[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BALANCING WORK, HEALTH, AND FAMILY:
THE CASE FOR EXPANDING THE FAMILY
AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 11, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the: https://edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-733 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
Susan A. Davis, California Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tim Walberg, Michigan
Northern Mariana Islands Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Jim Banks, Indiana
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Mark Walker, North Carolina
Joseph D. Morelle, New York James Comer, Kentucky
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania Ben Cline, Virginia
Josh Harder, California Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Lucy McBath, Georgia Steve Watkins, Kansas
Kim Schrier, Washington Ron Wright, Texas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Andy Levin, Michigan* Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
David J. Trone, Maryland
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Mark DeSaulnier, California Bradley Byrne, Alabama,
Mark Takano, California Ranking Member
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania Ben Cline, Virginia
Lucy McBath, Georgia Ron Wright, Texas
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 11, 2020................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Cline, Hon. Ben, Representative of Congress from the State of
Virginia................................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Batch, Mrs. Sydney, J.D., M.S.W., Representative, North
Carolina House of Representatives, Raleigh, NC............. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Greszler, Ms. Rachel, Research Fellow in Economics, Budgets,
and Entitlements, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC.. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Jacobs, Ms. Elisabeth, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Urban Institute,
Washington, DC............................................. 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Sandkamp, Mr. Anthony, Owner, Sandkamp Woodworks LLC, Jersey
City, NJ................................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Additional Submissions:
Chairwoman Adams:
Prepared statement from the National Partnership for
Women and Families..................................... 105
Prepared statement from The Leadership Conference........ 115
Prepared statement from Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law....................................... 120
Prepared statement from the National Education
Association (NEA)...................................... 125
Prepared statement from New America...................... 136
Prepared statement from YWCA............................. 130
Prepared statement from A Better Balance................. 136
Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington:
Construction 21st Century Rights for A Changing
Workforce: A Policy Brief Series....................... 71
Wild, Hon. Susan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania:
Prepared statement from Barry Klueger and Kelly Farley... 93
Questions submitted for the record by:
McBath, Hon. Lucy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia
Stevens, Hon. Haley M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan
Responses submitted for the record by:
Mrs. Batch............................................... 163
Ms. Jacobs............................................... 165
Mr. Sandkamp............................................. 169
BALANCING WORK, HEALTH, AND FAMILY:
THE CASE FOR EXPANDING THE FAMILY
AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
----------
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:46 p.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Alma Adams
(Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Adams, DeSaulnier, Takano,
Jayapal, Wild, Scott (ex officio), Cline, Murphy, and Foxx (ex
officio).
Also Present: Representatives Porter and Schneider.
Staff Present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; Emma Eatman,
Press Assistant; Eli Hovland, Staff Assistant; Eunice Ikene,
Labor Policy Advisor; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy Communications
Director; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff
Director; Richard Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore,
Staff Assistant; Udochi Onwubiko, Labor Policy Counsel;
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Ivorie Stanley, Health and
Labor Policy Fellow; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of
Information Technology; Gabriel Bisson, Minority Staff
Assistant; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of Member
Services and Coalitions; Akash Chougule, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Rob Green, Minority Director of Workforce Policy;
Jeanne Kuehl, Minority Legislative Assistant; John Martin,
Minority Workforce Policy Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Minority
Director of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications
Director; Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; and Ben
Ridder, Minority Professional Staff Member.
Chairwoman Adams. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
will come to order. I want to welcome everyone.
I note that a quorum is present, and I note for the
subcommittee that Ms. Underwood of Illinois, Mr. Schneider of
Illinois, and Ms. Porter of California are permitted to
participate in today's hearing. Members who sit on the
subcommittee and are present shall have first priority to ask
questions, followed by members who sit on the full committee
and are present. And only after all Committee Members who are
present have gone shall members who are not on the Committee on
Education and Labor can ask questions.
The subcommittee is meeting today in a legislative hearing
to hear testimony on ``Balancing Work, Health, and Family: The
Case for Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act.''
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are
limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to
hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all members with
adequate time to ask questions.
I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today we are gathered to discuss our responsibility to
ensure that all workers have the right to comprehensive family
and medical leave to care for themselves and their loved ones.
Working people should be able to contribute to the economy
knowing that if personal health or family caregiving needs
demand it, they can take leave from work without losing their
jobs or facing financial ruin. This means comprehensive Federal
family and medical leave policy must ensure leave is
guaranteed, job protected, and paid.
In 1993, Congress took an important step toward
guaranteeing workers the right to family and medical leave when
it passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA. Over the
past 27 years, this law has enabled millions of workers to take
unpaid time off to care for themselves and their families.
Unfortunately, 27 years later, we failed to build upon that
legislation. Although a patchwork of States have expanded paid
and unpaid leave laws, Federal law leaves millions of workers
either without the right to take unpaid family and medical
leave under the FMLA or unable to afford unpaid leave when they
are eligible.
Workers are often excluded from the FMLA by requirements
that restrict which employers are covered, who is eligible to
take leave, for whom workers can take leave, and the reasons
for which workers can take leave.
To be eligible for FMLA leave, an individual must work for
a covered employer, who have worked for that employer for 12
months, and also have worked for 1,250 hours in the year before
taking leave. And these restrictions leave out 44 percent of
private sector workers or 49 million workers from the FMLA.
A large share of the workers left out are low-income
workers, working parents, and workers of color.
Even if a worker can take FMLA leave, Federal law does not
guarantee that a worker can take leave to care for family
members in a way that reflects today's caregiving
responsibilities and family compositions.
For example, siblings, LGBTQ couples, domestic partners,
and the millions of grandparents exclusively raising their
grandchildren face a patchwork of policies that allow them to
take leave in some States but not in others.
Moreover, even if a worker is eligible for FMLA leave and
is a caregiver under the law's definition of family, they may
still be excluded because of their reason for seeking leave.
So while the FMLA covers parental and serious health needs,
it does not cover other reasons for leave, including parents
taking time to be more involved in their children's schooling,
individuals donating their organs to save lives, or parents
taking time to grieve a child's death.
Finally, if working people have the right to unpaid leave
under the FMLA, currently most workers cannot afford to forego
wages to take unpaid FMLA leave. Nearly half of those eligible
for unpaid FMLA leave cannot afford to take it, and nearly two-
thirds of those who can still report financial difficulties.
All of these barriers add up to fewer workers actually able
to exercise their right to take the leave they have earned.
For families, paid family and medical leave means improved
maternal and infant health, as well as better long-term
outcomes for children and mothers.
For businesses, it means stronger work recruitment,
increased employer loyalty, and reduced employee turnover.
And for the economy, which currently loses $22.5 billion in
wages each year because of inaccessible paid leave, it means
more money in the pockets of American consumers and a reduced
need for public assistance.
S&P Global estimates that if women entered the workforce at
the same rate as Norway, a country with a generous paid family
and medical leave policy, the U.S. economy would be $1.6
trillion larger.
Congress has the power to remedy this.
Today we will discuss how we can build on the promise of
the FMLA. We will discuss how to expand who is eligible for
FMLA leave by reducing or eliminating the law's 50-employee
threshold, its 12-month tenure requirement, its hours worked
requirement, and eliminating its marriage penalty.
We will learn about proposals to update for whom workers
can take leave and the reasons for which leave would be
permissible under the FMLA.
These proposals include H.R. 5456, the Family Medical Leave
Modernization Act, which would expand the FMLA's range of
recognized family caregiving relationships; the Family Leave
for Parental Involvement and Education Act, which would allow
parents and grandparents to use the FMLA to attend their
children's educational activities; H.R. 983, the Parental
Bereavement Act, which would add the death of a child as an
allowable use of the FMLA leave; and H.R. 1224, the Living
Donor Protection Act, which would include living organ
donations as a serious health condition under the FMLA.
In addition, we will also discuss H.R. 1185, the FAMILY
Act, which provides wage replacement for all workers so they
can remain financially stable while on leave.
And at the end of the day, this hearing is about making
sure that we leave here dedicated to the cause of ensuring
guaranteed, job protected, paid leave for all workers. This is
about ensuring working people can sustain their careers and
livelihoods while giving workers and their loved ones the care
needed to thrive.
Thank you.
And now I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Byrne, for an
opening statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections
Today, we are gathered to discuss our responsibility to ensure that
workers have access to family and medical leave to care for themselves
and their loved ones.
All workers should be able to contribute to the economy knowing
that, if personal health or family needs demand it, they can take leave
from work without losing their jobs and their livelihoods.
In 1993, Congress took an important step toward establishing
comprehensive leave when it passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, or
FMLA.
Unfortunately, 27 years later, we have failed to build upon that
legislation. As a result, federal law still leaves many workers without
the right to take unpaid leave or unable to afford unpaid leave where
they are eligible.
Workers are often excluded from the FMLA by a layered system of
requirements that restricts who is eligible to take leave, for whom
workers can take leave, and the reasons for which workers can take
leave.
To be eligible, an individual must work for a covered employer,
have worked for said employer for 12 months, and have worked 1,250
hours in the year before taking leave.
These restrictions, alone, leave out 44 percent of private sector
workers--or 49 million workers--from the FMLA. They also
disproportionally exclude low-income workers, working parents, and
workers of color, who face higher rates of job turnover.
Even if a worker can take FMLA leave, federal law does not
guarantee coverage for all family members and caregivers. The
individuals a worker can take leave for have expanded over time. Yet,
LGBT couples, domestic partners, and the 2.9 million grandparents
exclusively raising their grandchildren still face a patchwork of
policies that allow them to take leave in some states, but not others.
However, even if a worker is eligible for FMLA leave and fulfills
the law's definition of ``family,'' they may still be excluded because
of their reason for seeking leave.
While the FMLA covers personal, infant, and family health needs, it
does not cover a wide range of other reasons that workers might need to
take leave, including parents taking time to be more involved in their
children's schooling, individuals donating their organs to save lives,
or family members taking time to grieve a child's death.
Finally, even if workers fulfill all FMLA requirements, most
workers may not be able to afford to lose their wages as the FMLA does
not cover lost wages during leave.
Nearly half of those eligible for FMLA cannot afford to take it,
and nearly two-thirds of those who can still report financial
difficulties.
All of these compounding barriers leave few workers actually able
to take the leave they need. Yet, we know that access to paid, job-
protected leave is critical for healthy families, businesses, and
communities.
For families, paid family and medical leave means improved maternal
and infant health as well as better long- term outcomes for children.
For businesses, it means stronger worker recruitment and reduced
employee turnover.
And for the economy--which currently loses $22.5 billion in wages
each year because of inaccessible paid leave--it means more money in
the pockets of American consumers and less need for public assistance.
Congress has the power to fully realize the benefits of paid leave
for communities across the country.
Today, we will discuss how we can fulfill the promise of the FMLA
by updating federal law to expand who is eligible for leave, who
workers can take leave for, and the eligible reasons why workers take
leave.
We will also discuss legislative solutions, like the FAMILY Act,
that provide wage replacement for all workers so they can remain
financially stable while on leave.
At the end of the day, this hearing is about making sure we can
sustain our careers and livelihoods while giving ourselves and our
loved ones the care needed to thrive.
I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Byrne, for an opening
statement.
______
Mr. Cline. I thank the chair, and I thank our witnesses for
being here.
Balancing a career and a family can be a challenge for many
workers, especially when life-altering events, like the birth
or adoption of a new child, or a serious illness occur.
Allowing workers to take time away from their jobs during these
moments ensures that these employees can remain in the
workforce.
Committee Republicans recognize the benefits provided by
the Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires employers to
provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected family and
medical leave to eligible employees.
Furthermore, Republicans in Congress have encouraged
workplace flexibility and support for working families through
the paid family and medical leave tax credit, which rewards
businesses that provide paid leave benefits, and allowing new
parents to borrow from their private retirement account
following the birth or adoption of a child free from penalty.
While the FMLA has helped many workers balance work and
family, there are an ever-growing number of employer-provided
options that Congress should continue to recognize. In fact,
many businesses already provide robust leave options for their
employees to help ensure a positive and productive workplace.
Family-friendly policies have become an important tool for
companies to attract and retain quality employees in our
competitive job market. According to the Society for Human
Resource Management, the percentage of firms offering paid
maternity leave nearly tripled between 2014 and 2018. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 66 percent of wage and
salaried workers had access to paid leave in 2018, up from 60
percent in 2011.
Companies know they need to understand their current and
prospective employees' workplace concerns and be prepared to
address them. Congress should allow our Nation's employers the
flexibility to develop and offer personalized solutions that
work best for their employees and themselves.
As this committee examines the issue of family and medical
leave, we should avoid implementing one size fits all solutions
and instead focus on how we can foster an environment that
encourages employers to meet the needs of their workers.
Take the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for example. The 2017 pro-
growth, pro-worker tax reform passed by Republicans and signed
into law by President Trump included a tax credit for employers
who voluntarily offer at least 2 weeks of paid family and
medical leave to their employees, which is set to expire at the
end of this year. This allows employers to claim a tax credit
for up to 25 percent of the amount of wages paid to qualified
employees taking between 2 and 12 weeks of paid family and
medical leave.
Another Republican-led initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working
Families Flexibility Act, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act
to allow private sector employers to offer their employees the
choice of paid or comp time in lieu of cash wages for working
overtime. This provides hourly workers the choice to access
additional paid leave options not currently available to them.
The Working Families Flexibility Act passed the House in the
115th Congress.
These initiatives help create solutions for working
individuals and families without burdening the American
taxpayer and without creating new burdens on employers.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues' initiatives on the other
side that we will hear about today have a different approach,
with overarching government involvement and a hefty price tag
for workers and employers.
The bottom line is that Congress should avoid burdening the
American taxpayer and employers through additional Washington
knows best Federal mandates when the private sector is already
innovating solutions that create workplace flexibility for
employees.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
how the Federal Government can continue encouraging employers
to develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and their
families.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The statement of Mr. Cline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Cline, Representative of Congress from
the State of Virginia
Balancing a career and a family can be a challenge for many
workers, especially when life-altering events, like the birth or
adoption of a new child, or a serious illness occur. Allowing workers
to take time away from their jobs during these moments ensures that
these employees can remain in the workforce.
Committee Republicans recognize the benefits provided by the Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which requires employers to provide up to
12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected family and medical leave to eligible
employees.
Furthermore, Republicans in Congress have encouraged workplace
flexibility and support for working families through the paid family
and medical leave tax credit, which rewards businesses that provide
paid leave benefits, and allowing new parents to borrow from their
private retirement account following the birth or adoption of a child,
free from penalty.
While the FMLA has helped many workers balance work and family,
there are an ever-growing number of employer-provided options that
Congress should continue to recognize.
In fact, many businesses already provide robust leave options for
their employees to help ensure a positive and productive workplace.
Family-friendly policies have become an important tool for companies to
attract and retain quality employees in our competitive job market.
According to the Society for Human Resource Management, the
percentage of firms offering paid maternity leave nearly tripled
between 2014 and 2018. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 66
percent of wage and salary workers had access to paid leave in 2018--up
from 60 percent in 2011.
Companies know they need to understand their current and
prospective employees' workplace concerns and be prepared to address
them. Congress should allow our nation's employers the flexibility to
develop and offer personalized solutions that work best for their
employees and themselves.
As this Committee examines the issue of family and medical leave,
we should avoid implementing one-size-fits all solutions, and instead
focus on how we can foster an environment that encourages employers to
meet the needs of their workers.
Take the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for example. The 2017 pro-growth,
pro-worker, tax reform passed by Republicans and signed into law by
President Trump included a tax credit for employers who voluntarily
offer at least two weeks of paid family and medical leave to their
employees, which is set to expire at the end of this year. This allows
employers to claim a tax credit for up to 25 percent of the amount of
wages paid to qualified employees taking between two and 12 weeks of
paid family and medical leave.
Another Republican led initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working Families
Flexibility Act, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow private-
sector employers to offer their employees the choice of paid or comp
time in lieu of cash wages for working overtime. This provides hourly
workers the choice to access additional paid leave options not
currently available to them. The Working Families Flexibility Act
passed the House in the 115th Congress.
These initiatives help create solutions for working individuals and
families without burdening the American taxpayer and without creating
new burdens on employers. Unfortunately, many of the Democrats'
initiatives we'll hear about today have a different approach, with
overarching government involvement and a hefty price tag for workers
and employers.
Bottom line, Congress should avoid burdening the American taxpayer
and employers through additional Washington-knows-best, federal
mandates when the private sector is already innovating solutions that
create workplace flexibility for employees.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the
federal government can continue encouraging employers to develop
solutions that meet the needs of workers and their families.
______
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
Without objection, all other Members who wish to insert
written statements into the record may do so by submitting them
to the Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format
by 5 p.m. on February 24, 2020.
I will now introduce our witnesses.
Representative Sydney Batch represents District 37 in the
North Carolina House of Representatives, which encompasses
Holly Springs, Apex, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, and Angier.
Representative Batch is also a family law attorney, child
welfare advocate, and social worker. She lives in Holly Springs
with her husband and two sons.
Mr. Tony Sandkamp is the owner of Sandkamp Woodworks LLC, a
small independent custom architectural woodworking business.
The business has been based in Jersey City, New Jersey, for the
past 23 years. Mr. Sandkamp is a leader with the Main Street
Alliance of New Jersey, a statewide network of small business
owners.
Ms. Rachel Greszler is a research fellow in economics,
budgets, and entitlements at the Heritage Foundation. Ms.
Greszler provides research and commentary on workplace issues,
including Federal employee compensation, women's issues in
labor policies, such as minimum wage and paid family leave.
Dr. Elizabeth Jacobs is a senior fellow at the Urban
Institute focusing on issues related to family economic
security and economic mobility. Dr. Jacobs is a nationally
recognized expert on family income and earnings instability,
low wage employment, job quality, intergenerational mobility,
and opportunity, as well as a wide range of related policies,
including social insurance, labor market regulations, and
safety net policies.
Thank you all very much for being here. We appreciate all
of the witnesses. We look forward to your testimony today. But
let me remind the witnesses that we will have read your written
statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and committee practice,
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-
minute summary of your written statement. And let me remind the
witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section
1001, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully falsify any
statement, representation, writing, document, or material fact
presented to Congress, or otherwise conceal or cover up a
material fact.
So before you begin your testimony, please remember to
press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it
will turn on and the members can hear you. As you begin to
speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After 4
minutes, the light will turn yellow to signal that you have 1
minute remaining. And when the light turns red, your 5 minutes
have expired, and we ask that you please wrap up at that time.
So we will let the entire panel make their presentations
before we move to member questions. When answering a question,
please remember to, once again, turn your microphone on.
I would first like to recognize Representative Batch.
STATEMENT OF MRS. SYDNEY BATCH, J.D., M.S.W., REPRESENTATIVE,
NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RALEIGH, NC
Mrs. Batch. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairwoman Adams,
Ranking Member Cline, and members of the subcommittee. I am
Sydney Batch, a State Representative in the North Carolina
House representing Southern Wake County, an attorney, a part
owner of a small law firm, a breast cancer survivor, the mother
of two fantastic sons, and a member of MomsRising.
I am here today because I have needed family and medical
leave during the happiest and hardest times in my life. I know
from personal experience how important family and medical leave
is to my employees and constituents, to small businesses like
mine, and to my community and State. I know how badly our
country needs a comprehensive family and medical leave plan
that ensures all employees have the right to take leave and
return to their same or similar job and one that provides wage
replacement during leave.
We don't have that today. For 27 years, the Family and
Medical Leave Act has helped working families and people take
unpaid leave. But it has its limitations. It exempts small
businesses, employees who have been at their jobs for less than
a year, and many part-time workers, and it also uses a narrow
definition of family.
I encourage you to expand the FMLA to address those
problems and I urge you to enact national paid leave insurance.
Because the law firm my husband, business partner, and I
own has eight employees, we are not covered by FMLA. I had the
flexibility to take 3 months of leave and maintain my health
insurance when my sons were born because I am a business owner,
but few people can do that.
While my unpaid leave created financial stress for my
family, I didn't have the stress of worrying whether my job
would be there when I was ready to return to work because I am
a part owner of the firm. Everyone deserves that same type of
job protection.
What is the purpose of being able to take paid family leave
if your job isn't protected, or of having job protection if you
can't pay your bills while on leave? We need expanded FMLA
protections and a paid leave insurance plan.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018. I had a
mastectomy on a Friday and my husband returned back to work on
the following Monday. In 2019, I needed a second mastectomy and
reconstructive surgery. I had three surgeries and radiation
treatment in 1 year, and that was while I was caring for my 6
and 8-year-old sons, working full time at my firm, and serving
in the North Carolina House.
My mother, sisters, grandmother, and friends cared for me
when they could negotiate time off, but their leave was not
covered because FMLA does not include siblings or care for
adult children. It should be expanded to cover leave taken by
more relatives, domestic partners, and people who aren't blood
relatives.
And many fellow North Carolinians have suffered without
adequate leave as well. For instance, Jonathan in Wilmington,
who didn't have FMLA coverage when his sibling, who lives 400
miles away, was dying of bladder cancer. And Meryl, in
Weaverville, whose father lost his job and parents had to sell
their home after her father took earned time off to care for
her mother who had a stroke. Job protection and paid leave
would have protected his job and their home.
Studies, in my own experience, show it is good for
employees and businesses when workers can hold on to their jobs
while caring for their families or recovering from an illness.
I strongly support Representative Carolyn Maloney's FMLA
Modernization Act. Lack of job protection is a major barrier
that prevents working people from taking leave. Ensuring that
all workers, including those at small businesses, those who
work part time, and those who are recent hires, have job
protection through the FMLA is essential.
Another tremendous barrier to taking leave is lack of wage
replacement. The FAMILY Act is the best paid family and medical
insurance leave bill. Its passage is a priority for families
and small businesses, and it should be for Congress.
I am proud to cosponsor a paid family and medical leave
insurance bill in North Carolina. It shares costs between the
employer and the employee and covers small businesses and
people who are self-employed. It also uses an inclusive
definition of family, provides job protection, and addresses
the needs of military families.
I will continue to fight for it, but people in every State
need paid leave insurance so action by Congress is essential.
Please expand the Family and Medical Leave Act protections so
more people can access the unpaid leave and job protection it
provides, so it no longer exempts small businesses, employees
who are new to their jobs, and part-time workers, and so it
uses an inclusive definition of family.
And I hope that you will pass the FAMILY Act as well. When
you do both, we will have the comprehensive medical and family
leave coverage everyone in America deserves.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mrs. Batch follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Mr. Sandkamp, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY SANDKAMP, OWNER, SANDKAMP WOODWORKS
LLC, JERSEY CITY, NJ
Mr. Sandkamp. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member
Cline, and members of the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections.
My name is Tony Sandkamp, and I started my business,
Sandkamp Woodworks, in 1991. My four full-time employees and I
provide custom cabinetry and architectural woodwork from my
shop in Jersey City, New Jersey. I am a member of the Main
Street Alliance, a national network of more than 30,000 small
business owners.
This past week we celebrated the Family and Medical Leave
Act's 27th anniversary, which allows millions of eligible
American workers to take job-protected leave. While this was
landmark legislation in 1993, the FMLA leaves out over 44
percent of American workers. It is past time for Congress to
update the family and medical leave protections to better
address the needs of today's workforce.
Today I would like to address several issues as they relate
to family and medical paid leave and the importance of having a
good program in place.
Family and medical leave programs should have a modernized,
21st century definition of family. To be effective, paid leave
must include job protection, and small business owners
overwhelmingly support and need Congress to take action to pass
paid leave.
As a small business owner based in New Jersey, I have a
before and after experience to share about what happens when
paid leave is available to small business. And as a family
member, I have a personal experience to share about family
definition.
Three years ago my sister in Minnesota received a diagnosis
of stomach cancer. Luckily, our other sister, Rose, who lived
nearby who was not working at the time, was able to care for
our ill sister for 4 months. Our parents were elderly, and they
could not care for her, and if it had not been for Rose, I
don't know what we would have done.
If Rose had been working, her job would have been at risk
as the FMLA does not include siblings in their family
definition. For far too many other families, caring for a loved
one in their time of need means putting their job on the line.
New Jersey provides a great example of what can be done.
Last year the New Jersey Legislature updated the definition of
a family member in the State's family leave program to include
siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and close associations
that are the equivalent of a family relationship.
This is particularly important to the LGBTQ community and
employees who have disabilities as they are especially
dependent on care by chosen family members. I want any of my
employees, no matter who they love or deem as a family member,
to be able to take the time they need to care for a loved one.
New Jersey also expanded job protection and increased wage
replacement so more workers could afford to use the family and
medical leave benefit.
Without job protection, paid leave can just end up being
severance pay. Ensuring that employees can go out on leave and
know that their job will be there when they return is a
necessary component of any leave program.
Strong job protection ensures that all companies do the
right thing so that high road businesses, like mine, are not at
a competitive disadvantage.
Most significantly, small businesses and our employees need
access to a paid leave program. Small firms lack the capital
and scale to provide paid leave. The lack of a national paid
leave program hands the advantage to large corporations that
can use their size and market power to offer such benefits,
resulting in a hiring disadvantage for small business. We can
change this picture.
Before New Jersey adopted paid leave, I had an employee who
left my company to care for his dying mother in Florida. He was
her only family and he needed leave to provide care for her. He
didn't tell me why he was leaving, but even if he had, my
business could not have covered his salary and the additional
cost of a replacement worker.
If New Jersey had family leave insurance available during
this time, we would have avoided the pain and damage that
occurred to both my employee and my business. He would have had
the opportunity to take paid leave without feeling like he was
asking me for a personal favor and my business would have
retained a valuable employee.
But the State of New Jersey did not have a paid leave
program yet and my business paid the price. This employee was
one of the best performers on our team. The costs in time and
money to replace him were astronomical. Replacing employees is
expensive, with turnover costs averaging one fifth of an
employee's annual salary.
Now for the after picture. Four years later an employee
came to me and informed me that his wife was pregnant with
twins. He needed paid time off, and I had recently joined the
Main Street Alliance and learned about the New Jersey Family
Leave Insurance Program. The paperwork was straight forward,
and I worked with my employee to ensure that it was completed.
The program provided him with wage replacement while he was
bonding with his twins.
The plan we created for him to take time off was inclusive
of my entire team taking part. I had the funds to pay for a
part-time employee to move to full-time and my employee had the
time off he needed, and he came back after leave and remains a
valuable part of my team.
A national paid leave program that covers all of us, pools
our funds, and spreads costs will be a tremendous benefit and a
huge relief for small business. This is why a Federal leave
program is supported by 70 percent of small businesses by one
recent survey, and we need Congress to act. I look forward to
working with this committee and small business owners from
across the country to move the family and medical paid leave
across the finish line.
[The statement of Mr. Sandkamp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Sandkamp.
Ms. Greszler, you have 5 minutes, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF MS. RACHEL GRESZLER, RESEARCH FELLOW IN ECONOMICS,
BUDGETS, AND ENTITLEMENTS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON,
DC
Ms. Greszler. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this
afternoon.
As a mother of six young children and having close family
members who have experienced serious medical conditions
recently, I understand the need for workers to be able to take
leave and I also understand the need for that leave to be
flexible and accommodating.
Flexibility is actually what workers want most. A recent
Cato poll asked workers: What would help you balance your work
and family needs the most? And according to that poll, 6
percent of people said more paid parental leave. Compared to
that, six times as many people, 34 percent, said that they
wanted more workplace flexibility.
Unfortunately, the FMLA and other regulations that put
politicians and bureaucrats in charge of decisions like who
qualifies to take leave and how and when they can take that,
they end up limiting the ability for workers and employers to
sit down together and to figure out leave plans that balance
both of their needs. For example, a Harvard study that was
looking at the wage gap revealed that 45 percent of all workers
at a local transportation authority in Massachusetts had FMLA
certifications.
It is really difficult as an employer to be able to offer
flexibility to your employees if on any given day half of them
might not be showing up for work.
And despite that desire for flexibility, the House passed a
bill last week, the PRO Act, that would destroy flexible work
options, telling workers who want to be their own bosses that
they must instead answer to a boss or else form their own
incorporation.
The majority of workers do support a Federal paid family
and medical leave program, but that support plummets when they
are faced with the actual costs. And the reality is, paid
family and medical leave can't be free. So long as workers are
providing value to their employers, there are going to be costs
and consequences from them not being there, and a government
program can't erase those costs, it can only redistribute them.
It turns out that government programs across the world and
in the U.S. do a really bad job at redistribution. They end up
shifting resources away from lower-income workers and families
to middle- and upper-income ones. In California, five times as
many workers in the highest income bracket filed paid family
medical leave claims compared to those in the lowest bracket.
Canada's program is said to exacerbate class inequality and,
quote, ``aid the social reproduction of higher income
families.''
Both Norway and San Francisco expanded their programs
trying to attempt to remedy this redistribution, and yet low-
income mothers in San Francisco were still half as likely as
those in the highest income levels to take paid leave from the
State, and in Norway the expansion was, quote, ``costly, had no
measurable effect on outcomes and poor redistribution
properties.''
Meanwhile, in the U.S. we have a number of large employers,
companies like Starbucks, Lowe's, Target, Walmart, that have
all expanded new paid family leave policies for these lower
wage workers.
Government programs also have unintended consequences for
women. In California and New Jersey, their programs resulted in
higher unemployment rates and increased the unemployment
duration for young women. And in California, the program
resulted in 7 percent lower employment and 8 percent lower
annual earnings for the mothers who used it.
Across the world, these programs also lead to fewer
promotions for women. That is important because, according to
that Cato poll, only 29 percent of workers supported a Federal
program if it meant fewer benefits for them or fewer chances of
promotions for women.
Another factor that reduced worker support was tax
increases. A cup of coffee a week program, such as the FAMILY
Act, would only finance a tiny fraction of the leaves that
workers actually want to take. More realistic estimates peg the
price tag at an extra $1,500 to $2,900 per worker. Most
families can't afford to give up one or two mortgage payments a
year.
What I think we all want is common sense and compassionate
paid leave policies. Most employers do have compassion for
their workers, and even those who don't have the common sense
to know that they risk losing their workers if they refuse to
help meet their needs.
The best solution that we can offer workers who face
unreasonable employers is a strong economy with plentiful job
opportunities. But the more rules and regulations that the
government imposes, the fewer workers businesses will employ
and the fewer benefits and the less flexibility that they will
offer them.
As a working mom, I know the value of flexibility, and I
urge you all to enact policies that will add flexibility
instead of take it away. The Working Families Flexibility Act,
for example, would give lower income hourly workers the choice
to accumulate paid leave in exchange for overtime work, and
universal savings accounts and increasing private disability
insurance coverage would help workers and families balance
their needs.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Greszler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
Dr. Jacobs, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. ELISABETH JACOBS, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, URBAN
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Chair Adams, Ranking Member Cline,
and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today
to address an important topic for workers, families, and our
economy as a whole: the role that family and medical leave
plays in supporting the millions of Americans balancing work
and caregiving responsibilities. And I will note that the views
I express today are my own and should not be attributed to the
Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
My testimony draws four main conclusions.
First, the historic passage of the FMLA in 1993 has had
important positive effects for families and workers with
minimal evidence of negative consequences for business or
economic growth.
However, family earnings dynamics, caregiving needs, and
the structure of the labor market have evolved in the past
quarter century. For example, women now play an equally
important role as family breadwinners as they do as family
caregivers. Indeed, 41 percent of mothers were the sole or
primary earners for their families, earning at least half of
their household's total earnings.
Family caregiving needs extend beyond parents carrying for
a new baby, especially as America ages. The sheer number of
baby boomers means that the number of elderly individuals grows
annually, and the fastest growing group of older adults are
those 80 and older.
And the structure of work is shifting. While still a
relatively small share of the overall labor force, alternative
work arrangements accounted for 94 percent of employment growth
between 2005 and 2014.
Second, FMLA provides important protections for families
balancing work and care responsibilities, but the most
economically vulnerable workers too often are excluded from
accessing those rights.
More than 14 million workers took FMLA leave in 2012, the
most recent year for which we have available data from the BLS.
However, many more workers are unable to take leave for family
or medical reasons without risking job loss.
Forty-four percent of the workforce is not covered by the
FMLA, and there are substantial demographic disparities in
worker access to FMLA-protected leave.
For example, 42.6 percent of working women of childbearing
age are not eligible for FMLA protection. Less than half of all
workers living in families with incomes under $40,000 are FMLA
eligible. And Hispanic and non-White workers are less likely
than White workers to be FMLA eligible.
Given FMLA's limits, it is not surprising that unmet demand
for needed leave is high. Sixteen percent of workers report a
time when they needed to take time off for an FMLA-qualifying
reason but were unable to do so. And nearly a third of workers
in low-income households were not able to take a needed leave.
Third, modernizing the FMLA to reflect contemporary work
and family would expand access to needed leave for millions of
workers. For instance, FMLA excludes part-time workers,
including those who work a full-time schedule split across
multiple employers. Updating FMLA to protect part-time workers
could help millions of families.
FMLA's definition of family is limited and, as such, does
not include the most important caregiving relationships for
many workers.
For example, FMLA doesn't offer protection for grandparent
caregivers. We know that nearly 1 million grandparents serve as
their grandchildren's primary caregiver and over half of these
grandparents were in the labor force.
Updating the definition of covered family to reflect the
multigenerational households of contemporary America would
expand access to leave.
Fourth, job protection is one of a number of important
policy elements that Congress should consider. Wage replacement
is another. A growing number of States have implemented paid
leave programs that allow workers to earn paid time off for
parental, family, and medical leave.
All of these State programs use a social insurance model
with leave funded by a very small payroll contribution, and
many of those States have combined those paid parental leave
policies with rights to job protection that go beyond those
provided by Federal law and provide medical and caregiving
leave as well.
Evidence tells us that these policies can have wide-ranging
positive impacts on child and adult health as well as on
earnings and employment outcomes for leave takers.
Because labor force participation rates are a critical
element of economic growth, policies like paid leave that boost
labor force attachment are a macroeconomic growth strategy as
well as a support for working families.
Businesses in States with paid family and medical leave
programs in place view these policies favorably. Paid leave
programs may also improve productivity by reducing turnover.
The States have provided models for what works, but the
evidence suggests that the time has come for updating Federal
policy to meet the challenges of a 21st century economy.
A Federal program with uniform eligibility requirements,
protections, and benefit schedules would eliminate the
unevenness between the States, create a level playing field for
State finances for employers and for workers.
A federally administered system, coupled with Federal
protections, would be substantially more efficient to
administer than 50-plus separate State and local programs.
In conclusion, the evidence tells us that working families
are facing substantial challenges to combining their economic
and caregiving responsibilities. But research also tells us
that we have policy solutions available, solutions that work
for families, for workers, for employers, and for the economy
as a whole.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Under Committee Rule 8(a), we will now question witnesses
under the 5-minute rule, alternating between the parties. I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Jacobs, you mentioned in your testimony that
economically vulnerable workers are too often excluded from the
right to family and medical leave. I want to talk about some of
the limitations in the FMLA that lead to this exclusion.
Many low-wage workers work in industries with high turnover
rates. How does this contribute to these workers being excluded
from the right to FMLA leave?
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for the question.
FMLA requires workers to have at least a year, 50 weeks of
tenure with an employer to be eligible for FMLA-protected
unpaid leave, and as a result, workers in industries with high
turnover rates, like those that you mentioned, are less likely
to be eligible for FMLA because they are more likely to have
been on the job for less than a year when the need for leave
arises.
And we know that turnover rates are especially high in low-
wage industries such as leisure and hospitality, retail. These
are places with lower-than-average medium wages, and they have
also got very high turnover rates. So you have some of these
most economically vulnerable workers who don't have job
protection when they need to take time out of work to care for
themself or a family member.
Chairwoman Adams. Many workers struggle to get the hours
that they need each week and may be involuntarily part time or
work part-time jobs for more than one employer to make ends
meet. So how does this contribute to these workers being
excluded from the right to FMLA leave?
Ms. Jacobs. So in addition to the year-long tenure
requirement that we just talked about, the FMLA also requires
that an employee have worked at least 1,250 hours per year, and
that is about 25 hours per week on average, with a covered
employer in order to have the right to unpaid leave.
So this eligibility requirement means that many part-time
workers are excluded. That includes workers who may be working
a full-time schedule, patching together two different part-time
jobs but for multiple employers, because this requires them to
have hours amassed with one employer.
On top of that we know that the share of workers who are
working part time for involuntary reasons, so that means folks
who would really like to be working a full-time job but just
haven't been able to find one, that number remains elevated
above pre-recession rates. In other words, we know that more
workers are stuck in these involuntary part-time jobs for
longer periods in today's economy, and those workers are the
folks who are excluded from FMLA protections.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
Representative Batch, you have a bill pending in the North
Carolina House--I served there for 20 years, so I am real
familiar with them--that would create a State-level family and
medical leave insurance program in North Carolina.
Given your efforts at the State level, why is it important
that we at the Federal level ensure that all workers have the
right to take time off to care for a loved one and the ability
to afford to take that time off?
Mrs. Batch. That is an excellent question.
One of the concerns and issues is that we live in a
transient society, people move from State to State. And if we
have protections that are only in North Carolina or only in
Kentucky or only in California, those are the workers that are
protected.
However, we know that we have family members, including Mr.
Sandkamp who gave a perfect example of his sibling, who, if he
had FMLA protections and paid insurance, he would be able to
use that. But if we don't have a national program, individuals
who live in other States would not be able to care for their
loved ones, and that is one of the main reasons.
I also think it is important for the Federal Government to
create a clear baseline for protections, and States can do more
if they choose to.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
Dr. Jacobs, what are the impacts of job-protected paid
family and medical leave on maternal mortality rates,
especially for working mothers of color?
Ms. Jacobs. So I can say something about the impact of job-
protected leave on infant mortality rates, which we know has
been substantial. And I can say that we know that job-protected
leave has also provided mothers with the chance to actually go
to more well-baby visits, take care of themselves. It has
reduced postpartum depression and allowed mothers to take
better care of themselves. All of which, I think it is
reasonable to say, connect to better women's health outcomes
more generally.
Chairwoman Adams. Okay. I did have another question here.
So why is it important, Representative Batch, that all
workers, including your employees and constituents, have access
to job-protected paid family and medical leave?
Mrs. Batch. So I think that 12 percent of North Carolinians
right now are currently covered by paid leave programs, but
that leaves a significant and vast majority of North
Carolinians without it.
And so if you are putting in your sweat equity into
businesses and, of course, contributing to society as a worker,
you should have the ability to go ahead and actually have paid
leave when you need it most. So I think it is essential that we
take care of that now.
Chairwoman Adams. Thanks very much.
I want to recognize the Ranking Member for the purpose of
questioning the witnesses now, 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Greszler, your testimony explains that with regard to
Federal paid leave programs or proposals it is difficult to
design a single program that can meet the needs of all the
workers who require it without being so expansive as to invite
misuse, abuse, and excessive cost.
Does this rationale also apply to legislative proposals to
expand the definitions and permissible use of leave under the
Family and Medical Leave Act?
Ms. Greszler. Yes, I do think it would make it more costly
and burdensome. There are definitions that are not clearly
defined. In current FMLA, a serious medical condition is not
well defined, and employers have had employees report
conditions such as a hurt toe or a migraine or a severe cough
that ends up resulting in FMLA certification.
And if we add an additional uncertainty in there in terms
of what is a close family-like relationship, this could end up
being any leave for any reason, and then you prevent employers
from being able to have those flexible policies.
Most people would rather shoot an email or go and sit down
and ask for their boss and tell them about what their
circumstance is, whether it is to attend a child's conference
at school or whether it is a sick family member or maybe a sick
nonrelative.
It is easier to have that conversation than it is to fill
out the paperwork, go and get one, two, maybe three medical
certifications, potentially have to challenge this. It is just
easier for the employers to work directly with their employees.
Mr. Cline. And again to Ms. Greszler, family-friendly
policies like flexible work schedules and telework options have
become an important tool for employers around the country to
attract and retain quality employees. This is particularly true
in more rural areas like many in my district.
Such benefits have become more important as unemployment
levels remain at record lows and businesses compete for talent.
Simply put, it is a buyer's market for job seekers.
How would government interference impact employer-provided
benefits?
Ms. Greszler. It would end up taking more away. I recently
saw a survey about what are employers doing to attract
employees when we have such low unemployment rates, and the
highest thing they are doing, 44 percent of them are offering
more flexible workplace policies because that is what workers
want. When we start taking those away, they can't offer those.
I had the opportunity to sit in with about 25 HR
representatives and they were all representing larger
companies. And I said, well, if there weren't a State-based
policy there--these were in States that had them--you know, if
that policy weren't there, would you provide less to your
workers? And they all said, no, we would provide more because
we wouldn't have to be spending so many of our resources and
our employees wouldn't be spending so much time trying to
figure out how they can comply with these laws.
And they have had cases where they had told workers they
could take leave and then it ended up they couldn't and they
had to give their checks back, or they had to dock FMLA down to
every 3-minute increment. And this just prevents them from
providing the flexibility and the benefits that they otherwise
would offer those employees.
And then on a Federal level here, it would ring true for
all of you, thinking about if you had to shift a lot of your
budget to mandatory spending, you would no longer have that
discretionary spending and the resources to actually address
the needs of your constituents because so much of it is tied up
in what mandatory spending is telling you what you need to do.
Mr. Cline. Now, H.R. 1185, the FAMILY Act, would impose new
taxes on working families and job creators. Now, the proposal
is to have a 0.4 percent payroll tax.
And, Mrs. Batch, you specifically endorsed 1185, so I will
ask you first. An analysis of this bill found that 0.4 percent
payroll tax would only cover 15 percent of the benefit
payments, and that fully funding benefit payments would require
a payroll tax as high as 2.9 percent.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that covering the
true cost of the FAMILY Act would require a payroll tax
increase of between 2.7 and 3.1 percent.
So would you not agree that is a significant burden on
employers to have to meet that hidden tax increase?
Mrs. Batch. So I can't speak to the actual research. I know
what you just read. I am more than happy to follow up later on
with my response to that.
But what I would say specifically is that in North Carolina
the proposal in the legislation that we have introduced is $2
per week from the paycheck of the employee and $2 from the
employer.
And so $104 a year, as a small business owner right now,
would be nothing compared to the costs in the overturn and all
of the other expenses that occur when I have an employee leave,
frankly, their job earlier because they have all of the other
issues that they need to address.
Mr. Cline. Ms. Greszler, from what we know of other Federal
programs, should American taxpayers be assured that Uncle Sam
won't come asking for more of their paycheck? And can you
respond to that analysis?
Ms. Greszler. Yeah. Well, I think we can look back at
Social Security. When it first started it cost 2 percent of
payroll, and those lawmakers promised: We will never take more
than 6 percent of your paycheck.
It is now 12.4 percent. It is actually costing 15.3
percent. And these proposals can start with taxes, and it is
easy to specify what you are going to collect, but very quickly
that is not enough.
If you look at what the FAMILY Act is collecting, this is
basic math. Compared to what you would collect versus the leave
that workers are already taking, some of that without pay, the
FAMILY Act could only finance between 3 and 5 percent of
leave--well, 3 and 5 percent of workers could take leave--but
we know that 16 to 24 percent of workers either do take leave
or want to take leave in a given year. And so it is easy to see
that would not actually finance a program that would cover
people's needs.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Adams. Ms. Jayapal, I recognize you 5 minutes,
ma'am.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And welcome to our witnesses.
For years, I have heard from workers in my home State of
Washington about why they need paid leave, stories like
Adrianna, a home care worker who couldn't take leave from work
when her mother was dying; Angela, who struggled to decide
whether or not to go to a prenatal doctor's appointment or to
save her very limited vacation days for after she gave birth;
at the age of 33, with a 20-month old, Jennifer, who needed
paid leave so that she could get treatment for breast cancer.
These stories were horrific, but now Washington State
workers are breathing a sigh of relief. The State's
comprehensive paid family and medical leave program went into
effect this year, and under that State-paid family and medical
leave program almost every worker, regardless of the size of a
workplace, can take paid leave.
But, unfortunately, many workers across the country can't
enjoy these same benefits, and I wanted to focus particularly
on those employers who have a limited number of employees, so
small businesses.
Dr. Jacobs, you mentioned in your testimony that many
workers don't qualify for FMLA protections because their
employer is too strong. As you know, workers don't qualify for
FMLA unless they work for an employer with 50 or more employees
in a 75-mile radius.
How many workers would have the right to the FMLA's job-
protected family and medical leave if Congress expanded the
FMLA to cover small businesses?
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for the question. It is a really
important one.
And I am not aware of any published estimates on the number
of workers who would be eligible for FMLA leave if we lowered
the threshold, the firm size requirement. But I do have
preliminary estimates from Dr. Pamela Joshi at Brandeis' Heller
School for Public Policy and Management that, unsurprisingly,
suggests that lowering firm size could substantially increase
FMLA access.
So her numbers suggest that 61 percent of the workforce
would be covered by FMLA if firms with 10 or more workers were
included under FMLA's threshold.
I will say that this is a good example of a space where we
could use more research in particular on the various elements
of job protection and of FMLA policy design to figure out
exactly what would happen under each tweak, because there are a
number of ways that we could change the policy, and figuring
out exactly who it would impact and where would be a fantastic
advance.
Ms. Jayapal. That sounds like a great thing to do, but I
think that we can probably agree that it would be millions more
workers, correct?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. And if we had that, what are the benefits of
ensuring that every worker has FMLA coverage? And can you speak
specifically to women and the disproportionate burden that
women have by these restrictions on small employers?
Ms. Jacobs. So I can't speak specifically to women and
small employers, but I can say that we have lots of evidence on
the cost of not having both job protection and paid leave for
women and on the benefits to having it.
It is exciting that States like Washington have actually
put policies in place. There are other States, like California
and New York and New Jersey and a number of others, that have
policies on the way that have let us actually understand what
happens over time. And we see, for example, in California that
women's labor force attachment and employment has gone up. We
see positive health outcomes.
And we know that FMLA protections nationally cover a
surprisingly limited number of women of childbearing age, and
there are a whole bunch of reasons we could talk about as to
why. They are typically young, they are newer in the workforce,
we know that job turnover rates are high, we know that women
are often concentrated in service, retail, these industries
that, as we discussed earlier, have high turnover rates.
These are all reasons why you have a certain segment of the
population that may be disproportionately excluded given how we
set up the laws now. And we have State policies that show us
that it doesn't have to be that way, and we can have positive
outcomes that we are looking for.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
Mr. Sandkamp, you are the owner of a small business. How
has New Jersey's paid leave insurance program increased your
employees' economic security? And what is the benefit to you as
an employer? We often hear that this is too costly, and it
hurts employers. But tell us what your experience has been in
terms of retention and financial stability of your employees.
Mr. Sandkamp. Thank you for the question.
So it has been incredibly positive for me. Like my example
in my testimony, one of my employees whose wife had twins took
paternal leave. He was able to get 6 weeks at that time, and
now it has been expanded this year to 12 weeks of wage
replacement and had time to bond with his twins and help his
wife out before her mother was able to come and help her.
For me, as an employer, I haven't had a single employee
leave for any reason like that since this act has been--since
the family leave has been available in the State of New Jersey.
And that is a huge cost savings for me as an employer just in
the terms of maintaining productivity and the cost to train a
new employee to replace that employee that might have left.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. My time has expired. I
request unanimous consent to enter into the record a report, A
Better Balance, entitled, ``Paid Family and Medical Leave and
Nonstandard Employees.''
Chairwoman Adams. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy, you are recognized 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Guys, thank you very much for coming today. This is
obviously a big issue that faces us in the United States. I
handled it personally on two different levels, one as a small
business owner, employed, depending upon the year, anywhere
from 40 to 50 employees. But then also just when I would take
care of patients oftentimes when they would try to take care of
their mothers and anybody else in their family who is operated
on. So I am not insensitive to the issue.
I am concerned, as you said, Ms. Greszler, about the
unintended consequences of we start something and then it
grows, and then it grows, and then it grows, and it cripples
small business.
I mean, as it is right now, it is a proposed 0.4 percent
payroll tax. How do you envision that given the precedent that
has been before with Social Security, et cetera, how do you
envision that changing in the future? And how would that relate
to small business, which is the predominant employer in the
country?
I see it, we want to do great things for our workers, we
want to help them out, but it has to get paid for somehow. And
how would that affect small business in this country?
Ms. Greszler. Yeah. I think we can avoid talking about the
cost even though it is something that we all want workers to
have access to.
And you start out small, 0.4 percent, and the other
estimates have showed that it could be 2.9 percent. Well, how
do we get there? We want a policy that will accommodate
everybody, and it turns out that 66 percent of wages isn't
enough. If you are making $15 an hour, you can't pay your bills
on $396 a week instead of $600. So we increase the benefits to
100 percent.
We expand who is covered. We increase the amount of time
that you can take off. Twelve weeks seems relatively generous
in the U.S. today, but abroad it is 52 weeks, and so we expand
it to that.
And you just see the program grow and grow over time to try
and meet everybody's needs. But as they are doing that you also
scoop in a lot of needs that weren't necessarily a need, but
workers will take them because it is an entitlement. And we
don't have the room right now to have another middle class,
unfunded entitlement program in this country.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
I follow that argument. And having dealt with entitlement
programs just in my business all the time, most folks are very
good stewards of them. But, unfortunately, we do have fraud,
waste, and abuse on many sides of the stream.
Do you see anything in this particular effort that we can
actually work to control these issues in the future? Because
there will be people, just as you suggest, that said, ``Hey, it
is a free benefit. I am going to take advantage of it.'' And,
unfortunately, those type of efforts hurt the people that they
are meant to help.
Ms. Greszler. Yeah. It is really unfortunate, because
Congress passed the FMLA with the intent to try and help
workers who have serious health conditions and for them to be
able to help their family workers. And in some instances, it is
not all, but there are some out there where it has become a
get-out-of-jail-free card.
You know, I was reading through some documentation. The
Department of Labor had an opportunity for employers to submit
comments, and I couldn't believe some of the cases where
employees would get certified for FMLA for very minor
conditions and then they just use it whenever they want to, if
it is, ``I am 5 minutes late to work and I don't want to be
penalized for that,'' you know.
Some people have called it the Friday-Monday Leave Act,
because it turns out that the most instances of family medical
leave are taken on Fridays, on Mondays, the Monday after the
Super Bowl, the first day of hunting season, and surrounding
holidays.
And so it is abuse. It is really unfortunate. And that
weakens the program for other people who really need to use it.
And so there are extreme concerns, if we are going to
broaden the definitions further so that virtually anybody can
take a leave, because we all have somebody that is a close
friend or family member that has some type of medical situation
going on, it creates an out for workers who don't want to do
their duties at their job, and then that creates a more
difficult situation for employers to provide the flexibility
they really want to for the workers who need it.
Mr. Murphy. I would agree completely.
Thank you, Ms. Chairman. I will yield back my time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
I want to recognize the chair of the Committee on Education
and Labor.
Mr. Scott, you are recognized 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Jacobs, you mentioned--several have mentioned that 44
percent of the public is not covered by family and medical
leave right now, can't take it. Can you tell us what we need to
do, what initiatives we should be looking at to increase the
percentage of people covered?
Ms. Jacobs. So I think there are a number of different
elements of policy design that you all could consider.
First, you could consider expanding the share of covered
employees, so, for example, lowering the firm size requirements
in order to cover a broader range of businesses.
You could expand the number of eligible employees by
considering lowering the job tenure requirements in order to
include a larger share of employees, such as those with short
job tenure, fewer hours worked.
I will say that you could still have eligibility
requirements that require a given level of labor force
attachment. So this isn't just saying like you show up at work
and it is your first time on the job, and guess what, the next
day you get leave.
For example, like we do with Social Security, we can track
people's employment and earnings over time. And it is not just
tied to one employer, so you can have policies that are tied to
labor force attachment and aren't just kind of a giveaway.
You could expand the definition of family, as we have
talked about earlier, consider leave taking for a broader range
of family relationships, so grandparents, siblings.
For example, the State of Oregon has a new policy that is
about to go into effect, or they are working on it, that allows
leave taking for any individual related by blood or affinity
whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of
a family relationship. So getting at what Mr. Sandkamp
discussed earlier, the kind of chosen family is incredibly
important for certain populations.
And then lastly, you could think about expanding the
definition of leave, what is eligible for leave. So one example
we haven't talked about yet, victims of sexual stalking, sexual
violence, domestic violence. If you have a medical reason for
leave that stems from one of those then you may be covered.
But the idea of needing to go to court, to move your
location, there are lots of things that stem from those
situations that actually we could cover under FMLA.
We could also cover grieving for the loss of a loved one
and organ donation as well.
So those are a number of dimensions that I think you have
got a lot of space to move.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And you mentioned grandparents. Is that all grandparents or
just custodial grandparents?
Ms. Jacobs. I think that is up to you. The numbers I
mentioned are specifically for custodial grandparents, and half
of them are working. But there are good reasons to think that,
for example, a grandchild might be their closest kin to a
grandparent who needs care right now. That working grandchild
wouldn't be able to take care of their grandparent even if
there was no one else available to do it.
And likewise, if you have a child who is not necessarily
with the custodial grandparent, but the grandparent is the
person best suited to provide care for that child, they have no
right to FMLA-protected leave under the current law.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Representative Batch, you were talking about who could get
access to FMLA and also how to pay for it. Why is it important
to deal with these policies both at the same time?
Mrs. Batch. I think it is because most people aren't able
to do one without the other. A lot of the families--I was a
family law attorney for the past 15 years. I see people at the
worst time in their lives. And many of them are, frankly, at
this point in time dividing a lot of debt. They are worried
about how they are going to still stay in their homes and take
care of their children.
And many workers just can't afford to take the time off
even if it is guaranteed unless they have some wage
replacement. So I think it is essential that we do both at the
same time, because I had the luxury, as a small business owner,
of taking that time off and knowing that my job was going to be
protected, but I believe that every single worker in America
deserves that same right.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Greszler, you mentioned the Friday-Monday Leave Act. Do
you have studies that show the days? Could you provide us with
the studies that show the days people actually take off, or is
that anecdotal?
Ms. Greszler. I would refer you to some citations in my
written testimony. I believe one was the Department of Labor
statistics for employees were submitting things, and I can find
it in there. But it was--some of it is anecdotal, but some of
it can actually track--at least each individual employer can
track how long and when that leave is taking place.
And one of those was a Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority study that I cited, and I believe the rates of leave
were at least 20 percent higher in the weeks when workers were
scheduled, a holiday shift--or a weekend shift--and closer to
50 percent higher in the weeks that they were scheduled a
holiday shift.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
Dr. Foxx, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I thank our witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Greszler, the bills we are discussing today
substantially expand the categories of covered leave under the
Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, distorting this carefully
balanced law. This committee must carefully consider the
additional burdens and practical compliance issues that these
proposals place on employers and ultimately workers.
Ms. Greszler, can you expand upon the potential compliance
and regulatory burdens that expanding the FMLA would place on
employers?
Ms. Greszler. Yes. One of the examples I think of is my
children's own daycare. And so this is a small business, they
have about 10 teachers, 25 families there. If they have two
workers that call out on 1 day for an FMLA reason and they
didn't expect that, they have no way to replace them.
Even when they do know in advance, it is really hard
because those positions are skilled. They have to have
appropriate hours of training. They have to have licensing.
They have to have background checks. They can't get anyone in
the door.
And actually we had a situation once where two people
couldn't come in on a Friday. We were told the daycare was
closed for the entire next week because they didn't have those
two people there. So you had 25 families that were scrambling
to find childcare.
The more regulations we place, the more burdensome it is.
And there is also the fact that if workers qualify under FMLA
as opposed to just working a policy out with their employer,
the employer is prohibited essentially from asking them to do
any work.
My own personal experience is that I have benefitted from
being able to do some work while I am on leave, at my own
option, only what I want to do, but that has let me keep my
foot in the door and it has helped my employer for things not
to be as disruptive. And that is something that FMLA prohibits.
Ms. Foxx. Well, you note in your testimony that well-
intentioned policies, like expanding the FMLA or implementing
paid leave mandates, can have unintended consequences, as you
are describing, especially for working women. So how have
State-based leave mandates affected employment in those States?
Should Congress expect different results in a one-size-fits-all
Federal program?
Ms. Greszler. Yeah. I think we are all trying to help
workers and especially women here because we understand that
they tend to be the primary caregivers. And the unfortunate
consequence of some of these policies has been in States like
California and New Jersey, younger women who are of
childbearing age end up having lower rates of employment,
higher durations of unemployment.
And in a more recent study in California that used better
IRS administrative data found that they had lower earnings and
employment after using this.
And so I think that we actually can expect to have higher
unintended consequences with a Federal policy because that
would be a bigger policy and it would cover more people. It
would be better known.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Ms. Greszler, a 2018 poll conducted by the Cato Institute
asked workers to rank policies that best help balance work and
family. Results indicate that workers value flexible work
schedules and ability to work remotely or by telework, as you
have indicated.
Though the FAMILY Act's prescriptive mandate provides
workers with the workplace flexibility they value, what
policies options should this committee consider that would
better meet these preferences?
Ms. Greszler. I think the FAMILY Act would limit
flexibility. As I mentioned before, it doesn't provide that
option for workers to do some work while they are on leave. And
there are better policies out there. There is the Working
Families Flexibility Act that allows those lower-wage workers
to accumulate paid time off.
An important thing also would be to clarify the definition
of who is an employee. Contract workers, gig economy workers,
independent workers, they have more flexibility and autonomy,
and they are the people that are choosing these type of
options. And yet, instead of taking those options away, we
could clarify it so that they know that they can choose that,
and they can schedule ahead their hours.
There are also some things that would just let people have
more control over their options and freeing up resources as
well. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that ended up with more
companies coming out with paid family leave policies.
Ms. Foxx. Well, you indicated a little while ago that FMLA
could create problems where if you expand this tremendously,
that there could be unintended consequences. Would you like to
say a little more about what the consequences of leaving ill-
defined legislative text open to interpretation?
Ms. Greszler. Yeah. I think the unintended consequences are
that we don't help the people that we really want to, and we
don't let employers have the discretion to be able to say, ``I
want to help you with this need.''
Instead we have these one-size-fits-all policies, and the
broader you make them the more people they encompass. And it
won't happen everywhere, but it does happen at workplaces where
you have 45 percent of workers who have an FMLA certification,
and they have the option to take leave whenever they want it.
That is really unworkable for employers, and that is under
the current definition. The more we expand it, the more workers
out there who will have these certifications, is kind of a hall
pass to just check in and out when they want to. That is not
what policymakers intend for this to be.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have to say as a general statement to everybody here that
flexible work schedules, telework, generous leave policies are
wonderful. But what of the workers who don't happen to have
those benevolent employers? That is where my real concern lies,
and that is where I think most of our concerns should lie. In a
country that touts the importance of family values, I am
consistently amazed at how unfamily friendly our laws are.
I agree, Ms. Greszler, that it would be lovely if all
employers were willing to work with their employees and afford
them leave as needed, but we haven't seen that actually happen
in the workplace for most workers. And we know that countries
that have better family leave policies have lower infant and
maternal mortality rates, better educational outcomes, and
their citizens overall report higher levels of happiness.
I think there is a direct correlation when we really do act
in a way that is family friendly, and it affords people the
ability to take care of their family members, all of their
family members, in addition to working.
You seem to have, Ms. Greszler, a very negative view of
employees who use FMLA. You referred to a get-out-of-jail-free
card, the Friday-Monday Leave Act.
I reject the notion that most employees who avail
themselves of FMLA are acting in bad faith. Is it your opinion
that most people who use FMLA are acting in bad faith?
Ms. Greszler. Absolutely not. And I tried to highlight the
fact that this is not every instance. This is a narrow subset.
But I think that you tend to get certain workplace environments
where it becomes an entitlement, and people learn what they can
do, and they use it in ways that were never intended.
Ms. Wild. So an easy way of putting it is that the few bad
apples will ruin it for all, right?
Ms. Greszler. I think the few bad apples will make things
difficult for employers, and they will prevent more flexible
policies for the workers who otherwise want and need them.
Ms. Wild. Before I go any further, I want to ask unanimous
consent to include the written testimony of Barry Kluger and
Kelly Farley in support of the Parental Bereavement Act into
the record, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT[
Ms. Wild. Thank you. I just didn't want to forget to do
that.
Ms. Greszler, your written testimony says, and I quote, ``I
also believe that flexibility should be an earned privilege,
not a universal right.''
My question to you is, is the message to a really good
worker that has been with a company of, say, only 15 employees
for a decade, who finds himself or herself in desperate need of
accommodation to take care of a family member who is ill or of
his or her own health needs, that they haven't earned the
coverage or flexibility that FMLA affords to other workers who
might happen to work for an employer with 50 or more employees?
Ms. Greszler. By saying that I think that workers should be
able to earn that flexibility, what I mean is that it should be
at the discretion of the employer. There are some positions and
there are also some workers who are more conducive to being
able to work remotely or to have more flexible hours, and it
needs to be at the discretion of that employer to be able to
determine that.
When you have small family businesses, it is difficult to
have a one-size-fits-all policy because that doesn't actually
meet everybody's needs. When you can have more flexible and
accommodative policies is when you can meet all those needs.
Ms. Wild. But we know that not every employer will act in
good faith. Isn't that true?
Ms. Greszler. Yes.
Ms. Wild. And we know that not every employer will act in
the best interests of their employees. And sometimes it is
necessary to impose broader rules, broader regulations to make
sure that employees are treated fairly. Fair enough?
Ms. Greszler. I agree. But I think it is a really hard
thing to legislate intentions and to legislate employers to
have good hearts.
The alternative is for us to encourage them to do the right
thing. But you can't force people to do something. The best
thing is for workers to have options and opportunities so that
if they are in that bad situation, they have another job to go
to and they have a higher ladder that they can climb up.
Ms. Wild. Let me just stop you there because my time is
running out. Let me just suggest to you that a really hard
thing is when somebody has just suffered the loss of a child,
or somebody has a very sick child and isn't able to take time
off from work because they work perhaps for an employer who has
15 employees or not 50 or more.
That, I would submit to you, is a really difficult thing,
much more difficult than the employer who might have to
accommodate an employee who is in need of FMLA.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
Mr. Takano, you are recognized 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, for this very
important hearing on the need to enhance protections under the
Family and Medical Leave Act, otherwise known as FMLA.
We need to ensure that the conversation about paid family
leave includes robust wage replacement, expanded protections to
allow more workers to qualify, and more importantly, an
assurance of job protection without penalty if someone decides
to take leave.
According to a December 2019 report by Pew that looked at
41 countries, the United States was the only country that did
not have a Federal paid family leave program. Countries like
Japan, Norway, and Austria all offer over 1 year of paid family
leave for their workers.
Why has the United States, a global leader, been so slow to
follow in their footsteps?
Dr. Jacobs, I understand that there are different
variations on paid family proposals across the United States at
the State level and in underdeveloped countries. What are the
components of the European models that allows those countries
to have thriving economies and guaranteed job security for
their workers?
Ms. Jacobs. So I should start by saying that I am not an
expert on the international policies, but I can say a little
bit about the components of the policies that I know of that
have been borrowed by the States and that we see working here
in the U.S. and that in turn kind of add up to the backbone of
what the FAMILY Act is, the act here.
Mr. Takano. Sure.
Ms. Jacobs. So why don't I start by just describing the
FAMILY Act, which is very similar in some ways to what we have
in the States. It is an earned benefit. It would provide 66
percent wage replacement to individuals who would be able to
earn that over time.
It would provide up to 12 weeks of 66 percent wage
replacement for their own serious health condition, including
pregnancy and childbirth recovery, so maternity leave, as well
as paternity leave, as well as leave for the serious health
condition of a child, a parent, a spouse, a domestic partner,
the birth or adoption of a child, and for particular military
caregiving and leave purposes.
It would cover workers in all companies. This is similar to
what many European countries have done as well, by having a
social insurance program, that means that it is funded by a
very small payroll contribution from employees and employers.
It means that it travels with the worker, so it doesn't
actually matter what company you are with.
You, as an individual, who has been working, earns this
benefit. And when you need leave, if it is for the happy event
of the birth of a child or for the very sad event of having to
take care of a dying parent and everything in between, that
earned benefit is there for you.
And then finally, like many European countries that have
done this in the past, much like our Social Security system, it
would be administered by a new Office of Paid Family and
Medical Leave. And so we would take advantage of some existing
Federal systems and not have to reinvent the wheel, which is
something that States are having to do as they try and borrow
pieces of this model and have really shown us that it works.
We have seven States-plus who are trying to do that on
their own rather than replicating it over and over and over
again in each State and creating this patchwork that workers
and employers have to navigate. We have the potential to do it
at the Federal level and really simplify things and add some
more dynamism to the workforce that we risk kind of squashing
if we keep on doing it the way we have been going.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you very much for that very
thorough answer.
Mr. Sandkamp, there has been a bit of discussion about the
loss of flexibility for employees and employers if we adopt a
Federal paid leave program. As a small business owner, have
your employees experienced any loss in flexibility?
Mr. Sandkamp. Thank you for the question. Meaning a loss in
flexibility on my employees' behalf?
Mr. Takano. Yes.
Mr. Sandkamp. I am not seeing that, no. In New Jersey we
have had a Family Leave Act in place for about 10 years, and it
has been all positive. My employees love it.
Last year the deduction was about $34. So while some people
claim it to be something that is going to blow up and become
something really unsustainable or be a Social Security type
deduction, $34 is not that for the year. It is less than a cup
of coffee every 2 weeks.
Mr. Takano. Well, did you experience high turnover rates
when the law went into effect and you started offering paid
leave?
Mr. Sandkamp. I am sorry?
Mr. Takano. Did you experience high turnover rates when the
law went into effect and you started offering paid leave?
Mr. Sandkamp. Right. I had more turnover prior when the law
went into effect. Now I retain employees, and it has been net
positive. I am able to have a benefit that an employee can feel
less anxiety about what is going to happen when they have a
problem in their family, and they can feel like that benefit is
there for them. And being a small employer of less than 10
employees, I don't get cherry picked by a large company that
might come in and offer those benefits that I don't have the
money to afford.
Mr. Takano. So I have run out of time. If you could just
tell the committee for the record if the New Jersey law has had
any impact on your ability to remain competitive in your
industry.
But my time has run out. I have to yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Jacobs. Would it be possible for me to add a few
things? I have a couple points that are directly relevant.
Ms. Wild. [Presiding.] We need to move on to the next
question.
The chair recognizes Mr. Schneider from Illinois.
Mr. Schneider. First, let me say thank you, and then I am
going to come back to you, Dr. Jacobs.
But I want to thank the chairwoman for having this
committee. I want to thank the witnesses for being here and
sharing your perspectives. And importantly, I want to thank the
subcommittee for allowing me to join you. This is not my
traditional committee.
Dr. Jacobs, you had a couple points you wanted to make real
quickly.
Ms. Jacobs. I just thought I would add, because we have
heard some anecdotes and we have very compelling information
from Mr. Sandkamp about the consequences for a business, but we
also do have some representative surveys and published research
on the consequences of the paid leave programs in Rhode Island
and in California on business. So I just thought it would be
useful to have some of those statistics.
Mr. Schneider. Do you want to share those? I will submit
them for the record.
Ms. Jacobs. Okay. Yeah, they are in my written testimony as
well.
Mr. Schneider. And, Mr. Sandkamp, again, real briefly, I am
going to follow up on what my colleague, Mr. Takano, was
talking about.
How has your culture changed since the new law has been in
place? You talked about your turnover is down, which would be a
reflection. How has it changed?
Mr. Sandkamp. Well, I find that if an employee thinks that
I have their--I am doing something for them that is helping
them, they are going to also want to have that same kind of
feeling about my business.
Mr. Schneider. And you haven't had a sense of, ``oh, boy,
they now can take advantage of you''? I am going to guess it is
a culture of we are in this together and we are going to make
sure we back each other up but help each other succeed.
Mr. Sandkamp. Yeah, and especially in a small business,
less than 10 employees, you get to know each other very well.
And I think that my employees tend to have more care for my
business because they feel that same thing coming from me.
Mr. Schneider. And my experience was similar, that is why I
asked that.
But I want to expand on that because the emphasis is that
offering paid leave is a smart business decision. It reduces
employee turnover and increases employee retention. I think it
can change the culture of a company, as has been laid out.
Now, I introduced legislation that would provide this much
needed protected leave to workers following every parent's
worst nightmare, the death of a child. My colleague, Ms. Wild,
had introduced that. The Sarah Grace-Farley-Kluger Act is named
after the brave families who lost children and have been
tireless advocates for this cause, and their experience
illustrates how critically important it is for parents to have
protected leave after losing a child.
Barry Kluger, who lost his daughter Erica in 2001, says in
his testimony submitted for the record: New parents are given
12 weeks of unpaid leave under FMLA, but most employers only
give their workers 3 or 5 days, up to 5 days to grieve. Imagine
receiving the most Earth-shattering news, having to bury your
child, and then returning to work only a few days later, and
that is for those lucky enough to work for employers who
provide even that minimal leave.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the death of
a child is one of the greatest and often most enduring stresses
a parent can experience. No parent should see their child be
lowered into the ground.
Kelly Farley's experience speaks to how vitally important
this protected time is for grieving families. He and his wife
lost both his daughter and their son in the course of 2 years.
When his daughter Katie died, he dove right back into his work.
He said, and I quote, ``I thought that was expected of me as a
dad, but on the inside, I was screaming in pain.''
To this day, Kelly describes the decision to go right back
to work as one of the biggest mistakes of his life. Eighteen
months later, Kelly lost his son Noah. This time he and his
wife took off 3 months to start the grieving process. Having
time allowed them to begin to heal and to get the support they
needed. Kelly says it literally saved the couple from a
complete emotional breakdown.
Kelly and his wife were fortunate enough to have employers
who were understanding, but it is not the case for every one of
the estimated 20 million parents who have lost a child. By age
60, nearly 10 percent of parents have experienced the death of
a child.
Illinois, my State, is one of two States that has passed
protected work leave for grieving parents. My bill would allow
workers nationally to take up to 12 weeks of protected leave.
I appreciate our witnesses for highlighting the incredibly
important reasons why we need national paid leave. Research
shows--and stories like Barry and Kelly's demonstrate--how
important it is to include bereavement within FMLA.
Dr. Jacobs, in your testimony, you also touched on the big
impact leave has on the health and well-being of new mothers
and fathers. With the few seconds we have left, could you
expand on how Federal leave laws provide leave circumstances,
like bereavement in the case we have talked about, how the
Federal laws don't have that for critical health and well-being
of working families?
Ms. Jacobs. So I can't speak specifically to the impact of
bereavement leave on health outcomes for families. I can say,
as a mother of two children, the idea of having to go back to
work immediately after losing a child is breathtaking, and so I
can only imagine.
A few things that I can say based on the data, first of
all, we know there are demographic differences in terms of
child mortality, so minority families are much more likely to
experience the loss of a child. So I will say that, that there
is a demographic dimension to this as well.
And the second thing I will say is that we know that the
opioid crisis has expanded the range of the kinds of families
who are losing children. This isn't just about young children.
It is also about parents losing older adult children. And so I
think when we think about bereavement and who this impacts and
the ripple effects it is having on the labor market, that it is
important to actually take a step back and think bigger, and I
am very happy to have mentioned that.
Mr. Schneider. I am going to steal 2 more seconds. I spoke
to a constituent yesterday about other issues, which she
shared, that she is raising her 9-year-old grandson because her
28-year-old son died of opioid overdose and the child's mother
died a year after that. So this is something we are seeing
across the country and it does not discriminate.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. [Presiding.] Thank you very much.
Ms. Porter from California, 5 minutes, ma'am.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much to the committee for
allowing me to join here today. This is also not my usual
committee. But I am the first single mother of young children
to ever serve in the United States Congress and paid family
leave and paid medical leave made it possible for me to stay in
my career, and so this is something I care a great deal about.
Dr. Jacobs, the FMLA has a provision often referred to as
the marriage penalty. Could you explain this provision and how
it works?
Ms. Jacobs. Yes. So the marriage penalty is a stipulation
in the FMLA that if you have two partners, spouses who work for
the same employer, they can't both take their 12 weeks of FMLA-
protected leave assuming they work for a covered employer and
they are eligible. They have to decide that either one parent
will take that or one of the workers will take it or that they
will split it.
So compared to another working family where you have a
couple where one works for one employer, one works for another
employer, if they are both covered and eligible, they would
have a total of 24 weeks of leave, which if you can imagine for
the birth of a child, for taking care of an aging parent or an
in-law, it is really useful to have that time. Many of these
conditions really do require more than 12 weeks. But if you
happen to be with a partner who works for your same employer,
that marriage penalty means that protection isn't available to
you.
Ms. Porter. And is it also correct that if an unmarried
couple were to be expecting a baby, they could each claim 12
weeks, but if they were a married couple, they would be unable
to do so, hence, this is a penalty for couples that give birth
while married?
Ms. Jacobs. That is correct.
Ms. Porter. Okay. And is there any research on when you
have this situation where the couple must split, divide the 12
weeks between the two of them? Let's say it is a man and a
woman couple. Is there any evidence on how that divides along
gender lines if it is a heterosexual man-woman couple?
Ms. Jacobs. The evidence suggests that because women are
typically paid less than men, not always, obviously, but on
average that is what happens in a couple, and if a household is
making an economic calculation based on a household budget and
you have to choose who is going to take the leave, it often
ends up being the economically rational--and putting that in
scare quotes because we all know that rational varies a lot
depending on your situation--but from a household budget
perspective, it ends up making the most sense for the woman to
be the one who takes the leave.
Which in turn perpetuates exactly the gender wage gap,
because you have a woman who, in many cases, is out of the
labor force. If it is not a paid leave, if it is not a job-
protected leave, she may stay out of the labor force. And in
turn, when she is ready to come back, she may actually earn
less.
Ms. Porter. Yeah. And then that is on top of the physical
effects of giving birth, as well as the responsibilities of
breast-feeding and nursing in the workplace, which is a
challenge for many women that men don't face after they give
birth.
In November, I introduced the bipartisan FAIR Leave Act. It
is H.R. 5075. It would eliminate this marriage penalty so that
married couples would not have to split their leave and choose,
which often means that the woman is the one taking the leave,
rather than a balanced approach. With the FAIR Act each parent
would get 12 weeks of FMLA leave, regardless of whether they
work for the same employer or a different employer.
So, Representative Batch, I know you took time off. Would
the ability to have had to choose affected your ability--if you
had to share your unpaid leave, how would that have affected
your ability to recover from cancer treatment?
Mrs. Batch. Absolutely. Actually, so my husband is my law
partner, and so this actually does affect us directly. And so
he went back to work after the births of both of my sons and
then also right after both of my surgeries and through my
radiation treatment because he didn't have the ability to just
be able to take off when I was home. And so that actually
directly affects me.
If we had paid leave, and especially being a small business
owner, then we would have been able to actually balance our
budget better and he would have been able to bond with our
children instead of returning to work immediately.
And so I think it is absolutely essential. And I think that
your bill is definitely one that everyone should support
because you shouldn't be penalized for simply being married.
Ms. Porter. With my remaining time, I just wanted to ask
Ms. Greszler, I am struggling to understand your testimony on
page 5 that you have made reference to. You are making claims
of data that you are saying shows the misuse of FMLA leave, and
you are citing the study particularly of the MBTA.
But all that study really shows is that women took more
FMLA leave than men and therefore there is a gender pay gap.
But wouldn't we expect, given the nature and the historical
structural barriers, that we would expect women to take more
leave than men? How is that evidence of misuse?
Ms. Greszler. Yeah. The fact that women took more leave is
what contributed to the wage gap.
The evidence of the misuse happened when you looked at--
well, first of all, they hired a company to come in and to try
and more appropriately regulate the FMLA and make sure it was
properly certified and properly used, and you saw their
certifications drop from 45 percent of workers to 27 percent of
workers.
And then you also saw the period, amount of leave that was
taken, drop by 27 and 28 percent for men and women. And there
were also statistics there looking at just the differences in
leave taken if it is a holiday week or a weekend week, and you
see spikes, both men and women, if it is a Monday/Friday
surrounding a weekend and if it is a week that they were
assigned a holiday shift.
Ms. Porter. My time is expired, but that seems utterly
consistent to me with needing to cover medical care and child
care when I am assigned to an unusual shift.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of
the witnesses.
I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee
practice materials for submission to the hearing record must be
submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days following the
last day of the hearing, preferably in Microsoft Word format.
The materials submitted must address the subject matter of the
hearing. Only a Member of the committee or an invited witness
may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing record.
Documents are limited to 50 pages. Documents longer than 50
pages will be incorporated into the record via an internet link
that you must provide to the Committee Clerk within the
required timeframe. But please recognize that years from now
that link may no longer work.
Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for their
participation today. What we have heard is very valuable.
Members of the committee may have some additional questions for
you, and we ask the witnesses to please respond to those
questions in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
14 days in order to receive those responses.
I remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice,
witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted to
the Majority Committee Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days.
The questions submitted must address the subject matter of the
hearing.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his
closing statement.
Mr. Cline. Madam Chair, I just want to echo your comments
and thank the witnesses for being here. And I agree with you
that it was a very interesting hearing on an important issue.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
I am going to recognize myself for the purpose of making my
closing statement.
Thank you again to the witnesses for sharing your
experiences and expertise with us. We heard compelling
testimony on the need for Congress to build upon the successes
of the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure that workers have
the right to take job-protected time off to care for themselves
and their families.
We also heard compelling testimony on the imperative for a
national comprehensive job-protected paid family and medical
leave program. And we must update the Family and Medical Leave
Act to not only provide FMLA eligibility for all workers, but
also to expand the permissible reasons for which workers can
take job-protected leave.
At the same time, Congress must pass the FAMILY Act so that
workers do not have to risk their financial security in order
to care for themselves and their families. If we work together
to achieve these combined efforts, we can improve the health of
families and children, we can improve employee retention for
our Nation's businesses, and we can put millions of dollars of
income back into the economy, into workers' pockets.
More importantly, though, we can ensure that all Americans
have the right to sustain their livelihoods while giving
themselves and their loved ones the care that they need to
thrive.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter
from the National Partnership for Women and Families, whose
advocacy was critical in passing the FMLA. And without
objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chairwoman Adams. If there is no further business before
the committee, without objection, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mrs. Batch response to questions submitted for the record
follows:]
[Ms. Jacobs response to questions submitted for the record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mr. Sandkamp response to questions submitted for the
record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]