Kudos to Diane for her keen sense of timing!

Aflac!!!

Typically socialistic and French, we don't need it. People who can't be motivated to get back to work despite terminally ill parents, say, or babies, deserve to starve.

I guess we could pay for this out of some of that proposed new beer tax.

Otherwise, I don't know where we're supposed to get the money for all this (short of talking about fleecing "the rich" for "the common good" yet again).

It great news that lawmakers have the opportunity this spring to approve paid family leave, a worker-funded insurance program that would cost pennies per paycheck.Thanks for highlighting this, Kari!

It'd be a great leap forward to support Oregon employees and businesses this way. Serious illnesses are always unexpected and pregnancies often so. Making a family leave insurance program available to Oregon's workers and businesses is an effective, employee-paid way to help workers care responsibly for family members. Dying parents and newborn babies (who are sometimes premature and/or sick) need family care - paid professionals are usually not the answer, from both a human and financial perspective.

When I used every single hour of sick leave I had to unexpectedly care for my aging father a year ago (he didn't want paid help!), getting along with 2 kids under 5 in a 2-working-parent HH was a stressful balancing act. Not because I take a lot of sick time - far from it. But because one doctor's appointment, one sick child with a cold - let along something worse - required unpaid leave - if it was approved.

As one of only 4 countries on the planet that doesn't offer paid family leave, it's pretty clear that this is something the U.S. has wrong, not right. Unless we're arrogant enough to think the opposite? I'm sure there are some who do.

In my sandwich-generation opinion (2 kids under 6, 4 far away parents in their 70s), this is a good thing and I'd very much like to see it here in Oregon.

I completely agree with LFrack. It'd be a great leap forward to support Oregon employees and businesses this way. Serious illnesses are always unexpected and pregnancies often so. Making a family leave insurance program available to Oregon's workers and businesses is an effective, employee-paid way to help workers care responsibly for family members.

A "lifeline" indeed. Especially for the 51% of private-sector workers who do not have a single paid sick day through their jobs. They are left no option but to take unpaid time - often forcing them to choose between caring for their family OR providing for them.

In the end, employee-funded programs like this one cost us all far less than the alternative! Family care is far cheaper than home health care by nurses - and better for families.

Why not support programs that allow workers needed time off so they can care for a new baby or deal with a family crisis and then return to work? Paid family leave has been shown to improve employee retention, especially among new mothers. For new parents, programs like this one cost us all far less than TANF and food stamps - often the alternative for many. Let's make an investment in Oregon's workers!

With prices that low, why not let employers have the option to contribute as well, making 12 weeks available if needed. It certainly would not be a grave financial burden to any employer who chose to do so.

Something is not being appropriately addressed in this situation. A woman could get 12 weeks for her newly born child and an additional 12 weeks for her own serious medical condition under FMLA. This might not work for folks under 50 employees or for the care of the newborn and care of elderly scenario--as far as I know, but it is possible to get access to more than 12 weeks under current law.

@John:It will add to labor costs and ultimately come from employee wages whether directly or indirectly.

workers in companies with at least 25 employees would pay 2 cents per hour into a self-sustaining fund.

As I read that statement, it IS coming from employees.

Every US citizen purports to value family – its way past time to put our dollars where our mouths are!

Frankly it's just embarrassing to be the last industrialized nation without paid family leave!

In the words of Dennis Kucinich at the DNC, “Wake up America!”

Sen. Rosenbaum has been thoughtful, diligent, creative and unabashedly dogged in developing this proposal and building support for it. Our workers and their families need this kind of coverage. The current Family Medical Leave Act only requires that companies with 25 or more employees not fire workers who need to take time off after the birth (or adoption) of a child or for extended caregiving for a child, spouse or parent. Current law does not require or equip companies to pay workers for such family leave. Sen. Rosenbaum's proposal creates an insurance pool (modeled after the unemployment insurance program). Workers themselves pay into the pool. As currently proposed, employers do not. Within the limits described, workers who pay in are eligible for up to $300 per week for up to 6 weeks. Clearly this doesn't completely replace full time wages or salary, but for many families, this could be the single biggest factor allowing new parents to actually take advantage of the leave available under FMLA. At last: a program where the workers who get the most out of it are the middle- and lower income folks. So employers are not asked to chip in, but they still benefit by have a more stable, healthy and emotionally committed work force. Bravo, Diane!

@John:Initially this will be an employer tax at most companies,although some may deduct it from employee pay checks.

Why should this item be any different from any other payroll withholding item. I withhold insurance contributions, association fees, etc from them every two weeks. Why wouldn't I withhold the $1.60 and remit it to the appropriate agency.

Well, I'm not against the idea in principle - IF the scope of benefits and costs can be contained... But past history leaves me dubious.

More fine print: Unlike the workers' compensation program, there would be no additional costs for employers.

Maybe not compensation costs to the employer for the program, but there are costs associated with figuring out how to cover for the person while they are out... be it hiring/training a replacement, paying overtime, etc.

Oregon lawmakers have the opportunity this spring to approve paid family leave, a worker-funded insurance program that would cost pennies per paycheck.

It STARTS as a worker-funded insurance program costing pennies per paycheck. But costs will increase (a state-administered program, remember...) and then there will be calls for increased benefits (only $300 a week?) - 'pennies per paycheck' no more. And then how soon will it be until we hear the costs of the program disproportionately impacts low-wage workers? You know where I'm going with this...

As Brian C. notes, there is insurance for this.

This is an excellent idea. Unfotuntately, some believe that there is currently commercial insurance like AFLAC available for this. There is not. Even if it were available it would cost so much as to be unaffordable for the potential $330/week for 6 weeks annually.

My only concern is that the fund established be done so with careful consideration to the costs of managing and maintaining the benefit. I also would be against any new administrative positions for this fund. Assuming then that the process would be handled through the existing set up through the state unemployment fund.

I hope that employers with less than 25 employees are allowed to sign up. Heck, I'd pay for it myself for my 19 employee. Imagine the cheap benefits I'd be able to offer to attract better workers, that alone would force my competitors to sign up as well.

Which brings up the political problem.....insurance companies are going to fight this tooth and nail. Imagine what will happen when if we find out that a government insurance program is much cheaper than a privately available program because there's no commissions, marketing, private jets, multi million dollar salaries and advertising costs. If this works, what's next???? Single payer Health care????

There is a white elephant in the room. Will workers stay out longer with pay than without pay, even when all becomes better at home? Who will verify the problem still exists? If misused, will there be enough for the legitimate claims?

This is just another handout to married people who will enjoy yet another benefit not shared by their single colleagues to the same extent.

Roy sez...

Will workers stay out longer with pay than without pay, even when all becomes better at home?

Er, staying home longer is a benefit--aka, a GOOD thing! That's why paid leave is better than unpaid--because it means that people can afford to take more leave!

Parents who have better paying family leave benefits have healthier children, are healthier themselves and are more productive and need to take less time off when they do return to work. Family leave is GOOD for families and therefore good for companies that want their employees to be happy, healthy, productive and loyal.

By way of comparison, France offers 16-26 weeks, Germany provides 14 weeks, Italy gives 5 months and Sweden gives 15 months (for either parent)! All paid at between 75-100% salary.

And despite predictions to the contrary, the sky has not fallen in those countries, or in our own neighboring state of California.

Jaybeat, when this new "benefit" was earlier described by Kari he recounted examples for such things as, "husband suffers a heart attack. Your baby's due any minute. Your elderly mom needs hospice care". So my question was, will there be enough funds for people with those issues if others simply use the time to "bond" with family? We would all like to do more of that, but is it realistic?

I'd support it if those of us who are self employed could participate for ourselves, especially people like myself - self employed sole proprietors with no employees. People like myself don't have any kind of safety net at all. As someone who has an elderly parent, I'd gladly pay 80 cents/week for the kind of insurance that would allow me to take care of my father if he needed it.

Having 2 businesses, I'd gladly pay $1.60/week even. I normally work over 40 hours/week anyway between the two.

They need to make sure that all employees can opt in to the program and that self employed business owners can as well. This is a great program, so let's not limit who has access to it.

Er, staying home longer is a benefit--aka, a GOOD thing! That's why paid leave is better than unpaid--because it means that people can afford to take more leave!

If they really could afford it, would there have to be a program? And if people can't afford something separately, can they really afford it collectively? Is there a free lunch after all?

And despite predictions to the contrary, the sky has not fallen in those countries, or in our own neighboring state of California.

You might want to take a second look at California.

Something is not being appropriately addressed in this situation. A woman could get 12 weeks for her newly born child and an additional 12 weeks for her own serious medical condition under FMLA. This might not work for folks under 50 employees or for the care of the newborn and care of elderly scenario--as far as I know, but it is possible to get access to more than 12 weeks under current law.

The FMLA provides for UNPAID leave. UNPAID. I know. I've had occasion to use it.

Here is a nice web page summarizing parental leave in countries around the world. We're down there in the troglodyte league, folks.

This is just another handout to married people who will enjoy yet another benefit not shared by their single colleagues to the same extent.

Yeah. And health benefits are just another handout not shared by people without health benefits.

Let's speed up that race to the bottom, folks. And while we're at it, I propose we re-establish the USA as a monarchy with landed nobles. That way when the Ultimate GOP Dream comes true and we're bowing and scraping to our betters, we'll already be in the habit of addressing them as M'Lord and M'Lady.

Sorry to be the stick in the mud, but as a supervisor of employees I hate these leave provisions for the simple reason that if the company can do without you for 12 weeks, they can probably do without you permenantly.

Mrs. Todd makes a good point. Maybe businesses could buy into this program as well as a way of paying for the temp worker they have to bring in.

Idler sez:

If they really could afford it, would there have to be a program? And if people can't afford something separately, can they really afford it collectively?

I guess you'll be OK building your own highway to get to work on. And no Social Security for you--if you can't support yourself in your old age, then we can't really afford to keep you alive, either.

Posted by: Union Rebel Girl | Feb 16, 2009 7:36:16 PM

Every US citizen purports to value family – its way past time to put our dollars where our mouths are!

I don't. Funny, "wake up", as opposed to sleep. You have genes that tell you to value family. Is doing what they tell you an awake choice, or sleepwalking? At least you gave a heads-up with "Union Rebel". Hate to totally confound the logic, but I would gladly pay for the benefit and would like to have seen Kucinich be the Party's nominee. We would not be second guessing his cabinet picks.

Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but the only time I feel like I've come face to face with true evil has been dealing with the Catholic Church or what someone's family member has done to/for them, just because they're family. Family is an excuse to not have to live up to the standards you would expect of a stranger. Family means giving consideration to people that you wouldn't normally, based on the situation, "just because". Family is an excuse to let yourself go, content that you don't have to date and earn respect anymore. Family is an undeserved leg up. Haven't you had enough of the Bush crime family to realize how much society gets saddled with, just because someone is a member of a family?

The bill is about reducing hardship and making companies more viable. Could we keep it to that?

Seems as though $.02 is worth it!