredictable work schedules and higher day care costs for workers.
Employers who want to provide more flexible work schedules--like
variable start times, or compressed schedules, or split shifts--can
already do that. And they can give workers paid or unpaid leave
whenever they want. Flexibility can be addressed best when workers can
sit down with employers as equal partners at a negotiating table.
Family life is better balanced when workplaces have collective
bargaining agreements.
Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is
working for Federal and other government workers, why shouldn't private
sector workers have the same option?
Answer 2. Really the question should be why don't Federal
Government workers get overtime? When they applied the overtime law to
the public sector for the first time, they wanted to reduce the cost to
public employers. That's why you have comp time in the public sector.
But the public sector is very different from the private sector. Public
employers don't operate on the profit motive, they don't go bankrupt,
you have a lot fewer overtime violations in the public sector, and
public employees have more protections from abuse.
Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to
full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time
increments be?
Answer 3. When I was in the shop we could get docked .1 hour (or 6
min) pay if we were late, or we had to leave early. In today's computer
environment, it should be as accommodating to the employee as possible.
Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today
have varying levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due
to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these
employers. What do you believe is an appropriate small business
exemption threshold?
Answer 4. In today's computer age that number should be very
small--like two or three, aside from the owner of the business.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]