If the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Commerce and Labor approves a proposed three-year pilot program, the Bay State’s working parents may have the chance to take the edge off parental leave.
Sen. Stephen Lynch (D-Suffolk), a sponsor of a parental leave bill, presided yesterday over a related hearing at the State House.
If passed, the bill would provide up to 12 weeks of unemployment benefits to parents of newborns and newly adopted children. The bill would pay new parents about half of their average weekly wage, up to $477 a week. Requirements that an individual be “actively seeking work” to receive unemployment benefits would be waived in this situation.
Although there is no precedent for this program, Rhode Island has a state-funded plan to provide paid parental leave. Anyone age 16 and over working in Rhode Island pays 1.4 percent of their wages into a special disability fund. Some of this money is used to provide paid parental leave — six weeks for a vaginal birth and eight weeks for a Caesarean birth, with longer leaves available in the event of complications.
Jack King, Director of the Massachusetts Division of Employment and Training, testified against the bill in its current form. He presented estimates showing the program would cost about $75 million a year, and he said unemployment funds should not pay for it. Three analysts calculated this cost based on around 28,000 program participants who took eight weeks of paid leave at $280 per week.
“I have difficulty believing there would be a rush among Massachusetts women to collect 280 dollars a week,” Lynch said.
King said the benefit would mostly be for people who presently don’t have paid leave or only half-paid leave.
He also said there is a need to find an alternative funding source because the unemployment fund is only set up for those who lose their jobs and need assistance.
“I am not against leave per se, but I am concerned with the cost to the unemployment trust fund,” he said.
Because family leave policies often differ based on the number of employees at a company, Lynch asked what size company King’s analysts used to generate their figures.
“We had to use all employers because unemployment insurance benefits have to sweep across all business sizes,” King replied.
A three-person panel — comprised of union, women’s rights and religious representatives — testified in favor of the bill.
Kathleen Casavant, Massachusetts AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer, testified that the bill would not be harmful to businesses.
Casavant said the Cellucci-Swift administration and the business community have continually tried to cut employers’ trust fund contributions, even when the fund ran a negative balance. She called business owners’ present concern for protecting the trust fund “hypocritical.”
She countered King’s cost estimate by saying the plan would cost between $32-43 million.
Melissa Kogut, Executive Director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League, stressed the extra importance of parental involvement in the development of babies and newly adopted children.
“[The bill] will promote real reproductive choice by supporting parents in their decision to have a baby or adopt a child,” she said.
Kogut stated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which entitles many workers to unpaid leave, does not help families that cannot afford to lose wages.
She testified the estimated cost of $1.25 per worker per week is “far outweighed by the value of healthy families.” Parent-child relationships would benefit from the program, as would the employers of more satisfied workers, she said.
Gerry D’Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, testified that “it is tragic to lead women to believe they have to choose between work and a family.”
When asked why a period of three years was chosen for the trial, Casavant said the time frame would account for a year of slow activity and two years in which appropriate data could be collected.
Eileen McAnneny, Vice President of Legislative Services for the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, opposes the bill.
“It would be especially harmful because the economy appears to be slowing down,” said McAnneny, who also called the program “nonsensical.”
She said the unemployment fund should only provide benefits for those who have been laid off and are actively seeking employment.
Lynch said the program needs to help as many families as possible and provide a real benefit.
“There has been a hidden cost among families and this would provide some relief,” he said.
However, Lynch said he also wants to give the business community a level of comfort. He added that a pilot program was a good approach to this because of such great ranges in cost estimates.
“I hope it is something we could absorb,” he said.
Lynch also emphasized the need for a “release valve” so that in the event of failure, the unemployment fund would be kept from risk.
“I’m trying to build some type of compromise,” he said.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
