[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT (H.R. 1784):
EXAMINING A PLAN TO SECURE PAID SICK
LEAVE FOR U.S. WORKERS
=======================================================================
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, MARCH 11, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the: https://edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-103 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 March 11, 2020................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Byrne, Hon. Bradley, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections...................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Glynn, Dr. Sarah Jane, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for
American Progress.......................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Goldman, Ms. Tanya, J.D., Senior Policy Analyst Center for
Law and Social Policy (CLASP).............................. 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Johnson, Ms. Renee J., Senior Government Affairs Manager,
Main Street Alliance....................................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Milito, Ms. Elizabeth, Esquire, Senior Executive Counsel,
NFIB Small Business Legal Center........................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional Submissions:
Chairwoman Adams:
Prepared statement from National Partnership for Women
and Families........................................... 82
Remarks of Hon. Rosa DeLauro............................. 86
Letter dated March 18, 2019.............................. 91
Letter from Ms. Laura Melton............................. 97
McBath, Hon. Lucy, Congressman from the State of Georgia:
Paid Family and Medical Leave Would Benefit 27.5 Million
Latino Workers......................................... 98
Prepared statement from the YWCA......................... 100
Scott, Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Congressman from the State of
Virginia:
Prepared statement form Asian Pacific Labor Alliance AFL-
CIO (APALA)............................................ 105
Prepared statement from The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights................................. 107
Prepared statement from MomsRising....................... 111
Prepared statement from UNITEHERE........................ 115
Prepared statement from Government Affairs............... 116
Prepared statement from National Council of Jewish Women. 118
Prepared statement from TIME'S UP Now.................... 120
Prepared statement from National Women's Law Center...... 122
THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT (H.R. 1784):
EXAMINING A PLAN TO SECURE PAID SICK
LEAVE FOR U.S. WORKERS
----------
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Alma S. Adams
(Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Adams, DeSaulnier, Takano, Wild,
McBath, Omar, Stevens, Byrne, Cline, and Wright.
Also Present: Representatives Scott, Foxx, Davis, Bonamici,
and Schrier.
Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Ilana Brunner,
General Counsel; David Dailey, Senior Counsel; Carrie Hughes,
Director of Health and Human Services; Eli Hovland, Staff
Assistant; Eunice Ikene, Labor Policy Advisor; Jaria Martin,
Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff Director; Max Moore, Staff
Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar,
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Joshua Weisz,
Communications Director; Rachel West, Senior Economic Policy
Advisor; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; 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;
Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Carlton
Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; and Ben Ridder, Minority
Professional Staff Member.
Chairwoman Adams. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections will come to order. Welcome, everyone. I
note that a quorum is present. I note for the subcommittee that
Ms. Susan Davis of California, Ms. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon,
and Dr. Kim Schrier of Washington are permitted to participate
in today's hearing with the understanding that their questions
will come only after all Members of the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are present have
had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
The subcommittee is meeting today in a legislative hearing
to hear testimony on the Healthy Families Act, H.R. 1784,
examining a plan to provide paid sick leave to U.S. workers.
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, provides all members with adequate
time to ask questions.
I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today we will discuss H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act,
a proposal to establish paid sick leave as an essential
workplace protection for our Nation's workers. This hearing
could not come at a more appropriate time. As we speak, the
rapid spread of the coronavirus is highlighting the severe
consequences of our failure to secure paid sick leave for
millions of workers and their families.
Across the county, public health officials are rightfully
asking or requiring potentially infected Americans to stay home
from work and avoid travel. But for many workers, particularly
low-wage workers, taking time off when they are sick means
losing the wages they need to cover basic expenses, including
food and housing. Many have no choice but to work even though
they are ill.
We are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the
coronavirus epidemic, and we are continuing to explore
different options for providing workers access to paid sick
leave on an emergency basis. Our Nation's workers are
particularly vulnerable to this emerging public health crisis
because the United States is the only industrialized nation
that does not require access to paid sick leave.
For the more than 32 million American workers who cannot
earn paid sick days, getting sick, whether it is a rare
infectious disease or the common cold, often means having to
choose between prioritizing their health and sacrificing their
paycheck. Unfortunately, access to paid sick days is
particularly limited for the low-income workers who need it
most.
Of the bottom 10 percent of private sector wage earners,
just 3 in 10 have access to paid sick days. Making matters
worse, inadequate access to paid sick leave is particularly
concentrated in service industry occupations that have frequent
contact with the public. A 2016 survey found that 86 percent of
women in the fast food industry lacked access to paid sick
days.
For many workers, taking even a couple of unpaid days from
work to recover from an illness could cost them a month's worth
of utilities. As a result, workers often report to work even
when they are ill, risking their health and the health of their
coworkers. In 2009, researchers estimated the 20 million
workers went to work sick.
When so many people are unable to forgo a paycheck and stay
home when they are sick, an increased risk of infectious
disease is inevitable. As a Nation, we should have already
learned this lesson. During the 2009 H1N1 flu epidemic, which
killed more than 10,000 Americans, about one-third of infected
workers went to work despite showing symptoms. This caused the
disease to spread to as many as 7 million additional people.
Even without a global health crisis, paid sick days are
critical for public health. A recent 2020 working paper found
that one year after enacting state laws allowing all workers to
earn paid sick leave, those states saw an 11 percent reduction
in influenza infections.
Paid sick days also mean more productive employees and more
profitable businesses. Our economy currently loses an estimated
$234 billion each year due to reduced productivity from
illness. Businesses are understandably hesitant to take on the
additional expense of paid sick leave benefits. But even
accounting for the cost of paid sick leave, studies show that
businesses still come out ahead because of higher productivity
and lower turnover.
In Austin, Texas, for example, an analysis showed that a
citywide paid sick days requirement would provide city
businesses a net savings of more than $4 billion annually. The
evidence is clear: access to paid sick days is critical for the
health of our families, our communities, and our economy.
Accordingly, 12 states, including Washington, D.C., and 22
localities, have enacted laws that require employers to provide
workers with paid sick days. But it is ultimately up to
Congress to establish a national floor for the right to earn
paid sick days.
The Healthy Families Act will help achieve that goal
through three key provisions. First, the bill guarantees
employees in workplaces with 15 or more employees the right to
earn 1 hour of paid sick or safe leave for every 30 hours
worked up to 56 hours, or 7 days. In addition, the bill covers
public sector employees without regard to size of the employing
entity.
Second, the bill permits employees to take leave for
themselves or a family member for physical or mental illness,
injury, preventative care, and for survivors of sexual assault,
stalking, or domestic violence.
And finally, the bill prohibits employers from firing or
discriminating against employees for taking sick leave.
Today's discussion is long overdue. It is simply
inexcusable that millions of workers in the world's wealthiest
national have no way to earn the paid sick days the need to
care for themselves and their families.
The committee also recognizes that we need to provide
workers immediate relief in response to the coronavirus
epidemic. And as we speak, the committee is considering a range
of options for a Federal response that protects the health and
economic security of workers and their families.
Before I yield to the ranking member, I would like to
submit a statement into the record from a champion for paid
sick days and the lead sponsor of the Healthy Families Act,
Representative Rosa DeLauro. I would also like to submit a
statement into the record from the National Partnership for
Women and Families, a leader in advocating for paid sick days.
Without objection.
I now recognize the distinguished ranking member for the
purpose of making an opening statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections
Today, we will discuss H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act, a
proposal to establish paid sick leave as an essential workplace
protection for our nation's workers.This hearing could not come at a
more appropriate time. As we speak, the rapid spread of the coronavirus
is highlighting the severe consequences of our failure to secure paid
sick leave for millions of workers and their families.
Across the country, public health officials are rightfully asking
or requiring potentially infected Americans to stay home from work and
avoid travel. But for many workers - particularly low-wage workers -
taking time off when they are sick means losing the wages they need to
cover basic expenses, including food and housing. Many have no choice
but to work even though they are ill.
We are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the
coronavirus epidemic, and we are continuing to explore different
options for providing workers access to paid sick leave on an emergency
basis. Our nation's workers are particularly vulnerable to this
emerging public health crisis because the United States is the only
industrialized nation that does not require access to paid sick leave.
For the more than 32 million American workers who cannot earn paid
sick days, getting sick - whether it's a rare, infectious disease or
the common cold - often means having to choose between prioritizing
their health and sacrificing their paycheck. Unfortunately, access to
paid sick days is particularly limited for the low-income workers who
need it most.
Of the bottom 10 percent of private-sector wage earners, just 3 in
10 have access to paid sick days. Making matters worse, inadequate
access to paid sick leave is particularly concentrated in service-
industry occupations that have frequent contact with the public. A 2016
survey found that 86 percent of women in the fast food industry lacked
access to paid sick days.
For many workers, taking even a couple of unpaid days from work to
recover from an illness could cost them a month's worth of utilities.
As a result, workers often report to work even when they're ill,
risking their health and the health of their coworkers. In 2009,
researchers estimated that 20 million workers went to work sick.
When so many people are unable to forgo a paycheck and stay home
when they are sick, an increased risk of infectious disease is
inevitable. As a nation, we should have already learned this lesson.
During the 2009 H1N1 flu epidemic, which killed more than ten thousand
Americans, about one-third of infected workers went to work despite
showing symptoms. This caused the disease to spread to as many as 7
million additional people.
Even without a global health crisis, paid sick days are critical
for public health. A recent 2020 working paper found that, one year
after enacting state laws allowing all workers to earn paid sick leave,
those states saw an 11 percent reduction in influenza infections.
Paid sick days also mean more productive employees and more
profitable businesses. Our economy currently loses an estimated $234
billion each year due to reduced productivity from illness. Businesses
are understandably hesitant to take on the additional expense of paid
sick leave benefits. But, even accounting for the cost of paid sick
leave, studies show that businesses still come out ahead because of
higher productivity and lower turnover.
In Austin, Texas, for example, an analysis showed that a citywide
paid sick days requirement would provide city businesses a net savings
of more than $4 billion annually. The evidence is clear: access to paid
sick days is critical for the health of our families, our communities,
and our economy. Accordingly, 12 states, including Washington,
D.C. and twenty-two localities, have enacted laws that require
employers to provide workers with paid sick days.
But it is ultimately up to Congress to establish a national floor
for the right to earn paid sick days. The Healthy Families Act will
help achieve that goal through three key provisions:
First, the bill guarantees employees in workplaces with 15
or more employees the right to earn one hour of paid sick or
safe leave for every 30 hours worked up to 56 hours, or 7 days.
Inaddition, the bill covers public sector employees without
regard to size of the employing entity.
Second, the bill permits employees to take leave for
themselves or a family member for physical or mental illness,
injury, preventative care, and for survivors of sexual assault,
stalking, or domestic violence.
Finally, the bill prohibits employers from firing or
discriminating against employees for taking sick leave.
Today's discussion is long overdue. It is simply inexcusable that
millions of workers in world's wealthiest nation have no way to earn
the paid sick days they need to care for themselves and their families.
The Committee also recognizes that we need to provide workers
immediate relief in response to the coronavirus epidemic. As we speak,
the Committee is considering a range of options for a federal response
that protects the health and economic security of workers and their
families.
Before I yield to the Ranking Member, I would like to submit a
statement into the record from a champion for paid sick days and the
lead sponsor of the Healthy Families Act, Representative Rosa DeLauro.
______
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The global spread
of COVID-19, known more commonly as the novel coronavirus or
just the coronavirus, has sparked conversations in recent weeks
about health and safety in the workplace and paid sick leave
policies. Committee Republicans have long supported legislative
solutions that allow businesses of all sizes to develop
innovative, personalized, and workable paid leave policies.
Allowing business owners the flexibility to develop and offer
tailored solutions that work best for their businesses and
their employees can help ensure a positive and productive work
environment and help small businesses remain competitive in a
tight labor market.
Take the Republican-led Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into
law by President Trump, for example. This legislation included
a tax credit for employers who voluntarily offer at least two
weeks of paid family and medical leave to their employees.
Another Republican-led initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working
Families Flexibility Act, would allow private sector employers
to offer their employees the choice of paid or comp time in
lieu of cash wages for working overtime, a benefit currently
available to public sector workers. An employee can decide when
to use this comp time just as public sector employees can do.
Just yesterday, President Trump made clear that he is
interested in negotiations with Congress regarding additional
paid sick leave proposals to help us get through the COVID-19
outbreak. And I was told just as I was coming in here that
those discussions have indeed begun. If you want to solve a
problem like this, you do it on a bipartisan basis, not a
partisan basis.
This bill, the one that we are here to talk about, is not
the answer. It is a partisan bill. I hope my colleagues on the
other side are not using the coronavirus as an opportunity to
prioritize partisan interest in H.R. 1784. Even if it passed
the House, this bill has no chance of passage in the other body
or becoming law. It is a distraction to the serious bipartisan
work Congress needs to be doing with respect to the
coronavirus.
The costly Federal mandate contained in H.R. 1784 would do
more harm than good and will have unintended consequences. As
Ms. Milito notes in her testimony, a National Federation of
Independent Businesses study of the economic impact of this
bill showed that it would result in 430,000 jobs lost over a
10-year period and loss of $652 billion--billion with a B--in
cumulative real economic output.
More troubling, small firms would account for 58 percent of
all jobs lost and small farms would bear 50 percent of the lost
output. Unfortunately, this sentiment seems to lost in the
supporters of this bill, who seem determined to create
additional hardships for small businesses by imposing a one-
size-fits-all government mandate.
Employers are attentive and responsive to current and
prospective employees' workplace concerns and preferences with
for flexible leave policies. Instead of considering H.R. 1784,
Congress should empower our Nation's business owners to develop
and offer flexible and personalized solutions.
In fact, the vast majority of employers are already
responding to their employees' needs. According to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 73 percent of all private industry workers
and 83 percent of all full-time workers have access to paid
sick leave.
Small businesses are pulling their weight, as well.
According to NFIB, 73 percent of small employers offer paid
time off to the majority of their full-time employees.
The bottom line is paid sick leave benefits are important,
but a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate is not the answer. In
times of economic growth, as well as in times of crisis, job
creators do not need additional Washington-knows-best Federal
mandates weighing them down that will ultimately harm job
creation.
In the near term, Congress should be working with the Trump
administration regarding policies that help employees rather
than considering legislation which micromanages every
employer's ability to operate their business.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
how the Federal Government can continue encouraging the private
sector to develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and
their families.
And with that, I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bradley Byrne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Workforce Protections
The global spread of COVID-19, known more commonly as the
coronavirus, has sparked conversations in recent weeks about health and
safety in the workplace and paid sick leave policies.
Committee Republicans have long supported legislative solutions
that allow businesses of all sizes to develop innovative, personalized,
and workable paid leave policies. Allowing business owners the
flexibility to develop and offer tailored solutions that work best for
their business and their employees can help ensure a positive and
productive work environment and help small businesses remain
competitive in a tight labor market.
Take the Republican-led Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by
President Trump, for example. This legislation included a tax credit
for employers who voluntarily offer at least two weeks of paid family
and medical leave to their employees. Another Republican led
initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working Families Flexibility Act, would
allow private-sector employers to offer their employees the choice of
paid or comp time in lieu of cash wages for working overtime--a benefit
currently available to public-sector workers. And the employee can
decide when to use this comp time, just as public sector employees can
do.
Just yesterday, President Trump made clear that he is interested in
negotiations with Congress regarding additional paid sick leave
proposals to help us get through the COVID-19 outbreak. However, this
bill is not the answer, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are not using the coronavirus as an opportunity to prioritize
partisan interest in H.R. 1784. Even if it passes the House, this bill
has no chance of passage in the other body or becoming law. It is a
distraction to the serious, bipartisan work Congress needs to be doing
with respect to the coronavirus.
The costly federal mandate contained in H.R. 1784 would do more
harm than good and will have unintended consequences. As Ms. Milito
notes in her testimony, a National Federation of Independent Business
study of the economic impact of this bill showed that it could result
in 430,000 jobs lost over a ten-year period and a loss of $652 billion
in cumulative real economic output. More troubling, small firms would
account for 58 percent of all jobs lost and small firms would bear 50
percent of lost output. Unfortunately, this sentiment seems to be lost
upon my Democratic colleagues who seem determined to create additional
hardships for small businesses by imposing a one-size-fits-all
government mandate.
Employers are attentive and responsive to current and prospective
employees' workplace concerns and preferences for flexible leave
policies. Instead of considering H.R. 1784, Congress should empower our
nation's business owners to develop and offer flexible and personalized
solutions.
In fact, the vast majority of employers are already responding to
their employees' needs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 73
percent of all private industry workers and 83 percent of full-time
workers have access to paid sick leave. Small businesses are pulling
their weight as well. According to the NFIB, 73 percent of small
employers offer paid time off to the majority of their fulltime
employees.
The bottom line is paid sick leave benefits are important, but a
one-size-fits-all federal mandate is not the answer. In times of
economic growth as well as in times of crisis, job creators do not need
additional Washington-knows-best, federal mandates weighing them down
that will ultimately harm job creation. In the near term, Congress
should be working with the Trump Administration regarding policies that
help employees rather than considering legislation which micromanages
every employer's ability to operate their business.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the
federal government can continue encouraging the private sector to
develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and their families.
______
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Without objection.
All of the 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
March 24, 2020.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses. Dr. Sarah Jane
Glynn is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
She is a nationally recognized expert on family economic
security with an emphasis on work-family supportive policies,
such as paid sick days and paid family and medical leave.
Ms. Renee J. Johnson is the senior government affairs
manager to Main Street Alliance, a 501(c)(3) advocacy
organization, with a national network of more than 30,000 small
business owners throughout the United States.
Ms. Elizabeth Milito serves as senior executive counsel
with the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a
position she has held since March 2004. Ms. Milito is
responsible for managing litigation and amicus work for NFIB.
Ms. Tanya L. Goldman is a senior analyst and attorney with
the Job Quality Team at the Center for Law and Social Policy,
CLASP. Prior to joining CLASP, Ms. Goldman worked at the U.S.
Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, EEOC.
Thank you all for being here. We appreciate all the
witnesses for being here today, look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind you that we 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 also
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, written 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. And 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 your statement.
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 will first recognize Dr. Glynn.
TESTIMONY OF SARAH JANE GLYNN, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR
AMERICAN PROGRESS
Dr. Glynn. Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member Byrne, and
members of the committee, thank you very much for having the
opportunity to speak to you today about the importance of paid
sick days. My name is Sarah Jane Glynn and I am a senior fellow
with the Center for American Progress and an expert on
workplace policies, including paid sick days.
Paid sick days are intended to address short-term
illnesses, like colds or the flu or to care for a family member
who is experiencing a similar short-term illness. It can also
be used to access routine or preventative medical care. And
there is also often the inclusion of safe days that can be used
to address the aftermath of sexual or domestic violence. Paid
family and medical leave is a separate policy that is intended
to address more serious long-term issues, like cancer or
recovering from surgery. So these are two related, but separate
policies. They are not substitutes for one another. And so
today I want to make sure that we are focusing on the shorter
term leaves covered under paid sick.
Currently, the United States is one of only a handful of
countries across the globe that does not guarantee workers the
right to any form of paid sick leave. And we are one of--we are
the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee the
right to any form of paid time off for any reason at all.
As of March 2019, 27 percent of private industry workers,
which translates to 32.5 million individuals, do not have
access to a single paid sick day. Eleven states, the District
of Columbia, and 22 localities have passed paid sick days laws
on their books that have made a tremendous difference, but they
have also resulted in really significant geographic
disparities.
In the Pacific states, for example, 91 percent of private
industry workers have access to paid sick days. But in the East
South Central region, which is where I live, only 62 percent of
workers have access. And we know that low-wage workers are
among those who are the least likely to have paid sick days; 70
percent of workers who earn less than $10.49 per hour have
access to a single paid sick day. Rural workers, workers of
color, and Latinx workers in particular are all less likely to
have access to paid sick leave.
Women are disproportionately impacted by a lack of paid
sick time, in part because they are the parents who are most
likely to have to take time off to care for a sick child. In
one survey of working parents, a third reported that they
feared losing pay or losing their job if they needed to stay
home to take care of their child, and their fears are not
wrong. Access to paid sick days decreases the likelihood of job
separation by up to 25 percent and those impacts are even
stronger for working mothers.
Understandably, we are all very focused on public health in
this moment, but we also know that workers in public-facing
roles are at an increased risk of contagion through these
interactions with the public and they can pose an infection
risk to the clients and customers that they serve. But service
workers have one of the worst rates of access to paid sick
leave; 42 percent or 11.7 million individuals working in the
private sector lack access to paid sick time. Food service
workers are especially unlikely to have access to paid sick
days. And as a result, we know that they are very likely to go
to work when they are sick.
And it is easy to try to blame individuals for this, but
given the extremely low wages across their industry, they can
be placed in an impossible situation. Most report that when the
go to work sick it is because their either can't afford to lose
pay or because they fear being fired or penalized as a result
of calling out. And this is a particularly salient issue in
this moment given the current global spread of COVID-19.
Research has consistently shown across space and time that
access to paid sick days increases the ability of workers to
stay home when they are ill. So it is not difficult to
understand why a policy like this has enormous potential to
mitigate the effects of the coronavirus.
The current patchwork of state and local policies that is
in place right now is not sufficient to protect workers and it
is vital that Congress works to create a Federal floor on paid
sick days. I understand why folks are very focused on this
current pandemic, but we also need to be forward thinking.
People will continue to get sick even after we have moved past
this moment in time. So establishing a Federal standard on paid
sick days is going to be incredibly important, both in this
moment and in the future, to help ensure that all workers are
able to access medical care to prevent the spread of contagion
and to make sure that they can care for their loved ones
regardless of where they work, regardless of whom they work
for, and to ensure that we can protect the health of our
families, individuals, and our communities.
Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Glynn follows:]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson, you are
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
TESTIMONY OF RENEE J. JOHNSON, SENIOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
MANAGER, MAIN STREET ALLIANCE
Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking
Member Byrne, and members of the Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 1784, the Healthy
Families Act.
My name is Renee Johnson and I am the senior government
affairs manager at Main Street Alliance, a national network of
over 30,000 small business owners, who advocate for public
issues that impact their businesses, employees, and
communities. Our members across the country support a standard
baseline of paid sick days that covers all workers. The need
for this policy is more urgent than ever.
At the national level, we support the Healthy Families Act,
which guarantees 7 paid sick days. At the state level our
members have played an essential role and winning many of these
laws in 11 states, the District of Columbia, and 22 localities
across the country.
Increasing access to paid sick days strengthens small
businesses and boosts economic productivity. When employees go
to work sick they fail to perform to their full potential and
also risk infecting coworkers. The loss in productivity to the
U.S. economy due to illness in the workforce has been
established $234 billion with a major portion of this coming
from workers going to their jobs sick.
Productive workers make for stronger businesses. As Main
Street Alliance member Janet Jones of Source Booksellers in
Detroit stated, ``When employees are healthy, they are happier,
make good recommendations, and take better care of customers.''
Policies such as earned paid sick time are a win-win situation
for the businesses, the employees, and the community.
A baseline standard for paid sick days also boosts small
businesses' bottom lines by helping to increase employee
retention and reduce costs associated with turnover, which can
cost thousands of dollars per position. Workers who earn paid
sick time are less likely to leave their employer. Retaining
well-trained and valued employees helps businesses of all
sizes, but can be especially important for small businesses
where the loss of a single employee can have a significant
impact on operational and labor costs.
The value of offering paid sick days to employees can be
seen by our member Tony Sandkamp of Sandkamp Woodworks in New
Jersey. He stated that, ``Since I started providing paid sick
days at my businesses, employees have been happier and more
productive. Far from abusing it, my employees stave their paid
sick days for when they really needed it. Since introducing the
policy we have not lost a single employee. In fact, we've added
two.''
Providing all workers access to paid sick days will also
help lower system-wide healthcare costs, saving taxpayer
dollars for individuals and businesses. Ensuring access to paid
sick time for workers who currently do not have any could
prevent over 1 million emergency room visits a year, saving 1
billion in annual healthcare costs.
Improving the health of our communities while lowering
healthcare costs is important to a small business owner. As
Main Street Alliance member Peter Frigeri of Gaia Flowers in
Las Vegas, Nevada, put it, ``My business is only as healthy as
our community, and giving people a chance to stay home and
recover from an illness is crucial for public health. When
people work sick, it stresses our healthcare system, hurting
all of us, including small businesses that face higher and
higher healthcare costs.''
It is for these reasons that we see small business owners
support paid sick days. A national survey of small business
owners found that 64 percent supported a paid sick days minimum
standard, like the Healthy Families Act.
Where paid sick days has been adopted, support from small
businesses continues to be strong. In 2007, San Francisco
became the first city to adopt a paid sick time policy. Three
years after passage of the law, two-thirds of employers
supported it. Even business groups who did not initially
support the policy came to see the benefits of the law. The
director of Golden Gate Restaurant Association said, ``Paid
sick days is the best policy for least cost.''
Fear that a paid sick days policy would have a negative
impact on job growth, business formation, and relocation have
not occurred. In Connecticut, business formation increased
following the adoption of paid sick days. And in Seattle, one
year after the policy's adoption, the city showed stronger
growth and business formation.
Implementation of new laws is also relatively smooth. An
evaluation of Seattle's paid sick time law found that over two-
thirds of employers did not have difficulty implementing the
law and those that did cite challenges found them to be
temporary.
On behalf of our small business members, I strongly
encourage the committee to help ensure a stronger, more
equitable economy by securing paid sick days for all workers.
As the impact of expanding coronavirus unfolds, a stronger
safety net, including paid sick days, is more urgent than ever.
I want to thank the chairwoman and ranking member for
hosting this hearing and look forward to answering any
questions.
[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Milito, you are
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH MILITO, ESQUIRE, SENIOR EXECUTIVE
COUNSEL, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER
Ms. Milito. Thank you to Chairwoman Adams and Ranking
Member Byrne for inviting me to speak today. I also want to
thank the additional committee members who are in attendance
and the staff, too, who is here today.
My name is Elizabeth Milito and I am an attorney in the
National Federation of Independent Businesses' Small Business
Legal Center. NFIB is a member-driven organization that
represents about 300,000 small and independent businesses
across the country.
Consider the very types of businesses you frequent: pizza
parlor, auto shop, dry cleaner, hair salon. Some have employees
that are strictly full-time, others strictly part-time or
hourly, some have both. These are the typical NFIB members who
employ around 5 to 15 employees. Only about 12 percent have a
human resources professional and the business owner or spouse
is often the H.R. point person. Over 50 percent still do
payroll in-house.
I describe our membership to illustrate one of the key
points of my testimony. There is no thing as a one-size-fits-
all policy that works for every business or every industry.
Employer mandates come with a cost and not all businesses can
afford that cost.
We appreciate the reasons the bill has been proposed, but
NFIB has long imposed inflexible or mandated leave requirements
for a variety of reasons. And today I just want to touch on
three concerns that we have with the Healthy Families Act.
First, small businesses are an employer of choice in our
communities because of the flexibility they offer their
employees. In fact, most small businesses already provide their
employees with paid time off. They provide flexible, mutually
beneficial arrangements that allow employees time off when
necessary in a fiscally responsible way.
The bill's one-size-fits-all mandate would handicap
businesses' ability to attract workers at a very critical time.
Finding qualified workers is NFIB members' number one cited
problem. And one of the ways that small businesses compete with
larger companies is to provide flexible leave policies.
Small employers aren't as regimented in their leave
policies as larger firms. So while the vast majority of small
businesses offer paid time leave, most do not divide it up
between vacation days, sick days, and family leave. The Healthy
Families Act would add unnecessarily costs and hurdles to the
process that small business owners have developed for their
businesses. It will require more recordkeeping and place
restrictions on time off that don't currently exist. If you can
only afford to give your workers 10 days of paid time off and
the government mandates 5 days of paid sick leave, then your
employees only have 5 days of vacation leave.
A second concern relates to the unintended and hidden costs
the bill would impose. Mandated leave is not a free benefit for
employees. In a small business with a finite amount of
resources, this means less money is available for wage
increases and hiring additional employees.
As I mentioned, small business owners typically have few
administrative staff and little human resources experience.
This act would impose substantial recordkeeping requirements,
including new leave tracking, notification, documentation, and
reporting requirements.
Finally, the bill, my third concern relates to what I call
``death by a thousand mandates.'' Another Federal-mandated
leave program will further complicate the patchwork quilt of
ever-changing labor laws. When Oregon considered its paid leave
proposal a few years ago, the legislative record was replete
with opposition from small business owners.
And I just want to quote from a submission from one small
business owner, ``We compete in a world market and everything
the state or the Federal Government does burdens us with more
and more unfunded mandates that make us less competitive in
world markets. So now I have fewer employees. And since there
is not enough income after all my employment costs are met, I
end up not getting paid anything for my family for all the work
that I do. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that we
farmers don't make enough to subsidize all the wonderful
benefits that you would like to see employees entitled to. I
have workers asking for work and there is plenty for them to
do, but at the high cost that Oregon requires me to pay, I have
to limit the number that I can hire.''
It may seem great to mandate more benefits to employees,
but the hidden costs are fewer jobs. During times of
emergencies like now, flexibility is even more important than
ever before. NFIB is monitoring the current situation and
working to support our members. We have been providing them
with the CDC's guidance to prevent workplace exposure and it
includes the recommendation that employers ``maintain flexible
policies to allow employees to stay home and care for
themselves or a sick family member.''
Employers must be prepared for emergencies, but they can't
be saddle with more mandates or costs. On behalf of the small
business owners of NFIB, thank you for focusing on this
important issue and for allowing NFIB to be represented here
today.
[The statement of Ms. Milito follows:]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Goldman, you are
recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
TESTIMONY OF TANYA GOLDMAN, J.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST CENTER
FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP)
Ms. Goldman. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member
Byrne, and members of the committee. My name is Tanya Goldman.
I am a senior policy attorney at the Center for Law and Social
Policy, or CLASP, an anti-poverty organization that promotes
effective Federal and state policies for low-income people. I
am truly honored to be here at this moment to speak to the
central importance of paid sick days, especially as a critical
need for low-income workers and their families to stay employed
without jeopardizing their health or economic security.
I testify based on my experience on paid sick and safe days
at the Federal, state, and local levels. Previously I was
deputy chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage
and Hour Division, when the Department issued the final rule
implementing President Obama's executive order establishing
paid sick leave for Federal contractors.
And since 2016, at CLASP we have been convening and
providing technical assistance to state and local labor
enforcement agencies, advocates, and worker organizations to
share successes, lessons, and innovations in implementing and
enforcing paid sick days policies. This convening has grown
because of tremendous momentum in the enactment of local and
state paid sick days laws. There are now 12 states, including
D.C., and 22 cities with paid sick days laws. I want to
highlight three key points.
First, the coronavirus underscores the urgent need for a
national paid sick days law. Over 32 million workers do not
have any paid sick days. When these workers need to get a flu
shot, recover, care for their sick child, or take time because
of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, they face
impossible trade-offs between their own and their family's
health versus its economic stability. And during this public
health pandemic they can't stay home if they are sick.
Low-wage and part-time workers who often work in public-
facing professions, like food service and child care, are least
likely to have access to this basic right. For these workers,
taking unpaid sick time can lead to foregone wages and even a
lost job. Our failure to enact a national law has devastating
consequences for individuals and families on a daily basis and
is contributing to a national public health crisis.
Second, there is an overwhelming support for paid sick days
laws. In a national poll, people across party lines agreed that
paid sick days should be a basic worker's right. Eighty-six
percent favor a law providing 7 paid sick days annually for
full-time employees. We see that support reflected in states
and localities.
Third, with over a decade of experience in implementing
these laws, paid sick days are a no-brainer. Paid sick days
help decrease the spread of illness, like the flu, they allow
working people to care for themselves and for their family's
health, and businesses are able to implement them. As detailed
in my written testimony, studies show existing paid sick days
laws don't harm jobs or growth. To the contrary, the Institute
for Women's Policy Research estimates employers actually save
money in additional to large public health savings.
We know that there are critical elements to successful paid
sick days laws. These include targeted education and outreach
strategies that ensure employers are aware of their
responsibilities and all employees know their rights,
partnerships between community-based groups and government
agencies, and measures to address workers' legitimate fears of
retaliation should they exercise their rights.
We see many of these elements in the Healthy Families Act.
Most of all, the state and local progress also demonstrates
that paid sick days are practical, successful, and broadly
supported. A law like the Healthy Families Act will
significantly improve working people's lives.
Moms Rising member McKendree Rogers, a mother of two who
lives in Washington state, is a testament to this. McKendree,
like many employees who lack paid sick days, worked in the
restaurant industry. Raising young children without paid sick
days was understandably a constant source of stress. Missing
just one day of pay threatened her ability to make ends meet.
But Washington state passed a paid sick days law in 2016.
McKendree now works in early childhood education and
finally has access to this critical right. Just last week, she
was able to take time off to go to the doctor. She says it is
incredibly important to her to take care of her health and her
children's health as well as stay at home when she or her
children are sick without risking her paycheck.
In conclusion, providing adequate paid sick days to all
workers, including low-wage and part-time workers and people of
color, demands national action. While state and local paid sick
days laws have been enormously important in increasing access
and modeling successful approaches, a jurisdiction-by-
jurisdiction strategy leaves out far too many people. And
leaving it to businesses alone is not the solution.
We cannot achieve the health, economic, and poverty
reduction benefits without a national standard that sets a
critical floor for all, regardless of where they live or for
whom they work.
Thank you for the chance to testify and I look forward to
your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Goldman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Under Committee Rule
8(a) we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I
now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Seven cases of the coronavirus have been diagnosed in my
home state of North Carolina and more are expected. We know
that communities across the country are bracing for impacts to
public health and local economies, and workers across the
country are struggling with the prospect of working while sick
or the financial difficulty of no pay during a required self-
quarantine.
Ms. Goldman, how is the lack of a national standard on paid
sick days putting our communities at risk?
Ms. Goldman. The U.S. is one of the only industrialized
nations without universal access to paid sick leave. As I
noted, 32 million workers and 70 percent of low-wage workers,
those in the bottom decile of wage earners, lack access to paid
sick days and they are particularly likely to work in public-
facing professions. This means that if they are sick and can't
afford to stay home, they are more likely to impact their own
health and that of their coworkers, the public, as well as
their children's classmates and caregivers and teachers if they
send their children to school sick.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Dr. Glynn, if the Healthy
Families Act had been enacted into law years ago, would workers
be less vulnerable to the current public health crisis around
coronavirus?
Dr. Glynn. Yes. I mean, I think it is important to note
that there would still be public health concerns. Access to
paid sick days is not the only tool that we need to address
these types of pandemics. But we know from research that has
been done under previous public health emergencies that paid
sick days are one very important piece of the puzzle.
There is an estimated 1,500 people who died with the H1N1
epidemic as a result of contagions that were caused by a lack
of paid sick days. And the CDC has noted during previous health
outbreaks that paid sick days are one important piece of making
sure that people are able to self-quarantine. So without that
policy we would expect to see far greater spread of the
disease.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Ms. Goldman, could you add to
that?
Ms. Goldman. Sure. We know from state and local evidence
that paid sick days help prevent illness and help prevent the
spread of illness. Workers who don't have paid sick days are
less likely to get preventative and routine medical care, like
their flu shots. They are also more likely to go to work sick.
Chairwoman Adams. Okay. What, Ms. Goldman, what are the
unique concerns for access to paid sick days in a public health
crisis, such as the current outbreak that we have now? What can
Congress do to ensure that working people can afford to heed
the recommendation of public health officials, such as self-
quarantine?
Ms. Goldman. The coronavirus is really exposing the reality
that low-wage workers face every day. How can I stay home if I
am sick or need to care for a family member if I can't afford
to lose those wages? When the CDC and public health experts are
recommending that people who are exposed to the coronavirus
stay home for 14 days, low-wage workers cannot afford to do
that.
Chairwoman Adams. Okay. Ms. Johnson, how would ensuring
that workers have sustained income through access to paid sick
days now during the public health emergency promote the
longevity for small businesses?
Ms. Johnson. We see earned sick leave as an essential
policy that ensures that workers can take time away from work
if they are ill or need to take care of a sick family member
without fear of loss of income. And passing a national paid
sick days policy would go a long way in helping employers and
employee cope with the virus and prevent its spread.
Paid leave policies work best in a functioning economy with
time to ramp up earned sick day benefits. And we are seeing
many advocates and elected officials begin to consider
emergency paid sick day policies to handle this crisis. To make
these laws work and rapidly increased the availability of paid
sick days, impacted small businesses will need immediate cash
flow for their support, as well.
Chairwoman Adams. Okay. Ms. Goldman and Dr. Glynn, why is
it important that Congress take action to respond to both our
present emergency and guarantee workers paid sick days under
the Healthy Families Act? Dr. Glynn?
Dr. Glynn. So I think it is important to note that these
are two overlapping but separate issues. So certainly, what is
happening right now requires an immediate response. Paid leave
that is accrued over time, like the paid leave that would be
available through the Healthy Families Act, is not necessarily
appropriate when you are talking about an immediate emergency
like we are facing with COVID-19.
But I also think it is important for us to keep in mind
that this is one moment that we are dealing with right now.
People will continue to be sick, there will be future
pandemics, and people will need to access routine and
preventative care in the future. So taking a multipronged
approach is absolutely appropriate in this moment.
Chairwoman Adams. Okay. I have got one second, but I am out
of time now, so I am going to now recognize the ranking member
for the purpose of questioning the witnesses.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Milito,
businesses of all sizes are being affected by COVID-19. Why is
it important that businesses have flexibility when they are
dealing with issues like sick leave for their employees?
Ms. Milito. Thank you. So the small business owners who I
have been in contact with--and we are doing a major outreach,
we are doing a webinar for our members; we are pushing that, as
I said in my statement, the CDC information--they are honest
and fair employers. They want to do right by their employees
all the time, but particularly now. And it is clear that this
presents an extreme business challenge.
My members are focused right now on keeping, first and
foremost, their employees healthy, their customers healthy, and
their communities healthy, too, and, you know, as much as
possible keeping their businesses running at this time. This is
a really challenging time until this coronavirus runs its
course.
But we caution Congress against rushing to impose any new
mandates that will do more harm than good in the long term.
Paid leave programs were not designed for the entire workforce
to be out at once. And this bill is certainly not the solution
for the current problem.
Again, the CDC is offering employers to offer flexible
policies, and that goes with what our members tell us all the
time. They need flexibility more so now than ever before.
Mr. Byrne. So looking at H.R. 1784, do you think it will
restrict the flexibility the businesses need to deal with this
issue?
Ms. Milito. Yeah, absolutely it would. I mean, Dr. Glynn
talked about, you know, different policies and, again, that is
going back to kind of a siloed leave approach, and we are
seeing that our members have moved away from that. The paid
time off policy is what works for their businesses; less
recordkeeping, not, you know, tracking every day off and
requiring doctors' notes and requiring notices and requiring an
updated employee handbook. That is not what they need right
now.
They want sick employees to stay home. That is what I am
hearing from our members.
Mr. Byrne. Your testimony highlights how small employers
use benefits such as paid sick leave to compete for workers.
How would H.R. 1784's restrictive mandate inhibit a small
employer's ability to attract and retain workers?
Ms. Milito. Well, it may not be the intention of the bill,
but the Healthy Families Act would disrupt current employer-
paid leave offerings. And as I have said time and time again,
the majority of small businesses, the majority of employers do
offer paid leave, and this would really upset what they have
right now.
For example, if an employer's existing paid leave policy
fails to meet all of the requirements of the act, the
employer's plan would need to be amended to comply with the
Healthy Families Act. In addition, it is unclear how the paid
sick requirements in the bill would impact PTO plans. Would
those still be permitted? Because, again, they are not the
siloed different compartment things. And more and more
employers each year are offering PTO plans in lieu of other
employer-paid leave programs. It would just really hinder the
flexibility.
Congress should build on progress that is being made by
offering incentives to employers to do more, not risk the
unintended consequence of this bill, which loads on more
mandates, recordkeeping, and costs.
Mr. Byrne. Ms. Milito, supporters of H.R. 1784 claim it
excludes employers who are currently offering paid sick leave
to their employees from the paid sick leave mandate, so that if
an employer has a paid sick leave policy in place, this bill
will have no impact on the business owner. Do you believe that
to be the case?
Ms. Milito. Not at all. First of all, the act does not
supersede any of the state or local laws that provide for
greater paid sick time or leave rights. So it is going to still
force employers to comply with this patchwork quilt that is
existing with the 22, you know, municipalities that we have
heard about from the other witnesses here today.
I say in essence it would require an employer to start from
scratch, to take the onion apart. Here is what we have, here is
what, you know, our municipality is doing, here is what our
state is doing, here is what our employers tell us--our
employees tell us they want. So peeling the onion apart and
then putting the layers back together, it really stinks.
Mr. Byrne. Yeah, I agree with that. You know, I remember
back when the Congress passed the Family Medical Leave Act, it
was as if they had completely forgotten that they had
previously passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. And when
they passed that, they completely forgot that there are state
worker's compensation laws out there. So onions are all over
the place.
We have a specific crisis right now. And it seems to me,
and I think what I hear you saying is your members, the
businesses in America, want to be a part of the solution. These
are their employees, their customers. They can't operate if
they can't get control on this. And by putting this mandate on
them, we have actually taken a serious crisis and made it
worse. And I don't think that is what Congress should be doing.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Takano, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, for this very
critical hearing on the need for a universal paid sick leave
program.
The United States is lagging behind the majority of
industrialized nations that have some form of paid sick leave.
As has been noted, about 32 million people lack access to paid
sick days. In the wake of the spread of COVID-19, it is
extremely important that people stay home to reduce the spread
of the virus.
Unfortunately, workers and their families cannot afford to
stay home. There has been extensive reporting that low-wage
workers and those with frequent contact with the public are
more likely to go to work while sick because they are less
likely to have access to any form of paid sick leave. Missing a
few days of work without pay is the equivalent of a family
losing their monthly budget for food and healthcare.
In the absence of a Federal law, several cities and states
have enacted different laws requiring paid sick days.
Ms. Goldman, my first question is for you. What impact have
these laws at the state and local level had on overall public
health and the local economies?
Ms. Goldman. The impact--thank you, Congressman Takano. The
impact has been very helpful. Where we have state and local
laws that have passed--states and localities that have passed
paid sick days, one study has shown significant reductions in
flu-like infection rates. In a study of San Francisco, after
their ordinance was passed, a quarter of employees reported
that paid sick days improved their ability to care for their
and their family's health, with particular benefits for Black,
Latinx, and low-wage workers. In addition, the San Francisco
study reflected that parent with paid sick days were less
likely to send their sick children to school, improving those
children's health, as well as the health of their classmates
and teachers.
Mr. Takano. Thank you for that answer. How has job growth
and employment been impacted in the various cities and states
that have instituted paid sick day laws?
Ms. Goldman. The studies of economic impact have showed
that the existing sick days laws benefit employers and
employees, and have not harmed jobs or growth. The Institute
for Women's Policy Research estimates that employers will
actually save money in addition to public health savings. For
example, in Massachusetts, they expect the law there to save
employers close to $50 million annually.
After San Francisco's law was passed, their study of San
Francisco showed that the percentage growth in civilian
employment was strong and exceeded the average growth of
surrounding counties. And I will just note that Seattle and
D.C. auditors have also done studies that showed that the laws
did not discourage businesses from locating in those
jurisdictions.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Ms. Goldman. Today the World Health
Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Dr. Glynn, in
your written testimony you stated that, ``Research on the 2009
H1N1 pandemic estimated that an additional 5 million people
contracted the virus due the lack of workplace policies like
paid sick days.'' What impact, Dr. Glynn, would a Federal
policy requiring paid sick days have on public health and the
spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19?
Dr. Glynn. So while it's obviously too early to have
figures like we have looking in hindsight to the H1N1 epidemic,
there is a tremendous amount of evidence that indicates this
would be a really vital public policy intervention to help
spread--to help halt the spread of the disease.
You know, the CDC is calling for people to practice self-
quarantine, to practice social distancing, and that is very
difficult to do when you still have to report to work. So by
covering the millions of workers who currently do not have
access to paid sick days, we can ensure that they are able to
stay home when they need to recover themselves and to reduce
the spread of contagion.
Again, we don't have exact figures that we can put on to
that right now, but we are talking about literally millions of
people right now who are having to make that trade-off between
paying their bills and being able to stay safe.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. As Congress continues to
develop its response to COVID-19, why is it important to ensure
that workers have access to sick days now and also have access
to paid sick days under the Healthy Families Act?
Dr. Glynn. So I think an emergency response is important to
ensure that people can start staying home immediately if that
is what their medical providers are recommending to them. So an
earned sick time proposal like the Healthy Families Act is not
going to help someone who needs to stay home tomorrow if it is
not already in place. But like I said earlier, we need to be
thinking towards the future, as well. We can't always be trying
to play catch-up. And so by passing something like the Healthy
Families Act today we can help to stave off future epidemics
and pandemics that may be coming.
Mr. Takano. Wow. Thank you, Dr. Glynn.
The Healthy Families Act is commonsense policy. While paid
sick days are especially critical to workers as we respond to
COVID-19, it will be necessary for workers across this country
to still have access to paid sick leave once the pandemic is
over.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I will yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Wright, you are
recognized.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, to hear the
other side you would think that small businesses are ignoring
the needs of the workers, and we know that is not true. Because
they know that without healthy workers, they don't have a
business.
But what is really entertaining to me is to hear over and
over again people on the other side saying that the United
States is lagging behind. The United States is lagging behind
other countries. we are lagging behind the rest of the world,
when just the opposite is true. Because the rest of the world
is lagging behind the United States. They are lagging behind
the United States in economic growth and job growth. There is a
reason for that.
Do we really want to be like Europe? Do we want to really
be like South America? Because every time we go down this road
with more government mandates, it always sounds great, it
always sounds wonderful, and there is always a downside. And
quite often that downside is an economic downside of fewer jobs
or a loss of jobs.
Ms. Milito, if this were enacted what type of business,
specifically, would be hurt by it most?
Ms. Milito. In talking to our members and in surveying our
members in jurisdictions where paid leave mandates have passed
and been imposed, it is clearly restaurants, retail, those with
turnover, seasonal, are hardest hit with this. And it is the
administrative costs and the headaches that come with this.
Ranking Member Byrne mentioned the Family Medical Leave
Act. Laudable goal. Started as, I think, a 12-page document
there. And then, the next thing you know, we have 200-plus
pages of regulations now of FMLA.
Mr. Wright. Right.
Ms. Milito. I talk to businesses all the time that look at
50 as kind of mark they don't want to reach because of the
headaches, the recordkeeping, the cost associated with the
FMLA. So the administrative costs are real. I hear about them.
We see them in our survey data.
Mr. Wright. So the regulation data itself is preventing
growth in those businesses because they don't want to encounter
that administrative burden?
Ms. Milito. Exactly.
Mr. Wright. Thank you and 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 Chairwoman. Let me just start by
saying that I have the utmost respect for small and independent
business owners. I truly do believe that they are the backbone
of our communities. And I always weigh decisions on things like
this in terms of how it will affect those smaller businesses.
But, at the same time, I am deeply concerned that we are
the only highly developed country without a paid sick leave
policy. I think there are significant public health
considerations and we are right in middle of one now, as
several people here have observed.
And I just want to start, Ms. Milito, with, you know, your
testimony, your written testimony, talks about how a one-size-
fits-all policy doesn't work and that it is not fair to smaller
businesses. But my concern is that if we don't have a one-size-
fits-all employers standard for paid sick leave in this
country, how do we reassure the public in times like these?
Let me just give you an example. If the public doesn't have
confidence that the small business deli down the street has a
paid sick leave policy, I would suggest to you that what is
going to happen, especially in times like this where we are in
a period of people having fear of going out in public and
patronizing businesses, what you are going to have is that
people are going to stay away from that small deli because they
are going to think, well, I don't know if their employees are
going to work sick or not. They might just stay away
altogether.
You identified the industries that would be hardest hit as
restaurants and retail, among others. And I would suggest to
you that those are exactly the businesses that people will not
patronize because of fear of encountering sick workers who are
there on the job. Whereas if we had some sort of national paid
leave policy, people could be reassured that the people they
are encountering in their local deli, in their restaurant, in
their store are healthy because they wouldn't be at work
otherwise.
I want to just talk for a moment, and I know you place
great reliance on honest and fair employers, I wrote a couple
quotes down, who encourage--we need to be encouraging
employers, we need flexibility. You said we need to offer
incentives to employers to do more. But, you know, that doesn't
seem to always work.
One of the examples I would give you is that in 2017, when
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, which gave corporations
large tax cuts, as we know, with the idea being that those tax
cuts would be put back into the workers' pockets, what happened
instead is that we have ended up funding dividends to
shareholders and increased executive pay and we haven't seen
that money going back into the workers' pockets. So I don't
know that incentives to employers are enough.
One of the things I would just like to address in your
written testimony, you state that most small employers, and you
say 73 percent of them, ``offer paid time off to the majority
of their full-time employees and 67 percent of them offer 2
weeks or more of leave.'' Well, first of all, I just want to--
your only citation in your written testimony is to a poll
conducted by your organization of small--of independent
business owners. It is a self-reporting poll, correct? So it
relies on the employer to give truthful answers, right?
Ms. Milito. It is an NFIB Research Foundation poll.
Ms. Wild. And NFIB is the organization that you work for,
correct?
Ms. Milito. That is correct.
Ms. Wild. So those statistics, assuming that they are
correct and that they were properly self-reported, don't
account for any part-time employees, true?
Ms. Milito. No, that is not true. I think you read that
there--the majority of employers offered leave. I am sorry, I
missed your quote there.
Ms. Wild. Well, your--
Ms. Milito. But I think it might--
Ms. Wild. Your quote--
Ms. Milito. I think our--yeah.
Ms. Wild. The quote from your report was, ``Most small
employers, 73 percent, offer PTO to the majority of their full-
time employees.'' Okay? So can we agree that part-time workers
are becoming more and more prevalent in our economy today?
Ms. Milito. I can't speak to the numbers of part-time
versus full-time workers there.
Ms. Wild. But you--
Ms. Milito. But what I can tell you is that the majority of
NFIB members and small businesses as a whole offer paid time
off. And Ms. Johnson I think used about the same number.
Ms. Wild. Well, when you say ``the majority--''
Ms. Milito. The 73 percent to match there.
Ms. Wild.--you say 73 percent, to full-time employees. But
those statistics don't account for part-time employees. And we
know from your own numbers that 27 percent of small employers,
27 percent, a quarter, more than a quarter, do not offer paid
sick leave to the majority of their full-time employees. Right?
Ms. Milito. What I can say is--
Ms. Wild. Using your statistics.
Ms. Milito.--if a business can afford to offer paid leave,
it is a great benefit and my members tell me that. They would
like to offer paid leave and those that do not, I said in my
opening statement, mandates come with a cost and not all small
businesses can afford this mandate, the mandate of paid leave.
And that is the fact of the matter. I mean, it is Economics
101. I wish they all could, but they cannot.
Chairwoman Adams. The gentlelady is out of time.
Ms. Wild. Thank you. My time is up. I yield.
Chairwoman Adams. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline,
you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Milito, I appreciate
you recognizing in your testimony there is no one-size-fits-all
policy that works for every business or industry. It is that
very reason that we should be cautious as lawmakers of creating
reactionary policies that result in stifling business.
You hear about the businesses that would be happy or are
happy to provide that leave. They have that option. You don't
hear about the businesses that are unhappy when they are
required to provide that leave because they are not in
existence. They have closed up shop because they can't shoulder
the burdens that come with being mandated to provide that
leave.
Many small businesses exist because the owners were tired
of the bureaucracy they faced with rigid workplace policies.
These entrepreneurs wanted to take matters into their own hands
and create an opportunity in which they can allow employees to
customize benefit packages that work for them. Lawmakers should
not take that away from them.
In my home state of Virginia, we have 1.5 million people
who are employed by small businesses with small businesses
having an average size of 10 employees. In fact, 99.5 percent
of Virginia businesses are small businesses. They have a
significant impact on the economy with an average of $500,000
in gross sales per year and are a large part of what makes
local communities so vibrant. And I am continuing to look for
ways to empower businesses to give more choices to their
employees.
Unfortunately, what we have seen over the last General
Assembly session in Virginia is a step backward from those
policies that have made Virginia the best state in the country
in which to do business or to open a small business or to run a
small business. The number one state as ranked by CNBC in the
entire country. But the policies that we have adopted, make no
mistake, this is a point of inflection in Virginia's rankings.
And I worry that the policies that have been adopted over the
past 2 months in Virginia are going to result in our rankings
being driven down, businesses locating in Virginia less, few
businesses opening in Virginia, and more businesses closing.
I had frantic small business owners messaging me directly
as these policies were being debated, assuring me that they
would have to close if the bills passed. Now, not all of them
did pass. We retained our right to work law, thankfully. But a
number of others did and we can't make those same mistakes at
the Federal level.
Ms. Milito, does the inflexibility of H.R. 1784's
proscriptive mandate limit a small employer's ability to offer
other benefits that their employees may prefer, such as a pay
increase or flexible paid time off banks?
Ms. Milito. It does. I mean, I think when we poll our
members they oppose mandates because of the assumption that
every business of any type can afford to offer the same sort of
benefits as larger companies, and that is just not so. And in
the long run, as you are hearing from your friends who own
businesses in Virginia, in the long run if a company can't
sustain a benefits plan, especially a mandated benefits plan,
it is ultimately going to hurt the workers because what is
going to happen, the business is going to end up shutting its
door.
And that is what, unfortunately, we are seeing now in
Seattle. It was in the Seattle Times yesterday, I mean, a list
of restaurants that have now closed. And one of the business
owners said, you know, it was already a difficult climate in
Seattle to operate a small business, and that is what I fear
will happen, especially in some of the municipalities that have
already mandated leave benefits.
Mr. Cline. Paid sick leave is obviously not a free benefit
for employees. Can you discuss how paid leave benefits in
general figure into the cost of an employee's compensation?
Ms. Milito. In talking with members, you know, when they
get hit with a mandate, decisions are made. You know, are we
going to continue to offer, you know, our bucket of PTO? Does
that comply? No, maybe not.
If they are--you know, if they hit the threshold and they
are offering paid leave, then, you know, things--real decisions
are made. Are we going to cut bonuses? Are we going to hire
fewer employees so we don't meet the threshold if there is a
threshold? Are we going to stop sponsoring the Little League?
This is coming from a real business owner. If we are a
restaurant, are we no longer going to offer staff meals? Things
like that. Some of them are perks, but some of them are very
real. The Christmas bonuses, cutting out overtime, hard
decisions that a business is going to have to make in order to
determine, you know, how can we comply and pay for this
mandate?
Mr. Cline. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I recognize the
gentleman from Virginia, chair of the Education and Labor
Committee. Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Glynn, what would happen if we
don't consider this as an emergency and figure out how to get
everybody access to paid sick leave?
Dr. Glynn. Well, I think there are a couple of things that
will happen if we continue to see high levels of workers
without access to paid sick days. One is that we should
anticipate seeing higher levels of contagion because people
will, out of economic necessity, continue to go to work when
they are sick. That is likely to be especially true among the
low-wage workforce and the service sector. And those are folks
who are likely to be in direct contact with the public as part
of their work. So we should absolutely anticipate more people
will get sick as a result of a lack of paid sick days.
The other thing that we should be thinking about in the
context of a public health emergency are the macroeconomic
effects. So right now we are seeing already a combination of
reduced labor supply because people are out sick. Even if they
don't have sick time, they may just have to stay home because
they are simply too ill to leave or because they are
quarantining themselves in concurrence with the CDC
recommendations. We are also seeing reduced demand for goods
and services, particularly as people are practicing social
distancing.
So we are starting to see macroeconomic effects as a result
of this. Having people forced to take unpaid sick time and
seeing a dramatic drop in their income is only going to
exacerbate those effects.
So there are sort of two pieces that we should be thinking
about here and both are equally important. One is about the
physical health of our communities and making sure that we are
addressing the pandemic and addressing people's public health.
But the other is thinking about the health of our local
economies and making sure that folks have money to put in their
pockets. Because the fact that you have gotten COVID-19 does
not mean that your bills stop needing to be paid, so we should
be thinking about these two pieces in tandem as we address this
current pandemic.
Mr. Scott. If we provide legislation for coronavirus-
specific problems, what elements should be in that kind of
bill?
Dr. Glynn. So I think it is incredibly important when we
are thinking about public health in the context of a global
pandemic to make sure you are covering all workers. Any type of
carve-out from a public health perspective simply does not make
sense.
You are also going to want to be thinking about the level
of wage replacement. So paid sick days traditionally pay the
same amount that you would earn if you were working. And I
think that, in contrast, is something like unemployment
insurance, which has a much lower level of wage replacement
because they are incentivizing people to return to work as
quickly as possible. You don't want to incentivize people to
return to work too soon under these circumstances.
So universal coverage is very important. A high level of
wage replacement is incredibly important and making sure the
benefit is easy to access for folks. You don't want it to be
overly administratively burdensome either for leave-takers or
for their employers. So trying to figure out the most
efficient, cost-effective, and timely way to get these benefits
out I think is going to some of the most important thins to
keep in mind.
Mr. Scott. What are some of the ways that the benefits can
be done with less logistical problems?
Dr. Glynn. You know, I would need to spend a little bit
more time thinking about that before I gave an on-the-record
recommendation. I know things are moving very quickly and I
know there are a lot of people who are thinking about this, but
we should be trying to figure out--
Mr. Scott. Well, one of the things we are talking about are
tax credits to businesses that are for which we impose the
mandate. Would that be something that could be quickly
accessed?
Dr. Glynn. I think it would just depend exactly on how that
was structured. Certainly, there do need to be supports,
particularly for small businesses. This is--it is right to note
that this is different than traditional paid sick days where
you are talking about an extended length of leave and
potentially your entire workforce being out at the same time.
So having that economic support for businesses is going to be
very important.
You know, my concern would be, with a tax credit, when is
that money actually going to hit your account? When are you
going to see that? To what extent would that be refundable? I
think there is a lot of detailed questions that would need to
be answered to figure out if a tax credit for employers as
reimbursement is the most efficient way to get that money back
to them.
Mr. Scott. Can you think of any more efficient way?
Dr. Glynn. I mean, I think direct transfers to the extent
that is possible. But, again, I feel uncomfortable talking off
the cuff right now. I would need to spend a little bit more
time. But I am happy to follow up with you or anyone else from
the committee to think through some of those details.
Mr. Scott. As quick as you can. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. The gentlelady from North
Carolina--
Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, can I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record a letter from Moms Rising dated today in
support of family medical leave?
Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Chairwoman Adams. The gentlelady from North Carolina,
Ranking Member of Education and Labor Dr. Foxx, you are
recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Milito, H.R. 1784 allows employers with fewer than 15
employees to opt out of the paid sick leave mandate, but still
requires them to provide an equal amount of unpaid leave. Why
is H.R. 1784's opt-out provision misleading and how would it
impact small employers? Would these employers also be subject
to onerous compliance requirements?
Ms. Milito. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. So while the bill does
exempt businesses with fewer than 15 employees from offering
paid leave, it would require all employers to offer unpaid
leave and it would require all businesses to make, keep, and
preserve records pertaining to compliance with the act and to
potentially make submissions on an annual basis.
Moreover, employers of all sizes would be subject to the
same enforcement penalty and liability provisions, which are
pretty significant.
And no Main Street enterprise alone or collectively can
match the resources, I would argue, of the U.S. Department of
Labor, whose charge is to conduct audits and ensure compliance.
So that is a real concern for small businesses is, you know,
DOL knocking at their door and asking for records related to
this act when they don't have an H.R. person.
Ms. Foxx. Well, you mentioned that earlier in your
testimony what--and as a former small business owner, I am very
well aware, and my daughter runs our business now, she does
H.R., she does everything because it is such a small business.
And I am certainly well aware of what these kinds of things
would do to her, especially a business that is seasonal. When
you are in the nursery and landscaping business, it is
seasonal. And you have to do everything you can to try to get
the work in when the weather is good. It is a major challenge
to be able to work only when the weather will allow you to do
that. And you mentioned farmers earlier, and I can see that
happening.
Ms. Milito, as Congress considers additional steps to
address COVID-19 in the workplace, supporters of H.R. 1784 and
similar proscriptive employer mandates argue the Federal
Government should force all employers to provide dictated
benefits. Why should Congress think twice about imposing a one-
size-fits-all mandate on small businesses, especially under
current circumstances?
And I even wonder why in the world we need to ask that
question because anybody with any common sense would know we
shouldn't be doing that. But, please, give us your response.
Ms. Milito. Right. So February was another historically
strong month for the small business economy. This was under our
Small Business Economic Trends Survey, so we don't have any
data from the current, you know, the current period right now.
So it is worth noting, again, that the responses were
collected prior to the escalation of the coronavirus outbreak.
So business, you know, was good, but the outbreak remains a big
unknown and we are collecting data. And until we know, we are
actually going to be releasing a survey, that we took over the
last couple of days, tomorrow. And until we know how this is
impacting our membership, we aren't in a position to talk about
remedies or what will work or what our members need right now
because we just don't know. And it is so dependent on where
they are, what industry they are in. Are they in travel? Are
they in restaurants? Boy, we are hearing from those members.
But in other industries, you know, we just haven't heard from
them yet.
So, again, it is not the time to make a rash decision. I
think we all need to come together. This is kind of an all
hands on deck, come together. And we are eager to see any
bipartisan proposals that might be introduced to support small
business and employees.
Ms. Foxx. Well, you have spoken to the issue of fines,
penalties, potential litigation, the many hats that a small
business owner has to wear. Is there anything we haven't asked
you related to penalties, fines, recordkeeping that should be
additionally highlighted as it comes not just to small
businesses, but particularly to small businesses since you are
from NFIB, but for other businesses, too?
Ms. Milito. Yeah. I mean, the list of the legal and
enforcement provisions contained in the Healthy Families Act is
daunting, particularly if you are a small business owner. So
for your daughter it would be very daunting, who doesn't have
the time or expertise to make heads or tails of a statute and
presumably the regulation that would be forthcoming from DOL,
which is going to be, you know, long, you know.
You know, small business owners don't have time to read
regulations, 50, 100-page, 200-page FMLA regulations. And it
gives the Department of Labor, the Secretary, a tremendous
amount of enforcement authority there. So it is concerning from
the perspective of a representative of the small business
community. They need to be concerned.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I will recognize now the
gentlelady from Georgia. Ms. McBath, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I seek
unanimous consent to submit two letters into the record: one
from UnidosUS and the other from the YWCA, which outline why
paid sick leave is necessary for our country.
Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
you to all the witnesses that are here today. This is really a
very, very timely hearing today.
And I just want to say that, you know, we understand that
paid sick leave is just absolutely necessary for a thriving and
modern economy. Creating a framework for paid sick leave is
essential for building a fair and equitable society. It is
important that we are gathered here today to find some
effective solutions and a pathway forward.
I just spent a few moments today earlier talking with the
members of the airline community, which I worked for 30 years,
and then also small businesses. And I can assure you they are
very, very concerned about making sure that people have access
to paid sick leave.
And we are seeing that the spread of COVID-19, the virus no
one is immune to, caring for themselves or a loved one during
this medical crisis, when unprotected workers come down with an
illness it is vital that all of us are able to be able to take
the time that we need should we succumb to this virus. Under
current law over 30 million workers are not eligible for paid
sick leave, forcing many of these individuals to choose between
their health or their economic security. And no one should ever
have to lose their job, forced to lose their job, or sacrifice
their health simply because they or a loved one are sick. And
this is a protection that we would all want if we were faced
with being in this similar situation.
We should all have a vested support--vested interest in
supporting our workers and allowing them to take the time they
need to care for themselves or for one another. We know that
paid sick leave can have a cascade of positive effects on our
health and economic wellbeing for the Nation.
Dr. Glynn and Ms. Goldman, I would like to ask you how does
the lack of paid sick days impact children's health? I want to
talk about specifically how there is an impact on our
children's health.
Ms. Goldman. So we know that almost a third of parents lack
access to paid sick days, which clearly has implications for
the children's health. In focus groups parents will actually
report making the difficult decision to send children to child
care or school sick and give them Motrin and hope they make it
through the day. But we know that with paid sick days parents
are much more likely, understandably, to stay home when their
child is sick.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you.
Dr. Glynn. And I would also note on top of that, that we
know that when people lack access to paid sick days they are
both more likely to forego medical care for themselves, but
also for their family members. So children whose parents don't
have access to paid sick days are less likely to receive
routine medical appointments, like they are supposed to. And we
also know they are less likely to receive vaccinations,
including flu vaccinations, when their parents can't take that
paid time off to take them to the doctor.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you for your answers. And protecting the
health of our children should always be our top priority.
When I came to Washington, I knew that I wanted to pursue
policies that actually have positive effects for all of my
constituents and for Americans at large. And I believe that
paid sick leave is one of those policies that helps both
employees and our employers.
And we also know that there is a significant cost
associated with employees when they are working while sick.
Some estimates show that a national economy spends over $200
billion annually in lost productivity and has an outsized
impact on our small businesses.
Ms. Johnson, how would the Healthy Families Act support our
small businesses?
Ms. Johnson. The Healthy Families Act will support our
small businesses in numerous ways. One, we would help our lower
wage workers have some sort of floor or safe net. Right? They
will be able to then take their children to the doctor when
they need to. They will be able to go to the doctor themselves
when they need to. It would be able to help the small business
be more productive because when they are going to work and they
are not feeling well, they are not going to be able to produce.
So the productivity of the organization is going to fail be
they are going to be more engaged in I am not feeling well. I
am not feeling well, and telling their coworkers and
potentially passing on their illness to other coworkers.
So ensuring that we have some sort of safety net where
people are able to take care of themselves means that we will
have happier employees and happier employees, you are able to
have happier employment situations.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much. And I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. We will yield to Ms. Stevens,
the gentlelady from Michigan. You have 5 minutes.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses.
We are having this hearing on paid family sick leave under
the pretense of a pandemic. And it was just reported that in
Italy they have seen a 30 percent increase since yesterday in
fatalities. And this is most certainly a somber time and a time
that begets the conversation that we are having and that each
of your bring forward with your testimonies as we seek the best
set of economic solutions not only for the health of our own
country, but for the future health of our country.
And, Ms. Johnson, I am incredibly struck by your
organization and your work in particular, representing the
businesses that you represent and the work that Main Street
Alliance has done. I am deeply appreciative of the work of the
National Partnership for Women and Families, as well, that has
always helped us here in Congress with these topics and
particularly with paid family leave.
And I was wondering, given that I helped launch the Women
in STEM Caucus and there has been such a big conversation
around diversity inclusion and minority ownership of
businesses. If you wouldn't mind speaking about those
perspectives, as well, and how paid family leave help women of
color. I have spent a lot of time in Michigan, partnering with
a group called Mothering Justice. They are another one of our
advocates for this topic. And it is certainly so important to
talk about women of color and how they are affected by lack of
paid sick leave.
Ms. Johnson. Yeah, definitely. And I will definitely open
this up to my national partnership organizations that we work
with.
Ms. Stevens. Everyone is welcome to try, ma'am.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, yes, yes. Because it is not just one
organization, it is all of us. And diversity and inclusion
means that we are all included in it.
And our small business owners, we see that they definitely
know that it is a burden sometimes for those who are low-
income, low-wage workers to not have these benefits. Right?
Because they are not able to just take off when they need to
and take care of themselves. Because, again, like I mentioned
earlier healthier families, you know, means healthier work
environments, as well. Especially with those communities of
color, we see that there is a larger amount of those that have
not received those benefits.
And so it stays in a system, in a cycle where if you're low
wage and you aren't able to take off, you are more likely to
quite your job. Right? Then that employer has to find a new
employee, retention, training, and hiring that new employee
then, it costs more money. So on both sides of the coin having
the support of legislation would be great because it would help
those low-wage, low-income communities of color more
efficiently.
Ms. Stevens. Dr. Glynn, I know CAP has done a lot of great
work on this, as well.
Dr. Glynn. Yeah. So I did a research project a few years
back using a nationally representative dataset and one of the
most striking findings that came out of that was that even when
you controlled for a whole host of factors--age, gender,
marital status, presence of children, health, the types of job
that one had, their income--Latinx workers were statistically
significantly less likely to have access to paid sick days. So
compared to their colleagues that they were identical in all
other factors with, the fact of being Latinx made you less
likely to having access to paid sick leave.
And so I think that points to why we do need to have
interventions to help level the playing field because clearly
the market is not taking care of this issue on its own when you
can see those kinds of disparities.
Ms. Stevens. And also very similar to raising the minimum
wage, which is a conversation that we are having at all times
here in this Congress and certainly legislation that we have
passed. But you see a lot of those similarities, as well.
With the remaining, Ms. Goldman, you want to chime in?
Ms. Goldman. Yeah. I just wanted to add, also, that I know
right now we are talking about passing the law, but the
implementation and enforcement is critical, also. What they
found in San Francisco after they passed their paid sick leave
ordinance is that most employers were in compliance. But for
those that were not, it was most affecting Black workers, low-
wage workers, and Latinx workers. So part of it is the
implementation and enforcement and ensuring the technical
assistance so all businesses can comply with the law.
Ms. Stevens. For equality. Well, thank you so much. And
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
the gentlelady from Oregon. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized
for 5 minutes, ma'am.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Adams and Ranking
Member Byrne. And thank you to all of our witnesses today.
I represent Northwest Oregon, and I hear from restaurant
workers and retail clerks, social service providers, child care
workers, they struggle. They struggle to address their own
medical needs or the medical needs of their family members,
their children, without fear of losing their jobs and wages.
And it is, of course, only exacerbated by the coronavirus
epidemic which we are facing. And very timely to have this
hearing now.
Healthcare workers like Destiny in Oregon, she works in a
long-term care facility. She said, ``I would be hesitant to
tell anyone I was feeling sick. I can't afford to miss paying
my bills.'' And she added, ``People will continue to work while
sick and risk exposing residents, as well as other healthcare
workers, to the coronavirus.''
Fortunately, in Oregon, most workers have access to
protected sick leave. And for the majority of workers that sick
time is paid. I want to note that I have heard from small
businesses, businesses, but also small businesses, in Oregon
that the sick leave law is good for their business and it is
good for the economy. And, Ms. Johnson, I know you mentioned
Jim Houser in your testimony.
And my mother was a small business owner. My first job was
in a small business. I understand the importance of small
businesses, but truly, across the country far too many workers
do not have access to paid sick days. So as we continue here in
Congress to coordinate our response to the coronavirus and as
communities continue to face more common short-term illnesses,
like the cold or the flu, we absolutely need to do all we can
to make access to paid sick and safe days a priority.
So I am pleased to support the Healthy Families Act and the
Paid Sick Days for Public Health Emergencies and Personal
Family Care Act to help make sure that all workers have access
to protected sick leave without losing wages or their job.
And I have to say, as a mother and a policymaker I know no
parent should have to make that decision between losing their
job and taking care of a child.
Dr. Glynn and Ms. Goldman, what are the individual and
public health consequences when workers do not have paid sick
leave and they go to work when they or their family member is
sick? What are the public health consequences, Dr. Glynn?
Dr. Glynn. Yeah. I mean, I think the example you just gave
about someone who is working in a long-term care facility
really highlights how important these policies are because that
is someone who is directly interacting with the most medically
vulnerable folks, particularly given the context we are in
right now, but always. Right.
Ms. Bonamici. Right, always.
Dr. Glynn. And I am not being hyperbolic when I say people
have died because of the lack of paid sick days. Right? I mean,
some of this we can document. So like I mentioned before, the
American Public Health Association has said that 1,500 deaths
during the H1N1 epidemic can be traced back to people going to
work when they were sick and contagious.
But it goes beyond that, as well, because we also know that
people who lack access to paid sick days are much less likely
to go to the doctor and they are much less likely to access
preventative care, so things like colonoscopies and mammograms.
Right?
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Dr. Glynn. And so what we often see if this uptick in
emergency room usage among people who lack access to paid sick
days. Some of that is a scheduling conflict--
Ms. Bonamici. Right, right.
Dr. Glynn.--because the emergency room's open, but some of
that is also because, and we have documentation of this,
although it is hard to study at a large scale, that folks will
let their medical condition go until it is too late or until it
is much more serious than it might have been otherwise. So that
has negative impacts on the individual's health and their
family's health.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. I want to hear real quickly from
Ms. Goldman, too.
Ms. Goldman. I agree with everything Dr. Glynn said.
Ms. Bonamici. Perfect.
Ms. Goldman. But I would just note, I mean, it starts very
early in life. So women are less likely to--to delay the
prenatal care they need if they don't have access to paid sick
days. They are less likely to be able to take their new babies
to the eight recommended well baby visits, not to mention
babies and toddlers get sick until their appointments after
that. So very early in life we are seeing these multiplier
effects of not having a paid sick days policy.
Ms. Bonamici. And in my remaining time, Ms. Johnson, we
know that workers without access to paid sick leave are
disproportionately low-wage workers and workers of color. Why
should there be a Federal standard for paid sick days separate
from like vacation time or flex time? Why should that Federal
standard be a floor rather than preempt stronger state laws?
Ms. Johnson. Yeah. We believe that there should be a floor
because if a state is already doing it and implementing it,
great, but just make sure it is the floor. It will be the
standard so that there is a baseline that people can then look
up to and say, all right, this state is doing this, and maybe
that will be competition for the small businesses to have more
people coming to work for them.
There are other opportunities for us to see growth here,
right, when we have this baseline. And we want to make sure
that our small business owners are able to be successful. And
having this benefit makes them more competitive with larger
businesses in their community, as well.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you so much. And my time is
about to expire. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. We will yield 5
minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwoman. I am so glad we are here
discussing this topic today. And I very much appreciate the
testimony of our witnesses and all that you have all shared,
though I have to admit I have long been convinced by the case
for universal access to paid sick leave and feel like it is
finally time to stop debating the policy and just pass this
life-changing law already.
So instead of asking questions to our witnesses to
elaborate on their testimony, instead I would like to use this
time to share some of the stories that have me so convinced
that we need to implement a national sick leave program.
Stories from Minnesotans like Donna. Donna works two part-time
jobs, neither of which offer her paid sick days. Like many
Americans, Donna has ongoing healthcare struggles. Over the
last 2 years alone, she has had to leave three--she had to have
three different surgeries. And without access to sick days
Donna has had no choice but to miss work while she was in the
hospital and in recovery. That means that she has lost out on
over 3 months of pay. Meanwhile, her medical bills are piling
up.
I would also like to tell the story of another constituent
of mine, Katherine. As a working mother, Katherine finds
herself choosing between the only three options she has when
her kids get sick: lose a day's pay to stay home, send her
children to school no matter how sick they might be, or forcing
one of her older children to stay at home from school to look
after their siblings. If Katherine had paid sick days, she
wouldn't have to choose between those three absurd options next
time one of her kids is under the weather. No mother should be
able--no mother should be forced to sacrifice a paycheck to
care for an ill child.
I would also like to share one last story from Marion.
Marion works full time as a registered nurse in a Minnesota
hospital while raising a young family of four. Marion is only
allowed 3 paid sick days per year. Working in an emergency room
she has had high exposure to illnesses and, given her role as a
caretaker, it is critical that she is not only ill while
looking after already vulnerable patients. But how can she
afford to do that with only 3 paid sick days? Any parent in
this room could attest to the fact that when you are raising a
family of four, 3 days is not going to cut it.
So, yes, although I am glad we have had this hearing today,
I hope we can make this the last conversation we have about
this. We need to get this done for Donna, for Katherine, for
Marian, and for countless others.
I would also like to mention a topic many of my colleagues
have brought up today: the response to the coronavirus
concerns. Although I am pleased that the House has swiftly
passed emergency appropriation last week to help fight the
epidemic, I am disappointed that Congress has not done more as
a governing body for workers.
If you walk up and down the halls of this building you will
see numerous signs on office doors indicating that some
congressional offices have decided to close, are allowing their
employees to telework, or have decided to not stop--have
decided to not take meetings in the public. Although I respect
the instinct to protect one's staff, we have to stop and ask
ourselves does the average American have this option or is this
a privilege that only some, including the members of Congress
and employees of this body, are lucky to have?
We can't sequester ourselves while ignoring the countless
Americans who work in consumer or food service or those in
healthcare fields actually fighting this epidemic. Those
workers don't have the option to telework nor can they afford
to go without pay.
More than 30 percent of workers in Minnesota are employed
by the healthcare, retail, or hospitality industry. That is
nearly 1 million workers just in my state and many of whom have
no choice but to go to work regardless of the risk.
We need to fix this problem long term and make sure that
everyone has access to leave. I can't understand how anyone
could continue to argue that paid sick is unnecessary or a
luxury that this country can't afford. Frankly, we cannot
afford not to act. I think it is time to consider this case
closed.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I would now yield to
the gentlelady from Washington. Dr. Schrier, you have 5
minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank
you for all coming here to talk about this important issue. I
think it is--and in particular it is important for women, and I
will get to that in a moment.
But I have to first just touch on the issue of the
coronavirus pandemic that we are facing right now because this
is so big it almost doesn't even belong in this particular
discussion where we are talking about 7 days of sick leave;
that this poses tremendous threats to workers, to sick people,
and also, Ms. Milito, to small businesses.
And, in fact, I looked up the article from the Seattle
Times and, in fact, the business that you referred to that was
talking about closing, it was because of slowing business from
the coronavirus epidemic, not from paid sick leave. I just want
to be very clear that this was related to what is going on
right now and I think we can expect to see that ripple effect
across. It is not related to paid sick leave. It is related to
people not going to businesses and people holding onto money
because there isn't enough money because they are working or
they can't work.
I think that is our job in Congress and would agree with my
colleague, Ms. Omar, who just talked about our responsibility
to workers. And I am happy that this week we will be passing
something to do just that, to make it so people can take off a
month, if needed, to quarantine and to take care of family
members if affected, and that we will help with unemployment,
as well.
There has been a lot of talk about small businesses and a
particular toll on small businesses with this. And so the first
thing I just want to say is that I don't think that 7 days of
paid sick leave is at all generous. I think that is a bare
minimum. And, frankly, I think that is the least we can do for
our workers, whether we are a large corporation or a small
business, that this really should be the floor.
And before we get too wrapped up into talking about how
this is hard for small businesses, I wanted to maybe highlight
some of the ways this is really good for small businesses who
only have a few employees. And if one comes to work sick and
gets two others sick, what that would mean.
So I wonder, Ms. Goldman, could you talk first about some
of the benefits to a small business?
Ms. Goldman. Sure. I mean, the lack of paid sick days laws
encourages presenteeism, or going to work sick. If workers
can't afford to stay home because then they don't have
groceries and rent payment, they are going to come to work sick
and, as you know, could potentially make their colleagues sick
or make the public sick and spread it, which is going to, as I
believe Ms. Johnson noted, have economic impacts on the
business, as well.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. And we have seen some of that in
Washington State, in King County. This is sort of the epicenter
of the coronavirus epidemic right now that workers in a nursing
home came to work probably because they did not--I don't know
about their situations, but feeling pressure to work because
without work they don't get paid. And one of those workers also
moonlights at another nursing care facility, and so we are now
seeing it pop up in that one, which I think highlights the
public health interest and also the personal interest in having
those paid sick days.
I also wanted to just answer our ranking member talked
about why in the world would there be a requirement for small
businesses with fewer than 15 people to have mandatory unpaid
sick days off? And I just wanted to clarify that the reason it
is there is that people otherwise would get fired if they took
sick days. And so I just want to be clear that there is a very
good reason even if they are not paid.
Next, I wanted to talk a little bit about kind of the
social implications. Who is most affected in a population by
not having paid sick leave? Is it women? Is it low-income
people, minorities? Highlight who that would be and whether
they have children for me, please.
Dr. Glynn. Sure. So we know it is the most vulnerable
workers are the ones who are the least likely to have access to
paid sick days, so that is folks who are learning--earning low
wages. That overlaps a lot with people who are working in the
service sector. And we know, if you look at who those workers
are, they are disproportionately likely to be women and women
of color, many of whom are raising families.
I think it is also important to note that people without
access to paid sick days are more likely to fall into poverty.
They are more likely to experience food insecurity. And they
are more likely to need to apply for and receive public
benefits as a result of their economic instability and
insecurity in their lives.
So having paid sick days, I think we often talk about the
cost of these policies, but there is also a cost to not having
these policies. And I think we are seeing that very much in the
public health sphere right now, but there are economic and
interpersonal certainly, as well, and costs that are being paid
right now. But it is usually the workers who are paying those
costs of not having a benefit like paid sick days.
Dr. Schrier. And I am out of time, but it is also society
because when you can't go to the doctor during the workday and
you go to the emergency room at night, and it is charity care
we all pay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I
remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice,
materials for submission for 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 subcommittee or an invited
witness may submit materials for inclusion in the record.
Documents are limited to 50 pages each, no longer. A longer
than 50-page documents will be incorporated into the record via
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 the witnesses for their
participation today. What we have heard is valuable. Members of
the subcommittee may have additional questions for you and we
ask that the witnesses to 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 our distinguished ranking member for his
closing statement.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have just read a
political article that has come out in the last few hours that
says that Speaker Pelosi and Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin are
working together on an expanded response to the COVID-19 crisis
and it would include this topic. That is the way you do this,
in a bipartisan fashion. That is how we passed an $8 billion
appropriations bill last week to address this. You do it by
working together. You don't do it by having a completely
partisan bill. So I am hopeful that conversation between the
two of them will yield something that we can all get behind
because that is the way we solve this.
But I am mindful of something Rahm Emanuel said when he was
chief of staff to President Obama in 2009. He said you never
let a serious crisis go to waste. I am afraid some of us are
doing that here. We are trying to use this crisis to get
something that is really not directly related to it.
Look, paid leave is a good thing. It is a good thing. That
is why 75 percent of small businesses offer and 80 percent of
all businesses offer it, because it is a good thing for their
employees, it is a good thing for the business. But it is not
possible for every business. And maybe there are ways we can
help them get there, which we thought we were doing and I think
we did achieve to some extent with the tax reform bill. And I
want to do that, I want to help businesses get to the point
where it is a good thing for all of them in all circumstances.
Unfortunately, some of our small businesses, when they have
to make decisions, their margins are razor thin. And they make
a bad decision and it means they shut down their business and
everybody in that business loses their job. So we are highly
dependent in this country on literally hundreds of thousands of
small businesses to make the right decision so that they don't
close down and we don't lose the jobs that they have got.
I was there advising small businesses during the passage of
the Americans With Disabilities Act and the passage of the
Family Medical Leave Act. The enormous burdens that we put on a
lot of those businesses, I don't think any of us in Congress or
people in Congress at that time had a clue what it was doing to
those small businesses. We have to keep them in mind in what we
are doing here and one size does not fit all.
Now, don't just ask me that. Go back and read the words of
the people that founded this country and put together our
Constitution. They understood that this was going to be a very
diverse continental nation and they set a government in place
to allow for that diversity, to allow for that flexibility. It
has worked pretty well for almost 250 years. I think we can
continue to let it go.
And so let me just say this about implementation and
enforcement. I have been there for implementation and
enforcement. That is where you run people out of business. I
have seen it happen over and over and over again.
Implementation and enforcement can be a good thing where
government is working with businesses to help them get to a
desired result or it can be a dagger in the heart. And too
often, we are the dagger in the heart.
And I tell people all the time if you are a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. If you are a regulator,
everything looks like it needs to be regulated to death. We
have got to find a happy medium here and we are not doing a
very good job of it.
So I am looking forward to seeing, Madam Chairman, whatever
comes out of the work between Speaker Pelosi and Secretary
Mnuchin.
And while I am on that topic I totally agree with the
speaker saying we should be here doing our work. I am glad we
are here doing our work. We should be modeling for the rest of
the country what we should be doing in a cautious, but totally
realistic fashion. And I hope that her work with Secretary
Mnuchin can produce a piece of legislation that you and I and
everybody in Congress can get behind.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. I certainly agree with
you. And if we weren't here doing our work, we would probably
still be getting paid, but, you know, we have got to think
about everybody else, as well. So I am glad that discussion is
going on.
I recognize myself now for the purpose of my closing
statement. Today's hearing confirmed that we have long known
the lack of access to paid sick leave in this country poses a
significant threat to our economy, our businesses, our workers,
and our public health. To tackle the paid--the rapid spread of
infectious diseases, such as the coronavirus, we must learn
from the lessons of past health crises and ensure that workers
have access to paid sick days now to protect themselves, their
families, and our Nation. The committee will pursue legislation
to immediately protect workers' health and economic security.
But as our witnesses reminded us today, this issue is not
just about combatting global health crises when they arise.
Allowing more workers to earn and take paid sick days means
that workers will not have to decide between their paychecks
and their family's health. And that is life-changing for so
many of our constituents, including the people of my district.
Katherine Austin, a working mom in my district, said this,
and I quote, ``I have never once had a job that offered even
unpaid sick days. It is rough knowing that if I call out of
work for being sick or for needing to take care of my sick
child, I can lose my job. I've had to wait tables while
vomiting and running a fever because my employer told me I had
to come in or I would be fired. I've passed out while working
because of dehydration from vomiting. I've had to keep my sick
child at home with me because his daycare sent him home with a
fever, but my boss said they would fire me if I stayed home
with him. Why should we have to choose between our health and
keeping our jobs.''
Katherine Austin represents millions of workers across the
country who need Congress to act. We must pass the Healthy
Families Act and finally establish workers' rights to earn the
paid sick days they need to care for themselves, their
families, and their communities.
And before we adjourn, I ask unanimous consent to submit
into the record a letter led by the National Partnership for
Women and Families and signed by over 130 organizations urging
Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act. I would also like to
submit the story of Lauren Melton, who needed time off to care
for her sick mother and lost her job as a result. Without
objection.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]