U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–615 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 113–837 

ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WORKING WOMEN: 

A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WORKING WOMEN 

MAY 20, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

DEREK MILLER, Staff Director 

LAUREN MCFERRAN, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions, opening statement ............................................................................... 1 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3 

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............ 55 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 56 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ...... 58 

Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........ 59 

Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 60 

Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin .................. 62 

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ................... 63 

WITNESSES

Tanden, Neera, President, Center for American Progress, Washington, DC ..... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Bravo, Ellen, Executive Director, Family Values at Work, Milwaukee, WI ....... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Graves, Fatima Goss, Vice President for Education and Employment, National Women’s Law Center, Washington, DC .................................................. 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Legros, Armanda, Low-Wage Worker, Jamaica Estates, NY ............................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Traub, Amy, Senior Policy Analyst, De ̄mos, New York, NY ................................ 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Pelletier, Lori, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Connecticut State Federation 

of Labor, Rocky Hill, CT ...................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Troy, Gayle E., SPHR, Human Resource Manager, Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC, Pittsfield, NH .................................................................................... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Riner, Rhea Lana, President, Rhea Lana’s, Inc., Conway, AR ............................ 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Letter from Debra L. Ness, President, on behalf of the National Partnership for Women & Families ......................................................................... 75 

Attachment 1.—Coalition Letter in Support of the Healthy Families 

Act ........................................................................................................... 76 

Attachment 2.—Coalition Letter in Support of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act) .............................................. 80 

Response to questions of Senator Harkin by: 

Ellen Bravo ................................................................................................ 89 

Rhea Lana Riner ....................................................................................... 90 

(III) 

(IV) 

Response to questions of Senator Alexander by: 

Neera Tanden ............................................................................................ 90 

Ellen Bravo ................................................................................................ 91 

Fatima Goss Graves .................................................................................. 92 

Amy Traub ................................................................................................. 93 

Lori Pelletier .............................................................................................. 94 

(1) 

ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WORKING WOMEN: 

A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Alexander, Mikulski, Murray, Casey, 

Franken, Baldwin, Murphy, and Warren. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. Today’s hearing is 

on Economic Security for Working Women, and we’re having sort 

of a roundtable. It doesn’t look round. But if we set it up that way, 

we wouldn’t have any room for the audience. So we decided to go 

ahead and set it up like a normal hearing, although I want it more 

like a roundtable discussion. 

If anyone asks a question of the group, and if you want to answer, just turn your name thing on edge or something like that 

so—you know, we may have a question and just throw it out, and 

whoever wants to answer it just put your name thing up. 

America’s working women have made incredible strides in the 

workplace. As women succeed, America succeeds, and our economy 

succeeds. But huge challenges remain. Too many working women 

are stuck in poor quality and low-wage jobs living at or near poverty and struggling to make ends meet. 

In addition, even as women have entered the workforce, they’re 

still usually the primary caregivers for children and elders. Yet our 

workplaces have not kept up with the changing times. Most women 

do not have access to the supports they need to be successful workers and caregivers. 

Here I’ll diverge a little bit. When my wife and I, right after she 

got elected—my wife was elected before I was. She was elected as 

a district attorney in Iowa and went over to the courthouse. We 

had a child not long after that—Amy. I was here in Washington. 

I had been elected to Congress. And Ruth had to go—my wife had 

to go to the courthouse every day, of course, where she worked in 

the courthouse. 

Two things happened. The first time that she showed up pregnant, the judge asked her who was going to try her cases. Pregnant 

2 

women didn’t appear in courtrooms. That was forbidden. Anyway, 

she got over that, and we had Amy. 

She cleaned out a broom closet in her office to make a place for 

a crib, a little bassinet and that kind of thing, and took her to work 

with her every day and nursed. We believed very strongly in nursing. That raised a lot of eyebrows and a lot of questions in the 

courthouse in Nevada, IA, about someone bringing a baby to work 

and nursing—heaven forbid—when you come to work. 

We’ve often thought about that. But, of course, my wife could do 

that. She was an elected official. But we often thought, ‘‘What if 

she worked for somebody else and tried to do that?’’ So I often 

think of my wife as a trail blazer in that regard, because ever since 

then, women who work in the courthouse and who have children 

are more than welcome to bring their kids to work and nurse, with 

nursing facilities and pump rooms and refrigeration. That’s what 

it ought to be like all over America. These are just the kinds of 

support systems we need all over America. 

As I continue on that line, pregnancy presents many challenges. 

More and more pregnant women must work throughout their pregnancies, and sometimes they risk losing their jobs despite existing 

legal protections, or they face problems of basic accommodations. 

Someone standing on her feet all day, sometimes at a minimum 

wage job, might need a stool to sit on for a little while, or maybe 

more frequent bathroom breaks, things like that. 

They are denied such accommodations, and it forces a woman to 

choose between her health and her comfort on her job. Again, many 

women working have no access to any caregiving leave, like maternity leave, at all. Most lack access to any kind of paid leave. 

Forty percent of workers still are not covered by the Family and 

Medical Leave Act. A women who gives birth or needs to care for 

a parent and has no FMLA protections can lose her job for missing 

work. Even women who are fortunate enough to be covered by the 

FMLA are often forced to return to work too soon, because they 

simply can’t afford to take the unpaid leave that the Family and 

Medical Leave Act provides. I may be mistaken on this, but I think 

we’re one of the few industrialized countries that don’t have paid 

maternity leave. 

We have some real problems out there we need to address, and 

especially as it concerns women in the workplace. And, as I said, 

this is not just a thing where women say, ‘‘Well, I just want to go 

to work.’’ People have to work, and we have so many single mothers out there that have to work and care for children. 

It seems to me that we ought to be about trying to change and 

make accommodations to make this possible. It’s not impossible. 

It’s not a stretch. It doesn’t cost a lot of money. But it makes life 

tolerable and it makes it possible for women to both be caregivers 

and to work. 

That’s what this hearing is about. We know that there have been 

successful policies around the country to help do this, and the businesses that I’ve come across that do these things have more loyal 

workers. People tend to stay there longer, because they know that 

they’ll have the ability to take leave for a child, either for birth or 

for sickness or illness. 

3 

Today’s roundtable will begin with a lot of distinguished panelists to tell us about the experiences of today’s working women and 

what we need to do to help working women achieve more economic 

security and stability in our society. 

With that, I’ll turn to Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Senator Harkin. I welcome 

those of you who have come today. Mr. Chairman and Senator Mikulski, I’ve said that I used to sit down there when I was education 

secretary, and I thought the Senators played a big trick on the witnesses by sitting them in low chairs and all of us in high chairs 

up here to make us appear more imposing. We’re looking forward 

to hearing what you have to say. 

The subject of the hearing is working women, and I think the 

more accurate way to say it is women who not only work at home 

but work outside the home. I would like to suggest that the two 

things that we should address are, No. 1, more jobs for women who 

want to work outside the home; and, No. 2, more flexibility for 

women who work outside the home, because, most likely, they’re 

doing quite a bit of work at home as well. 

On the first point, without reciting the statistics, we’ve had a 

tough 4 or 5 years in terms of jobs. The great recession, unemployment rates still 6.3 percent—that’s 10 million people. More than a 

third of those are longtime unemployed, many of them women. And 

the unemployment situation is worse when you consider that 7.3 

million Americans who want to work full-time have had to take 

part-time jobs. Workforce participation is at the lowest rate in 35 

years. 

I hope during the hearing we’ll talk about ways to create more 

jobs. For example, one way to create more jobs would be to give the 

President more trade authority so we could ship more goods from 

Tennessee and Iowa and Maryland and Pennsylvania overseas and 

create more jobs at home. The President has asked for that, but the 

Democratic Majority Leader won’t bring it up. 

Another way we could create more jobs is to approve the Keystone Pipeline. There are a whole series of proposals that would 

create an environment in the United States that would liberate the 

free enterprise system to create more jobs. 

A recent example of that was something that had a lot of bipartisan support. It was called the Jobs Act. It provided regulatory relief for new startup companies. I helped start a company myself 

one time that made its way to the NASDAQ stock exchange. It’s 

a treacherous time, those first few years of a startup, and you don’t 

need extra obstacles. 

What happened, according to AOL co-founder, Steve Case, was 

that the Jobs Act provided relief for companies that enabled a 70 

percent increase in initial public offerings this year. Mr. Case said 

Congress should be reducing more regulatory red tape and moving 

on to other laws to encourage business growth, like immigration reform. 

There are many things we could do to create more jobs. Sometimes the debate here in this committee and in the Congress is between what I would call the mandaters, those who see a need and 

4 

say, ‘‘Well, we can tell you what to do,’’ and those who see a need 

and say, ‘‘Well, we will empower or enable you to do those things.’’ 

Anyone who’s been in business or is in business—and we’ll hear 

from some today—knows that there are plenty of mandates already. I talked to a franchisee group that owns 20 fast food restaurants in this area. They employ more than 500 people. Of 

course, they start out paying 6.2 percent FICA taxes. That’s social 

security and Medicare. 

Then they have a menu labeling mandate—sounds like a good thing, but it costs each restaurant $1,000. Those in DC have paid 

sick leave mandates—sounds like a good thing. That’s a DC requirement. That costs them another $600,000. And with the implementation of the new healthcare law, they’ll go from a healthcare 

cost in the company of about $100,000 to $1 million if they opt out 

and pay the penalty, and between a half million and a million and 

a half dollars if they decide to participate in it. 

Almost every time we impose new mandates, we run the risk of 

destroying jobs. We had a debate here and continue to have it— 

I guess we’ll have it all year until election day—about the so-called 

minimum wage. We had the Congressional Budget Office Director 

Doug Elmendorf sit right there in front of us and say the proposal 

to increase the minimum wage before the committee would destroy 

500,000 jobs. And now we are here talking about jobs and better 

jobs for women. 

Why would we want to pass something that would destroy 

500,000 jobs, especially when the CBO testimony also found that 

80 percent of the benefits would go to people above the poverty 

level? The mandaters versus the enablers and empowerers is a big 

part of our discussion. I would hope we could agree on more flexibility after we create more jobs. 

I mentioned the company I helped to start, which enabled corporate-sponsored childcare for employees. It was in the 1980s, and 

it provided an opportunity for parents, to take the child to work 

and have a safe place for that child. It has grown and merged with 

its competitor and become the Bright Horizons Company. 

What I learned in that setting was that many women value as 

much flexibility as possible, because their days were very difficult. 

I’ve offered an amendment to permit employers and employees to 

voluntarily negotiate compensation and benefits that provide flexibility, and I’ve opposed proposals that would restrict that kind of 

flexibility. 

Other Senators have introduced bills to allow private sector employees to have the same flexibility that Federal employees have, 

when they basically swap paid time off—they have paid time off instead of overtime pay. I am focused and listening for answers on 

how we can create an environment that will produce more jobs, not 

fewer. My feeling is that the more mandates we have, the fewer 

jobs we’ll create. 

Second, I’m looking for creative proposals that would permit employees and employers to agree upon more flexibility, especially for 

women who work outside the home, so that they can balance all 

of the things that they have to balance. So I welcome the discussion and look forward to your comments, and I thank the chairman 

for the hearing. 

5 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander. 

Now I’ll introduce our panel. First, let me say that all of your 

statements will be made a part of the record in their entirety. 

What we’ll do is we’ll go from my left to right, and if you could just 

make a 2-minute statement or something like that—I know that’s 

short, but we’d rather get into a discussion with you. And then 

rather than us having 5-minute rounds, what I’m going to do is recognize everyone to ask one question, and then we’ll just see how 

many rounds we can go asking questions at that point in time. 

On my left is Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress; Ellen Bravo, who is director of the Family Values at 

Work Consortium; Fatima Goss Graves, vice president for Education and Employment at the National Women’s Law Center; 

Armanda Legros, a low-wage worker in New York City who was 

fired from her job when she was pregnant. We look forward to 

hearing from you. 

And we have Amy Traub, senior policy analyst at De ̄mos; Lori 

Pelletier, executive secretary-treasurer, Connecticut State Federation of Labor; Gayle E. Troy, human resource manager, Globe Manufacturing Company; Rhea Lana Riner, Rhea Lana’s, Inc., of 

Conway, AR. So thank you all for being here and for your participation. 

Like I said, we’ll just start with Ms. Tanden. If you could sum 

up in a couple of minutes the main points you want to make, then 

we’ll open it for discussion. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR 

AMERICAN PROGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. TANDEN. Thank you, Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander, for the invitation to testify today. My name is Neera 

Tanden. I am president of the Center for American Progress. 

As Chairman Harkin said, the American workforce has changed 

dramatically. While it used to be rare for mothers to work outside 

the home, today women make up nearly half the workforce, and 

more than 6 in 10 women are breadwinners or co-breadwinners. 

These are enormous demographic shifts, and, frankly, our workplace policies need to keep up with them. 

Economic progress depends on public policies that acknowledge 

the changes in our workforce. The national policy has been very 

slow to keep up. In two-parent households, women are often the 

primary caregiver in their families. Yet women, particularly lowincome women and women of color, go to work each day without 

the protections they need to balance work and family responsibilities or ensure they are paid fairly. There are mothers today who 

face the terrible choice of sending a sick child to school because 

they can’t pay their rent if they lose out on simply a day’s work. 

I believe these policies are family friendly policies, because they 

allow mothers and fathers to be good parents and good workers. 

Among the public policy solutions that would empower women to 

meet their full potential are paid sick days, paid family leave, pay 

equity, a higher minimum wage, affordable early childcare, and 

universal Pre-K. I would agree that jobs are a significant issue, and 

I would remind the committee that there was a jobs package that 

really focused on the teaching profession, which is, as we know, 

6 

disproportionately held by women, and that package, unfortunately, did not pass the Senate. But that would have been a jobs 

package that really, really helped women. 

I believe we need to have policies that strengthen our families, 

our workplaces, our economy, and our Nation, and that these policies can do so. We see in California a paid leave policy that helps 

families and does not hurt the bottom line. Businesses have reported that they support those policies. These are policies that help 

companies help workers and help our economy. 

Thank you all very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tanden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NEERA TANDEN

Thank you Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the 

committee for the invitation to testify today. 

My name is Neera Tanden, and I am president of the Center for American 

Progress. CAP is an independent, nonpartisan educational institute dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through progressive ideas and action. At CAP, 

we believe that a robust and growing middle class is vitally important to growing 

a stronger, more resilient economy and a more competitive future. To do this, we 

know that we need workplaces that make full use of our Nation’s talent to ensure 

that every worker—man or woman—has a fair chance to succeed. 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

If we want a thriving economy that works for all Americans, strengthens our businesses, and makes our Nation more competitive on the global stage, we have to 

start with a clear understanding of today’s workplace and the changing workforce. 

The reality is that workplaces—and the people who work in them—are changing. 

Fifty years after groundbreaking laws like the Equal Pay Act helped usher in a new 

era of opportunity for women in the workplace, more women are working than ever 

before. 

While it used to be rare for mothers to work outside the home, today, women 

make up nearly half the workforce. But this demographic shift has enormous implications for how our workplaces operate and for our overall economic growth. More 

than 6 in 10 women are breadwinners or co-breadwinners for their families, yet 

women, on average, continue to earn less than their male counterparts. This gap 

is even larger for women of color, who are more likely to be stuck in minimum-wage 

jobs.1

Our workplace culture and national policy have been slow to adapt. Even in twoparent households, women are often the primary caregivers in their families, with 

the main responsibility for providing, coordinating, or securing care. And although 

there are clearly some employers who have adopted progressive policies, too many 

women—and men—continue to work in environments without the protections they 

need to balance work and family responsibilities or ensure that they are paid fairly 

for their work. 

If we want real economic progress, we need policies that respond to the everyday 

challenges facing the diverse group of women who are part of today’s economy, particularly those women who too often get ignored. 

WHY WOMEN’S WORK MATTERS TO OUR ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

Women’s rapid entry into the workplace during the last three decades of the 20th 

century transformed our country and its labor force. Between 1970 and 2000, the 

percentage of women who work rose from 43.3 percent to 59.9 percent.2 Before the 

Great Recession, more than three-quarters of women worked 35 hours or more per 

week.3 And today, the majority of employed women work full-time. 

Because more women are working, women’s income has become a lynchpin of our 

Nation’s economic success. Today, two-thirds of mothers are breadwinners or cobreadwinners,4 up from slightly more than a quarter of mothers in 1967.5 (See Figure 1. 

7 

But women’s paychecks don’t just contribute to their families’ bottom lines. They 

are also vital for America’s economic growth. 

CONTINUING WOMEN’S ECONOMIC PROGRESS

Over the past four decades, women have made huge economic gains. But those 

gains were unequal. While some women have broken into typically male-dominated 

professions, 43.6 percent of women still work in just 20 types of typically low-paying 

jobs, such as secretary, nurse, teacher, and salesperson, among others.6

Low- and middle-wage, young, and less-educated workers in particular lack access 

to benefits that help balance work and family life. Employers too often view paid 

leave or sick days as perks for higher-paid workers: The lowest quarter of wage 

earners are nearly three times less likely to have access to paid family and medical 

leave than those in the top quarter.7

Women of color are also more likely to lack benefits such as paid leave. Women 

of color are just as likely to work as white women, but twice as likely to work in 

a low-wage sector or the service industry in jobs that don’t offer these middle-class 

benefits.8 This is especially concerning given the additional demographic change 

that is inevitable in the coming decades. 

Women of color will make up 53 percent of the female population by 2050. Hispanic women will lead this growth, increasing from a share of 16.7 percent of the 

female population in 2015 to 25.7 percent in 2050.9

And unequal policy will continue to produce unequal economic gains. It’s bad for 

families, for labor, and for the economy. But policy can—and should—change to 

react to changing demographics. 

FEDERAL POLICIES THAT BENEFIT WORKING WOMEN AND FAMILIES

There are a number of public policy solutions that can make an immediate difference in the lives of working women. At the Federal level, mandating paid sick 

days, paid family and medical leave, and a more flexible workplace, and strengthening pay equity legislation could empower women to meet their full potential. 

Since nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers and 70 percent of tipped minimum-wage workers are women, making the minimum wage a living wage would 

help close the pay gap and lift millions of Americans out of poverty.10


88025-1.eps
8 

Fostering the policies that allow women to be full participants in today’s workforce will boost businesses’ bottom lines and ensure America’s competitiveness in 

the global economy. 

Among the public policy solutions that would empower women to meet their full 

potential are: 

• Paid sick days, as proposed in the Healthy Families Act, and paid family and 

medical leave insurance, as proposed in the Family and Medical Insurance Leave 

Act, or FAMILY Act. 

• Pay equity, as proposed in the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

• High-quality, affordable early childhood education and universal pre-K. 

• A higher minimum wage and tipped minimum wage. 

Let’s examine each of these policies briefly in more detail. 

PAID SICK DAYS, PAID MATERNITY LEAVE, AND PAID FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE

About 100 million private-sector workers lack paid family leave to care for a new 

child or an aging parent.11 Tens of millions more lack access to paid sick leave. 

The United States is the only industrialized nation without a Federal law providing workers access to paid maternity leave, and one of only a few that does not 

offer broader family and medical leave insurance.12 The failure to offer paid leave 

makes the United States an outlier among developed nations.13 In 2013, only 61 

percent of workers had access to paid sick days,14 and only 12 percent of workers 

had access to paid leave to recover from an illness or care for a sick family member.15

As a leading nation, we need to adopt workplace policies that allow both men and 

women to balance the demands of parenthood with the demands of their jobs. But 

this is a make-or-break issue for women. 

Because women continue to be more likely than men to provide care to their families—even when they are employed—they are disproportionately affected by the lack 

of paid leave. Even married mothers take on more family care duties. Compared to 

employed fathers, employed mothers with a child under age 6 spend about 47 more 

minutes per day giving care. And mothers are more likely than fathers to stay home 

with sick children,16 so women disproportionately bear the worry of losing wages or 

even a job because they take time off. 

In fact, the lack of family friendly policies often pushes women out of the workforce altogether. When women have to take unpaid time away from work or drop 

out of the workforce entirely, it affects their wages for the rest of their lives, a factor 

that exacerbates the gender wage gap. Instituting family friendly policies that help 

women balance the dual demands of work and home can help neutralize some of 

the imbalance. 

A whopping 80 percent of low-wage workers lack access to paid sick days,17 and 

40 million Americans struggle with the choice between working while sick and losing a day’s pay.18 A disproportionate number of those workers are people of color. 

From higher levels of unemployment to even lower wages, their struggles highlight 

the need to adopt policies that allow for workplace flexibility. 

Guaranteeing workers access to paid leave and sick days will help families care 

for sick parents and children, a newborn or newly adopted child, or recovery from 

a serious illness without suffering financially. It will increase labor-force participation, employee retention, and lifetime earnings.19 Businesses will be able to attract 

higher-quality workers and reduce absenteeism and tardiness among employees.20

The Healthy Families Act, introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D–IA), would ensure 

workers have access to paid sick days and would no longer have to worry about taking a financial hit if they or their children fall ill.21 This has untold economic benefits. For example, researchers at the University of Virginia found that paid parental 

leave policies actually equate to lower unemployment rates.22

Family and medical leave insurance—also known as paid family leave—would 

allow employees to take temporary leave to recover from illness or care for a sick 

loved one. Introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro 

(D–CT), the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act of 2013, also known as the 

FAMILY Act, would relieve the financial burden of taking unpaid time off, providing 

paid leave for nearly every U.S. worker.23

PAY EQUITY

Today, women make up nearly half of the American workforce.24 Women graduate 

from college at higher rates than men.25 More women are serving in Congress than 

ever before.26 Yet for millions of American women, no amount of hard work will 

bring pay equity with their male peers. 

9 

Women, on average, still take home 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. 

The average American woman makes $11,084 less than her male counterpart per 

year.27 If women working full-time, year round were paid the same for their work 

as comparable men, we would cut the poverty rate for working women and their 

families in half.28

And for women of color, the disparity is even greater. Women of color are twice 

as likely as white, non-Hispanic women to live in poverty. And the wage gap is more 

like a gulf. For every dollar a man makes, white women make 77 cents, AfricanAmerican women take home 64 cents, and Hispanic women take home 55 cents on 

the dollar.29

These differences among women can be attributed to a variety of economic factors, 

including occupational segregation and higher rates of unemployment among women 

of color, which lead to longer gaps in work histories. Wage disparities—even compared to men of color—depress lifetime earnings of women of color even more than 

those of white women. 

When women are shortchanged over the course of a lifetime, the dollars and cents 

add up. Over the course of a 35-year career, a woman with a college degree will 

make an average of $1.2 million less than a man with the same level of education.30

Since the Equal Pay Act was signed 50 years ago, we have made significant 

progress. Back then, women were paid just 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. 

Legislation has narrowed the pay gap, but didn’t close it.31 The Lilly Ledbetter Fair 

Pay Act, the first bill that Barack Obama signed as President, was another important step toward making women full, equal participants in the workforce. 

But if a woman doesn’t know she is underpaid, she can’t take action to close the 

gap. The Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D–MD), 

would enable the Department of Labor to gather better information about wage differences. The Paycheck Fairness Act would protect employees from retaliation for 

discussing their salaries. And it would empower women to negotiate for equal pay 

and create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws already in place. 

Making sure women receive equal pay for equal work increases their lifetime 

earnings and strengthens our economy in the process. The Institute for Women’s 

Policy Research found that if women had received pay equal to their male counterparts in 2012, the U.S. economy would have produced $447.6 billion in additional 

income 32—similar to the economic output of the entire State of Virginia.33

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND UNIVERSAL PRE-K

Our safety net is working overtime to catch those who have been left behind by 

the recovery, but once again, policy hasn’t kept up with changing demographics. Although the share of working mothers with children under age 5 has doubled since 

1970, child care subsidies and preschool programs remain underfunded. And more 

mothers are also breadwinning alone: At least half of all children in the United 

States today will spend at least part of their childhood in a single-parent family.34

Additionally, today’s infants and toddlers are the first age cohort that is majority 

children of color, making this a critical issue for communities of color.35 Communities of color are expected to comprise the majority of the U.S. population sometime 

in the early 2040s. Addressing racial and ethnic disparities is not just the right 

thing to do; it is imperative for economic growth and competitiveness. 

In an economy where three-quarters of families have either a single parent or two 

working parents, child care isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity. More than 60 percent of 

all preschool-aged children spend time in the care of someone other than their parents.36

Unfortunately, most families don’t have access to high-quality child care and preschool. Programs such as Head Start and the Child Care and Development Fund 

serve only a fraction of eligible families. And quality of care is often low. And many 

more kids don’t attend preschool or receive high-quality care because their families 

simply can’t afford it. Child care is the largest household expense for most families 

and can cost more than a year of college. 

In light of these challenges, one of the most important ways we can improve the 

lives of millions of American families across the economic spectrum is to commit to 

educate children during the first 5 years of their lives. Research shows that the 

early years of a child’s cognitive and emotional development, more than any others, 

establish their direction in life. High-quality early intervention makes at-risk children 25 percent less likely to drop out of school, 40 percent less likely to become 

a teen parent, and 70 percent less likely to be arrested for a violent crime. But because of the shortage of quality, affordable child care, low-income children are entering kindergarten without the skills necessary to succeed.37

10 

Universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-old children, and affordable child care 

for low-income families with children under age 3 will help bridge the gap, as will 

an expansion of Early Head Start and home visiting. 

The Strong Start for America’s Children Act, which was introduced by Sen. Harkin and passed by this committee this month, would create a partnership between 

the Federal Government and States to expand access to high-quality preschool for 

all low-income 4-year-olds and provide programs for some younger children as well. 

Passing and funding this bill would narrow the school-readiness gap and help parents access employment by building the supply of high-quality programs and reducing costs. 

THE MINIMUM WAGE BECOMES A LIVING WAGE

We should raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Currently, a full- time worker making the minimum wage earns just $15,080 per year.38 For a family of three, that is $4,000 below the Federal poverty line.39 Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would increase yearly earnings to $19,777.40 It would directly raise the 

wages of 16.5 million American workers and would lift almost 1 million Americans 

out of poverty.41

Nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers are women, so raising the minimum 

wage, as proposed by Sen. Harkin, would give 15.4 million women a raise 42 and 

help close the pay gap.43 These workers are not just teenagers. Nearly 90 percent 

of minimum-wage workers are 20 years old or older, and the average minimumwage worker is 35 years old.44

Seventy percent of tipped restaurant workers are women, so raising the tipped 

minimum wage would also strengthen women’s prospects.45 While the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, the minimum for workers who receive tips is just 

$2.13. Tips are supposed to make up the difference. Yet servers are twice as likely 

to use food stamps as is the rest of the U.S. workforce, and three times as likely 

to live in poverty.46

The number of female minimum-wage workers has also increased markedly since 

the beginning of the Great Recession. In 2007, there were almost 1.2 million female 

minimum-wage workers—nearly double the number of male minimum-wage workers. But the number of women making minimum wage had doubled by 2012. 

And while the number of workers earning minimum wage increased for all racial 

and ethnic groups of women from 2007 to 2012, the share of Latina women at minimum wage tripled, and the share of African-American and Asian women more than 

doubled.47

We’re already seeing businesses, such as the Gap, Costco, and Whole Foods, adopt 

the attitude that a fair wage is good for corporate profits and reputations. Raising 

the wages of frontline workers helps minimize employee turnover, encourage hard 

work, and increase employee productivity, commitment, and loyalty.48 Cities, counties, and States have also adopted measures to raise the incomes of their lowest 

paid workers because they know that if workers can earn a living wage, it will help 

grow their local economies. More than half of the States that raised the minimum 

wage during periods of high unemployment saw their unemployment decrease over 

the next 12 months.49

And increasing the minimum wage has positive implications for the Federal budget as well. CAP recently published research showing that a $10.10 minimum wage 

would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $46 

billion over the next decade.50

THE BUSINESS CASE

Successful businesses already see a competitive advantage when they ensure 

workers with families are happy and successful. Policies that support working 

women and families lead to more productive employees. They also help business attract and retain top-notch talent, paying dividends in the long term. But there are 

immediate savings for businesses with family friendly benefits as well.51

Studies showed companies that are flexible—that allow adjustable work schedules 

or telework, for example—improved employee retention and recruitment, as well as 

revenue generation and client satisfaction.52 Employees said their ability to 

prioritize both career and family influenced their choice to remain with the company. This translates into real and immediate savings for businesses. While replacing a worker can cost up to 20 percent of that worker’s salary, policies such as 

earned sick days or flexible options can be implemented at little to no net cost.53

But the companies that will excel in tomorrow’s economy won’t just be focused on 

retaining female employees; they’ll be interested in cultivating the next generation 

of female leaders and executives. That will mean more than adopting flexible schedVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
11 

ules and worker-friendly policies. It will mean changing the culture from the factory 

floor to the board room to allow talented, dedicated women to advance and succeed. 

It will mean combating workplace discrimination of every kind. It will mean encouraging mentor relationships that pair successful women with future leaders in their 

organizations. And it will mean including women in the decisionmaking process, so 

their voices are heard and their concerns are considered. After all, when women 

have a place at the table, they can advocate for the very worker-friendly policies 

that boost morale along with the bottom line. 

CONCLUSION

Public policies that help women also strengthen our families, our workplaces, our 

economy, and our Nation. It’s time to put women at the center of the policy agenda. 

Every Member of Congress must work together to demonstrate, with a proactive policy agenda, that government is committed to our families. 

Families are changing. Our workforce is changing. The way we live is changing. 

And our economic success hinges on recognizing those changes and committing to 

public policy that improves the lives and livelihood of working families. 

I thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the committee for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

ENDNOTES

1. Sarah Jane Glynn, ‘‘The New Breadwinners: 2010 Update: Rates of Women 

Supporting Their Families Economically Increased Since 2007’’ (Washington: Center 

for American Progress, 2012), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/ 

issues/labor/report/2012/04/16/11377/the-new-breadwinners-2010-update/. 2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Women in the Labor Force: A Databook’’ 

(2013), Table 2. 

3. Ibid., Table 20. 

4. Heather Boushey, ‘‘The New Breadwinners.’’ In Heather Boushey and Ann 

O’Leary, eds., The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything (Washington: Maria Shriver and Center for American Progress, 2009); Glynn, ‘‘The New 

Breadwinners.’’ 

5. Glynn, ‘‘The New Breadwinners.’’ 

6. Heather Boushey and Alexandra Mitukiewicz analysis of the Center for Economic and Policy Research Extracts of the Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group. 

7. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Table 32. Leave benefits: Access, private industry workers, National Compensation Survey, March 2013,’’ available at http:// 

www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ownership/private/table21a.htm (last accessed 

May 2014). 

8. Sophia Kerby, ‘‘The State of Women of Color in the United States’’ (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2012), available at http://www.american 

progress.org/issues/race/report/2012/07/17/11923/the-state-of-women-of-color-inthe-united-states/. 

9. Ibid. 

10. The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and others, ‘‘Tipped Over the 

Edge: Gender Inequity in the Restaurant Industry’’ (2012), available at http:// 

rocunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ROClGenderInequitylF1-1.pdf. 11. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Table 32. Leave benefits.’’ 

12. Heather Boushey, Ann O’Leary, and Alexandra Mitukiewicz, ‘‘The Economic 

Benefits of Family and Medical Leave Insurance’’ (Washington: Center for American 

Progress, 2013), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2013/12/PaidFamLeave-brief.pdf. 

13. Jody Heymann, Alison Earle, and Jeffrey Hayes, ‘‘The Work, Family, Equity 

Index: How Does the U.S. Measure Up?’’ (Montreal, Canada: Institute for Health 

and Social Policy, McGill University, 2009), available at: http://www.hreonline 

.com/pdfs/08012009ExtralMcGillSurvey.pdf. 

14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Table 32. Leave benefits.’’ 

15. Ibid. 

16. University of Cincinnati, ‘‘Working Parents—Who Puts Family First When a 

Child Gets Sick?’’, Press release, August 13, 2007, available at http://www.uc.edu/ 

News/NR.aspx?ID=6152. 

17. Eileen Appelbaum, ‘‘Paid Sick Days: A Win for Employees and the Economy,’’ 

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, June 6, 2011, available at http://www.spot 

lightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=4c4cc307-20b6-44ea-81c2-0712411 

c3e70. 

18. Ibid. 

12 

19. Boushey, O’Leary, and Mitukiewicz, ‘‘The Economic Benefits of Family and 

Medical Leave Insurance.’’ 

20. Ibid. 

21. Healthy Families Act, S. 631, 113 Cong. (Government Printing Office, 2013), 

available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s631. 

22. Christopher J. Ruhm and Jackqueline L. Teague, ‘‘Parental Leave Policies in 

Europe and North America.’’ Working Paper 5065 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1995). 

23. National Partnership for Women & Families, ‘‘Fact Sheet: The Family and 

Medical Insurance Leave Act (The FAMILY Act)’’ (2014), available at http:// 

www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/work-family/paid-leave/family-actfact-sheet.pdf. 

24. Crosby Burns, Kimberly Barton, and Sophia Kerby, ‘‘The State of Diversity 

in Today’s Workforce’’ (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2012), available 

at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/07/12/11938/thestate-of-diversity-in-todays-workforce/. 

25. Mark Hugo Lopez and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, ‘‘Women’s college enrollment 

gains leave men behind,’’ Pew Research Center, March 6, 2014, available at http:// 

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leavemen-behind/. 

26. Rosalind S. Helderman, ‘‘The 113th Congress is the most diverse in history,’’ 

The Washington Post, January 3, 2013, available at http://www.washington 

post.com/politics/113th-congress-has-more-women-minorities-than-ever/2013/01/03 

/7d1aaf30-55e5-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efclstory.html. 

27. National Women’s Law Center, ‘‘How the Wage Gap Hurts Women and Families’’ (2013), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/factorother 

thanlsexfactsheetl5.30.12lfinal.pdf. 

28. Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress, The Shriver Report: A 

Woman’s Nation Pushes Back from the Brink (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). 

29. Farah Ahmad and Sarah Iverson, ‘‘The State of Women of Color in the United 

States’’ (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2013), available at: http:// 

www.americanprogress.org / wp-content / uploads / 2013 / 10 / StateOfWomenColor-1 

.pdf. 

30. American Women and others, ‘‘Equal Pay: A Conversation Guide’’ (2013), 

available at http://www.americanwomen.org/body/EqualPayToolkitlNational.pdf. 

31. Ibid. 

32. Heidi Hartmann, Jeffrey Hayes, and Jennifer Clark, ‘‘How Equal Pay for 

Working Women Would Reduce Poverty and Grow the American Economy’’ (Washington: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2014). 

33. Ibid.; Bureau of Economic Analysis, Widespread Economic Growth in 2012: 

Advance 2012 and Revised 2009-11 GDP-by-State Statistics, Table 4 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013), available at http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/ 

gdplstate/2013/pdf/gsp0613.pdf. 

34. D’Vera Cohn, Gretchen Livingston, and Wendy Wang, ‘‘After Decades of Decline, A Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers’’ (Washington: Pew Research Center, 2014), 

available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-declinea-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/. 

35. Children’s Defense Fund, ‘‘The State of America’s Children’’ (2014), available 

at http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/2014- 

soac.pdf. 

36. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, ‘‘America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2013: Child Care,’’ available at http:// 

www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc3.asp (last accessed May 2014). 

37. Donna Cooper and Kristina Costa, ‘‘Increasing the Effectiveness and Efficiency 

of Existing Public Investments in Early Childhood Education’’ (Washington: Center 

for American Progress, 2012), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/ 

issues/education/report/2012/06/01/11723/increasing-the-effectiveness-and-efficiency-of-existing-public-investments-in-early-childhood-education/. 

38. David Cooper, ‘‘Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift 

Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost’’ (Washington: Economic 

Policy Institute, 2013), available at http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-Federalminimum-wage-to-1010/. 

39. Families USA, ‘‘Federal Poverty Guidelines,’’ available at http://www.families 

usa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/Federal-poverty-guidelines.html (last 

accessed May 2014). 

40. Cooper, ‘‘Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for 

Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost.’’ 

13 

41. Congressional Budget Office, ‘‘The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on 

Employment and Family Income’’ (2014), available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995. 

42. Ibid. 

43. David Madland and Keith Miller, ‘‘Raising the Minimum Wage Would Boost 

the Incomes of Millions of Women and Their Families,’’ Center for American 

Progress Action Fund, December 9, 2013, available at http://www.american 

progressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2013/12/09/80484/raising-the-minimumwage-would-boost-the-incomes-of-millions-of-women-and-their-families/. 44. David Cooper and Dan Essrow, ‘‘Low-wage Workers Are Older Than You 

Think,’’ Economic Policy Institute, August 28, 2013, available at http://www.epi.org 

/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/. 

45. The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and others, ‘‘Tipped Over the 

Edge.’’ 

46. Ibid. 

47. Ahmad and Iverson, ‘‘The State of Women of Color in the United States.’’ 

48. John Schmitt, ‘‘Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on 

Employment?’’ (Washington: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2013), available at http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf. 49. T. William Lester, David Madland, and Jackie Odum, ‘‘Raising the Minimum 

Wage Would Help, Not Hurt, Our Economy,’’ Center for American Progress Action 

Fund, December 3, 2013, available at http://www.americanprogressaction.org/ 

issues/labor/news/2013/12/03/80222/raising-the-minimum-wage-would-help-nothurt-our-economy/. 50. Rachel West and Michael Reich, ‘‘The Effects of Minimum Wages on SNAP 

Enrollments and Expenditures’’ (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2014), 

available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2014/03/ 

05/85158/the-effects-of-minimum-wages-on-snap-enrollments-and-expenditures/. 51. Small Business Majority, ‘‘Small Businesses Support Family Medical Leave’’ 

(2013), available at http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/ 

family medical-leave/092713-FML-report.php. 52. Anna Danziger and Shelley Waters Boots, ‘‘The Business Case for Flexible 

Work Arrangements’’ (Washington: Georgetown University Law Center, 2008), 

available at http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001 

&context=legal. 53 Heather Boushey and Sarah Jane Glynn, ‘‘There Are Significant Business 

Costs to Replacing Employees’’ (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2012), 

available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/11/16/ 

44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Tanden. 

Ms. Bravo. 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FAMILY VALUES AT WORK, MILWAUKEE, WI 

Ms. BRAVO. Thank you, Senators and staff of the HELP Committee. I’m delighted to be here to testify on behalf of Family Values at Work. We’re a network of 21 coalitions, more than 1,000 

groups, very diverse, all of them working for policies like paid sick 

days and family medical leave insurance. They’re driven by women 

like Rhiannon Broschat in Chicago, mother of a kid with special 

needs, and Shelby Ramirez in Denver, who helps take care of her 

dad with diabetes. These are people who have lost a job or vital income for doing exactly what we define as being a good parent or 

a good child to their parents. 

We’re in this dilemma because although many employers do a 

great job, as you said, the rest of them are operating as if we’re 

still in a madman era. There’s good news, though, and that is that 

the States and cities are paving the way toward the Federal policies that we need, as they always have, incubating model policies 

and studying them for their effectiveness. 

We have three States that have passed family medical leave insurance. New York is chomping at the bit. The State-paid leave 

14 

1 Houser, L. and Vartanian, T. (January 2012). ‘‘Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts 

of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public,’’ retrieved May 15, 2014 from 

http://smlr.rutgers.edu/paymatters-cwwreport-january2012. 

fund in the budget would really help. We have seven cities in one 

State that have let workers earn paid sick days and lots more on 

the horizon. And we have a growing body of evidence that shows 

these policies are good for women’s economic security, for families, 

and for business bottom line. 

I’ve talked a lot about it in my written remarks, all this research, 

and quotes from some of our business partners who say, 

‘‘You know what? These policies—I want to see them as a 

floor for everyone, because they lower my expenses, but they 

also put money in the pockets of the people who are going to 

be my customers, what I need the most.’’ 

We shouldn’t have a situation where having economic security is 

at odds with the security of the emotions and physical health of our 

loved ones, and yet that’s where we are. 

I want to end by telling you about one of our leaders, Melissa 

Broome in Maryland, whose son recently had surgery, 4-year-old 

Owen. He’s going to be OK. She and her husband both had paid 

sick days and could be there the whole week. But as they led him 

on a red wagon through the halls, they saw a lot of kids who were 

much sicker. Owen didn’t ask, ‘‘Why is that kid bald?’’ or ‘‘Why is 

that kid hooked up to a machine?’’ But he did ask, ‘‘Why is that 

kid alone, and where is that kid’s mommy and daddy?’’ 

It’s going to be very difficult to cure all the ailments of those children. It should not be at all difficult to get bipartisan support to 

pass the Healthy Families Act and the Family Act so that every 

family knows they can have someone holding their hand and whispering in their ear when they’re poked and prodded when they’re 

ill. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bravo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELLEN BRAVO

Thank you so much, Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander, for hosting this hearing and inviting me to testify on economic security for working women. 

My name is Ellen Bravo, and I have been working for years to advance policies 

that value families at work, first as director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women, and for the last decade as director of Family Values @ Work Consortium. In 1995 I was appointed by Congress to the bipartisan Commission on Leave 

to study the impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act on employers and employees. I have written several books and numerous articles on working women and testified before Federal, State and local legislative bodies. For a number of years I 

taught a masters level class on Family-Friendly Workplace Practices at University 

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 

Family Values @ Work is a network of coalitions in 21 States that bring together 

a wide range of local groups—working women and men, restaurant owners and restaurant workers, feminists and faith leaders, those who want to end poverty and 

end asthma, advocates for workers, children, seniors and racial justice, LGBT activists and public health professionals, and many business owners. Together, we have 

been making strides toward establishing economic security for families through paid 

sick days and paid family leave policies. 

While many employers already offer the policies we seek, millions of workers are 

still operating in workplaces designed for men with wives at home full-time. 

In 2010, nearly three quarters of children had both parents or their only parent 

working, a 13 percent increase since the mid-1980s when FMLA was first drafted.1

Women are the primary or co-breadwinners for nearly two-thirds of the Nation’s 

15 

2 Boushey, H. (2009). The New Breadwinners. In H. Boushey and A. O’Leary (Eds.), The 

Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything. Retrieved May 15 2013 from http:// 

shriverreport.org/special-report/a-womans-nation-changes-everything/. 3https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofpe3PZXRgM&feature=youtu.be. 4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEB1kGPlghg. 5Klerman, J., et al. (updated September 2013). ‘‘Family and Medical Leave in 2012, Technical 

Report,’’ Abt Associates, Inc., http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLA-2012-TechnicalReport.pdf. 6 Ibid. 

7 Jorgensen, H. and Appelbaum, E, Center for Economic and Policy Research, (April 2014). 

‘‘Expanding Family and Medical Leave to Small Firms, http://www.cepr.net/documents/fmlasmall-firms-2014-04.pdf. 

families, so a woman’s income loss during maternity leave or even a few days with 

a sick child has significant economic consequences for her family.2

Not having these policies in place also holds back our economy. For stronger families, stronger businesses, a stronger country, we must make sure that working 

women have opportunities to succeed as providers and as caregivers. Policies like 

paid sick days and family and medical leave insurance are small steps that can create a big difference in making us the Nation we set out to be. 

I’m here to speak on behalf of all the working women, men and families who are 

involved in this important work in the States. It is their voices and commitment 

that are the center of this movement—and this progress—that we are seeing. 

They are women like Shelby Ramirez in Denver, whose father and daughter each 

had surgery within days of each other. Shelby took unpaid time from work to care 

for them. For doing what a good daughter and mother does, Shelby nearly wound 

up homeless and had to pawn the one thing of value she owned, a ring given to 

her by her father many years earlier.3

I speak also for Rhiannon Broschat who lives in Chicago.4 On a day this winter 

when the Chicago Public Schools closed because it was too cold to be safe for children to go to schools, Rhiannon had no one to care for her special needs son. For 

safeguarding her child as a good mother does, Rhiannon was ‘‘separated’’ from the 

company for ‘‘abusing’’ the attendance policy. What this means is that Rhiannon 

was fired from a very profitable company for refusing to leave her son home alone. 

Women and families in this country will not have real economic security until 

their earnings and their jobs are protected when they or a family member needs 

care. The lack of modest policies like those that exist in the rest of the world forces 

women like Shelby and Rhiannon and millions of others to make an impossible 

choice between the jobs they need and the family that needs them. 

This goes against the core family values that our country believes in—across 

party lines and geographies. 

Our coalitions are also working to ensure that pregnant workers can have a stool 

to sit on, water to drink or sufficient bathroom breaks without losing their job. New 

York, New Jersey, and a number of other places have passed such bills with bipartisan support. We are working on solutions to another serious set of issues—how 

to ensure people have enough hours and predictable schedules as businesses seek 

staffing solutions that can also meet their needs. 

However, my testimony today will focus on the need for paid sick days and family 

and medical leave insurance. 

Twenty-one years ago, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act with 

bipartisan support. The FMLA provides up to 12 weeks unpaid time for the occasional longer term leave people need to care for a new baby or for a serious personal 

or family illness. It applies to those who work in a firm of 50 or more, have been 

on the job at least a year and work at least 25 hours a week on average for the 

same employer. 

FMLA was a great first step for families—but as our economy and our families 

have changed, so too must our laws. The FMLA leaves out more than 40 percent 

of the workforce.5 It does not include routine illness or preventive care. While an 

employee covered by FMLA could take leave to care for her father if he had a heart 

attack, that same employee could be fired for taking Dad to the doctor to get his 

cholesterol down and prevent a heart attack in the first place. 

Furthermore, many of those who are covered are unable to take the time they 

need because it is unpaid. In 2012, two and a half times as many people as in 2000 

needed leave and were eligible but didn’t take it, mostly because they couldn’t afford 

it. Many others went back from leave too early, without fully recovering.6

What is needed? We need to expand the FMLA to cover those currently excluded.7

We also need public policies like the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286/S. 631) 

that address short-term, routine illness and the preventive care that people need 

every year. The Healthy Families Act, introduced by Senator Harkin, would allow 

16 

8Williams, C. and Gault, B., Institute for Women’s Policy Research (March 2014). ‘‘Paid Sick 

Days Access in the United States: Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Occupation, Earnings, and 

Work Schedule,’’ retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/paidsick-days-access-in-the-united-states-differences-by-race-ethnicity-occupation-earnings-and-workschedule. 9 Ibid. 

10Smith, T. and Kim, J. National Opinion Research Center, (June 2010). ‘‘Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences,’’ retrieved May 15, 2014. http://www.publicwelfare.org/resources/ 

DocFiles/psd2010final.pdf. 11Gould, E. et al., Economic Policy Institute, (June 2011). ‘‘The Need for Paid Sick Days,’’ 

retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://www.epi.org/publication/thelneedlforlpaidlsickldays 

/. 

12Painter, J., et al. (2013, March). ‘‘Attribution of Foodborne Illnesses, Hospitalizations, and 

Deaths to Food Commodities by using Outbreak Data, United States, 1998–2008.’’ Centers for 

Disease Control. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/3/pdfs/11- 

1866.pdf. 13Drago, R. and Miller, K. (2010 February). ‘‘Sick at Work: Infected Employees in the Workplace During the H1N1 Pandemic.’’ Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 

2014 from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/sick-at-work-infected-employees-in-the-workplace-during-the-h1n1-pandemic/atldownload/file. 14Peipins, L.A., Soman, A., Berkowitz, Z., White, M.C. ‘‘The lack of paid sick leave as a barrier 

to cancer screening and medical care-seeking: results from the National Health Interview Survey.’’ BMC Public Health 2012;12(1):520. 15Smith, L.A., et al. (2002, September). ‘‘Employment barriers among welfare recipients and 

applicants with chronically ill children.’’ Published in American Journal of Public Health, Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12197972. 16 Asfaw, A., et al. (2012, September). ‘‘Paid Sick Leave and Nonfatal Occupational Injuries.’’ 

American Journal of Public Health, 102(9), e59–e64. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http:// 

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300482. 17Kalorama Information (2009, October). ‘‘The Market for Wellness Programs and Their Impact on Pharmaceutical, Diagnostic and Device Product Markets.’’ Retrieved May 18, 2014 from 

http://www.kaloramainformation.com/about/release.asp?id=1463. 18Miller, K., et al. (2011, November). ‘‘Paid Sick Days and Health: Cost Savings from Reduced 

Emergency Department Visits.’’ Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Retrieved May 18, 

2014 from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/paid-sick-days-and-health-cost-savings-fromreduced-emergency-department-visits/atldownload/file. 

workers to earn paid sick days they can use to care for their own illness or that 

of a loved one, or to deal with the aftermath of sexual or domestic violence. 

In addition, we need a policy like the FAMILY Act (H.R. 3712/S. 1810), introduced by Senator Gillibrand, to establish a family and medical leave insurance fund. 

By pooling small contributions from employees and employers, this fund would enable those needing leave to have some vital income during an already challenging 

time. 

Consider these facts related to the lack of access to paid sick days: 

More than 41 million workers in the United States, nearly 40 percent of the workforce, do not earn paid sick days.8 Millions more are not allowed to use the sick time 

they earn to care for a sick family member. The numbers are much lower for lowwage workers and particularly those with the closest contact with the public, such 

as those who work in food preparation and service, and those in personal care.9

Nearly one quarter of adults in the United States have been fired or threatened 

with job loss for taking time off to recover from illness or care for a sick loved one.10

Even losing a few days’ pay can be devastating. For low-income families, going just 

3.5 days without wages is equivalent to losing a month’s groceries.11

The Center for Disease Control found that more than 2.5 million cases of 

foodborne illness each year were caused by sick restaurant workers contaminating 

food while they are at work.12 During the H1N1 epidemic, 7 million people caught 

the virus from co-workers who came to the job while sick.13

Health conditions go undiagnosed because workers without paid sick days are less 

likely to get basic health and cancer screenings.14 More than one in four parents 

of a child with asthma (28 percent) has missed one of their child’s medical appointments because they could not get time off work.15 Injuries on the job are also more 

common when workers go to the job ill.16

The human cost of sick days is also borne by businesses and society. 

Presenteeism, (the cost of employees’ lower productivity when working sick) adds 

up to $160 billion annually—considerably more than the cost of absenteeism.17

The United States spends $1.1 billion in unnecessary emergency department costs 

because people can’t take time off to see a doctor during business hours and either 

go straight to ERs or wait until conditions worsen and an ER becomes necessary.18

17 

19 Heymann, J., et al. (2009, May). ‘‘Contagion Nation: A Comparison of Paid Sick Day Policies 

in 22 Countries.’’ Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from 

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-sick-days-2009-05.pdf. 20 Ibid. 21 Addati, L., et al., ‘‘Maternity and paternity at work: Law and practice across the world. Appendix II: Key national statutory provisions on maternity leave, by region, 2013.’’ International 

Labour Organization, 2014. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ 

public/ldgreports/ldcomm/documents/publication/wcmsl242615.pdf. 22 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 32. Leave benefits: Access, private industry workers, National Compensation Survey, March 2013. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/ 

ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ownership/private/table21a.htm. 23The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (Spring/Summer 2001). ‘‘The Future of Children.’’ Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/ 

docs/11l01lFullJournal.pdf. 24 Boushey, H and Glynn S (2012 April). ‘‘The Effects of Paid Family and Medical Leave on 

Employment Stability and Economic Security,’’ Center for American Progress. Retrieved May 18, 

2014 from http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/Boushey 

EmploymentLeave1.pdf. 25 Aumann, K (2008). ‘‘The Elder Care Study: Everyday Realities and Wishes for Change, 

Families and Work Institute.’’ Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://familiesandwork.org/site/ 

research/reports/elderlcare.pdf. 26 A Profile of Older Americans (2011), Administration on Aging, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.aoa.gov/AginglStatistics/Profile/2011/docs/2011profile.pdf. 27Lerman, R and Schmidt, S. ‘‘Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century,’’ The 

Urban Institute. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/ 

herman/reports/futurework/conference/trends/trendsi.htm. 28 A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical Leave Policies, Department of Labor, 1996 https://archive.org/stream/workablebalancer00unit#page/198/mode/2up/ 

search/Policy+Directions. 

The United States is the only country that does not provide paid sick leave for 

a worker undergoing a 50-day cancer treatment.19 And we are one of only three 

countries that do not provide paid sick days for a worker missing 5 days of work 

due to the flu.20

The figures on lack of access to affordable family and medical leave are also stark. 

The United States is one of three countries to guarantee no paid maternity leave. 

The other countries are Papua New Guinea and Oman.21 Only 12 percent of private 

sector employees have paid family leave from an employer.22

That lack of pay can have disastrous impact on a family’s economic security. Studies show that 7 percent of people who filed for bankruptcy cited the birth of a child 

as the cause.23 A significant number of bankruptcies also happen after a worker 

misses 2 or more weeks of work due to illness.24

Forty-eight percent of family caregivers who have to take time off to care for a 

family member lost income during that time.25 And the number of caregivers is 

growing as the population ages. By 2030, the number of Americans over 65 will be 

70 million—double today’s 35 million.26 Nearly two-thirds of Americans under the 

age of 60 expect to be responsible for the care of an elder relative within the next 

10 years, and by 2020 about 40 percent of the workforce will be caring for older parents.27

Both paid sick days and family and medical leave insurance are common 

sense solutions to the dilemma our Nation faces: the very thing that makes 

us good parents or children to our parents often jeopardizes our ability to 

make ends meet. 

CITIES AND STATES ARE LEADING THE WAY

My children and I were part of helping to win unpaid Family and Medical Leave 

in Wisconsin in 1988. That win, along with similar ones in many other States, 

paved the way for the national bill in 1993. They helped disprove the predictions 

of job loss and business closings—family leave in fact strengthened families and 

businesses by helping people keep their jobs and their earnings. It lowers turnover 

costs, boosts productivity and morale. 

Now States and municipalities are developing models for both family and medical 

leave insurance and paid sick days. 

The 1995 Commission on Leave unanimously recommended that States ‘‘consider 

voluntarily establishing or expanding existing temporary disability insurance programs to provide wage replacement for periods of family and medical leave.’’ 28

Research conducted for that Commission found that nearly 1 in 10 (9 percent) of 

leave-takers had to rely on public assistance to support themselves while on leave. 

18 

29 Ibid. 30Klerman, J., et al, (updated September 2013). ‘‘Family and Medical Leave in 2012, Technical Report,’’ Abt Associates, Inc., http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLA-2012-Technical-Report.pdf. 31 Houser, L and Vartanian, T. (2012 January). ‘‘Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts 

of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public, A Report of the Center for 

Women and Work.’’ Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations. Retrieved May 18, 

2014 from http://news.rutgers.edu/news-releases/2012/01/rutgers-study-finds-20120118#.U3 

ZiJ9JdXTo. 32 Appelbaum, E and Milkman, R. (2011). ‘‘Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California.’’ Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-family leave-1- 

2011.pdf. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Houser, L and Vartanian, T. (2012 January). ‘‘Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impacts 

of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public, A Report of the Center for 

Women and Work.’’ Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations. Retrieved May 18, 

2014 from http://news.rutgers.edu/news-releases/2012/01/rutgers-study-finds-20120118#.U3Zi 

J9JdXTo. 36 Appelbaum, E and Milkman, R. (2011). ‘‘Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California.’’ Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-family leave-1- 

2011.pdf. 

That number was more than one in five (20.9 percent) for those earning $20,000 

or less.29 The overall figure increased in the most recent survey (9.8 percent).30

In 2002, California became the first State to attempt to make family leave affordable. Implemented in 2004, the new law expanded the State’s existing temporary 

disability insurance program—just as the Commission had recommended—to help 

ensure working families had income to rely on during family leave. Those needing 

family leave may take up to 6 weeks at 55 percent of their pay with a cap of $533 

a week in 2013. New Jersey followed in 2009. Benefits there are typically two-thirds 

of the last 8 weeks of pay, up to $584 a week for up to 6 weeks. 

Just last year, Rhode Island became the third State to pass such a measure. Together these three States have brought access to family leave insurance programs 

to more than 17 million people. Other States are on their way, with Washington 

having passed and hoping to have funding to implement the program next year. In 

New York State, legislators are moving a bill forward, and in Vermont and Connecticut, study commissions are laying the groundwork for legislation. Colorado has 

a bill pending and a number of other States are considering similar action. The 

State Paid Leave Fund, $5 million in the Department of Labor budget, 

would be a significant boost to these programs. 

Economists, business owners and workers alike have confirmed the success of 

these programs. A recent Rutgers study shows that New Jersey’s family leave insurance (FLI) program has saved businesses money by improving employee retention, 

decreasing turnover costs, and improving productivity.31 Despite ‘‘sky is falling’’ 

claims about the potential costs of FLI for business, research from Unfinished Business, a book on the success of California’s program, shows employers reporting that 

a neutral or positive effect on employee productivity, profitability, and turnover; 

most employers coordinate their own benefits with the State’s paid family leave program.32 Workers who took paid family or medical leave are more likely to return 

to the same employer, reducing turnover costs, which can range from nearly $5,400 

to more than $18,000.33

Most employees who used California’s paid family leave program reported that 

leave had a positive effect on their ability to care for a child or ill family member 

(82.3 percent), allowed them to initiate breast feeding (91.3 percent), had a positive 

effect on their ability to arrange child care (62.5 percent) and had a positive effect 

on an ill family member’s health (86.5 percent).34

In New Jersey, women who take paid leave after a child’s birth are more likely 

to be employed the following year and report increased wages than women who do 

not take leave. Parents who took leave report lower levels of public assistance 

(about 40 percent less) in the year following their child’s birth, when compared to 

those without paid leave.35

Another benefit of family and medical leave insurance is that it increases men’s 

role in caregiving by making it possible for them to be involved without the family 

taking a big financial hit.36 In California, for example, fathers’ leave-taking for 

bonding with a new child rose 12 percent from 2011 to 2012. 

Paid family leave also promotes children’s well-being. Ensuring that new parents 

can take time to care for a newborn gives babies their best start in life. Four-fifths 

19 

37 Ibid. 38Gomby, D., & Pei, D. (2009). ‘‘Newborn Family Leave: Effects on Children, Parents, and 

Business.’’ David and Lucile Packard Foundation publication. Retrieved 4 January 2013, from 

http://www.packard.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NFLAlfullreportlfinal.pdf. 39 Ruhm, C., ‘‘Parent Leave and Child Health,’’ Journal of Health Economics 19, no. 6 (2000), 

931–60. 40 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008 April). ‘‘Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce.’’ Retrieved May 18 2014 from http://www.iom.edu/ 

Reports/2008/Retooling-for-an-Aging-America-Building-the-Health-Care-Workforce.aspx. 41Taylor, MRH and O’Connor, P. Resident parents and shorter hospital stay, National Children’s Hospital and Department of Paediatrics, Trinity College, Dublin. Retrieved May 18, 2014 

from http://adc.bmj.com/content/64/2/274.full.pdf+html. 42Family Values @ Work. ‘‘From the Story Bank: Dr. Herb Greenberg’s Story.’’ http:// 

familyvaluesatwork.org/story/dr-herb-greenbergs. 43Small Business Majority (2013 December). ‘‘New York Small Businesses Support Publicly 

Administered Family and Medical Leave Insurance Pools.’’ Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http:// 

www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/family medical-leave/121213-NY-FMLreport.php. 

of respondents who took paid leaves reported they were better able to care for a new 

baby.37 New mothers who take paid leave are more likely to take the minimum doctor-recommended 6 to 8 weeks to recover from birth.38 Newborns whose mothers 

take 12 weeks of leave are more likely to be breast-fed, receive regular check-ups, 

and get critical immunizations. 

An examination of more than two decades of data from 16 European countries 

showed that paid parental leave policies were associated with lower rates of infant 

and child mortality.39

And paid family leave promotes the well-being and independence of seniors by enabling families to care for aging parents without fear of losing all their wages and 

allowing seniors to age in their homes instead of State facilities. This also saves taxpayer money.40 When cared for by family members, patients in the hospital recover 

from illness and injury faster, leading to shorter hospital stays, improved health 

outcomes, and decreased health costs.41

Businesses support family and medical leave programs and replacement income 

provided by FMLI goes right back into the local economy, as workers spend it to 

help cover the basics. 

According to Herb Greenberg, founder and CEO of Caliper, a human resources 

consulting firm in New Jersey: 

‘‘Family Leave Insurance . . . has been a huge positive for Caliper. When you 

think about the cost of individuals leaving, the cost of seeking new employees, 

the cost of maybe hiring the wrong person, training them, etc., and you compare 

that to the pennies that Family Leave costs you—there is just no comparison 

in terms of the pure balance sheet.’’ 42

A survey for Small Business Majority found that 6 in 10 New York small business 

owners support a family and medical leave program with shared contributions from 

employers and employees.43

PAID SICK DAYS

Working women also need to be able to take a day off when they or their kids 

are sick. Because of the momentum behind paid sick days policies, more than two 

million people previously uncovered now have that protection. Millions more can use 

those sick days to care for an ill family member and all can do so without being 

disciplined for using the time they have earned. 

That means mothers are not losing grocery money when their kids get the flu; 

it means that workers are not going to work sick to spread the flu. A growing body 

of research affirms that these policies help strengthen families while having a positive or no negative effect on business profitability, productivity, performance and 

morale. 

San Francisco was the first city with the law, followed by wins in DC, then Seattle and the State of Connecticut. 2013 saw paid sick days measures pass in Portland, New York City and Jersey City and an expansion to tipped workers in DC. 

Already this year Newark enacted paid sick days and New York City expanded its 

new laws. More wins are likely before the end of this year. 

The combined impact on our economy, on our families and on businesses is worth 

noting. 

20 

44 Appelbaum, E and Golden, L. ‘‘Sick days for healthy recovery.’’ April 29, 2011. Philadelphia 

Business Journal. http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/print-edition/2011/04/29/sickdays-for-healthy-recovery.html. 45Drago, R and Lovell, V (2011 February). ‘‘San Francisco’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees,’’ Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved May 18, 

2014 from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/San-Fran-PSD. 46Petro, J (2011 January). ‘‘Paid Sick Leave Does Not Harm Business Growth or Job Growth,’’ 

Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http:// 

everybodybenefits.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PaidlSicklLeavelDoeslNotlHarm.pdf. 47Warren, J. ‘‘Cough If You Need Sick Leave,’’ Businessweek. June 3, 2010. http:// 

www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10l24/b4182033783036.htm. 48 Industry Sector Employment (CES)—State of Connecticut, State of Connecticut Labor Market Information. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.ctdol.State.ct.us/lmi/SecEmp.asp# 

map8. 49 Ibid. 50Kroeger, T, ‘‘Is Paid Sick Leave Good for Business?’’ Center for Economic and Policy Research, January 6, 2014. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/is-paid-sick-leavegood-for-business. 51 Appelbaum, E and Milkman, R. (2014 January). ‘‘Good for Business? The Case of Paid Sick 

Leave in Connecticut. Retrieved May 18, 2014 from http://www.cepr.net/documents/presentations/CTlPSDlJanl2014.pptx. 52http://cga.ct.gov/2011/LABdata/Tmy/2011SB-00913-R000301-Donna%20Levitt-City%20of 

%20San%20Francisco-TMY.PDF. 53 Heymann, J. ‘‘We Can Afford to Give Parents a Break,’’ Washington Post, May 14, 2006. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051201817.html. 

First, economists say job retention policies like paid sick days help reduce unemployment and strengthen the economy,44 and the local economies where paid sick 

days policies have been implemented are doing well. For instance, more than two 

in three businesses in San Francisco support their city’s paid sick days law and six 

in seven employers report no negative impact on profitability.45 The city experienced 

better job growth than five surrounding counties without earned sick time.46

PriceWaterhouseCoopers ranked San Francisco as one of the top cities in the world 

to do business. Even the chief lobbyist against the bill in San Francisco told 

Businessweek it’s ‘‘the best public policy for the least cost.’’ 47

Since Connecticut enacted the first statewide paid sick days law, the Department 

of Labor reports that employment has grown in Connecticut’s Leisure and Hospitality 48 and Education and Health Services 49 sectors, the two most impacted by the 

new law. A recent study by Eileen Appelbaum and Ruth Milkman showed more 

than three-quarters of Connecticut employers are supportive of the law.50 The authors found that the law had minimal effects on businesses. Typically businesses 

covered absent workers by assigning the work to other employees, a solution which 

has little effect on costs. Since the implementation of the paid sick days law, Connecticut employers saw decreases in the spread of illnesses and increases in morale, 

among many more effects.51

Administrators of the programs also confirm that they are not a burden on business. Donna Levitt, Division Manager, San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, told Connecticut legislators in 2011, ‘‘Since [the PSLO took effect in February 2007,] we have heard relatively few complaints or problems with respect to 

implementation of the law . . . I am not aware of any employer in San Francisco 

who has reduced staff or made any other significant change in their business as a 

result of the sick leave ordinance.’’ 52

Earned sick days strengthen families. The Healthy Families Act—and local and 

State bills—would make it easier for workers to be good employees and good parents 

and will let children lead healthier lives, be more successful in school and be better 

prepared for the future. Seniors will also benefit when adult children can afford to 

take them to the doctor or care for them during an illness. Today, as a hospital administrator in Atlanta testified, hospital hallways are often lined with seniors whose 

adult children cannot leave work to pick them up after a test or minor procedure. 

When their parents are able to care for them at home, sick children get better 

sooner and reduce the risk of spreading the illness to their classmates,53 and parents with paid sick days are less likely to send a sick child to school. 

Sick days also let parents keep their children healthy by getting them to doctor 

visits for detection, treatment, and vaccinations. Earned sick days protect public 

health and will make our country a safer, healthier place to live. 

Small businesses support earned sick days because it’s good for their bottom line. 

The real experiences of small businesses show earned sick days result in reduced 

turnover, which saves businesses money. Jim Houser, owner of Houser Automotive 

Clinic in Portland, OR, says that because employees know ‘‘we care about their 

21 

54Family Values @ Work and Main Street Alliance, (2011). ‘‘How Your Business Can Benefit 

from Paid Sick Days,’’ retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://familyvaluesatwork.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2011/10/Business-Outreach-Trifold-Brochure.pdf. 55 Community Service Society of New York (March 2013,) ‘‘Latino Workers Can’t Afford to Get 

Sick,’’ retrieved May 15, 2014 from http://b.3cdn.net/nycss/8edff06bac4f0ab330l4dm6b625v 

.pdf. 56Melissa Broome, ‘‘Choosing Between Your Child and Your Job,’’ May 16, 2014 Baltimore 

Sun http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-05-16/news/bs-ed-family-leave-20140517l1ljohnshopkins-children-owen-day-care#.U3jS9jnS6PI.email. 

health and well-being, they’re loyal to us in return.’’ 54 The average tenure for his 

employees is 18 years, bringing enormous savings in recruitment and training costs. 

‘‘Any business person can calculate what that means for overall savings,’’ says 

Houser. 

Paid sick days boost businesses and the economy overall by keeping money in people’s pockets. Freddy Castiblanco, owner of Terraza 7 Train Cafe ́ in Queens, recognizes that other employers’ workers are his customers. ‘‘If we protect the salaries, 

if we give job stability, we are going to protect the purchasing power of potential 

customers,’’ he says. ‘‘If you give me tax cuts, I won’t be able to generate any more 

jobs. What really creates jobs in my community is customers.’’ 55

CONCLUSION

Recently one of our leaders in Maryland, Melissa Broome, spent a week at Johns 

Hopkins Hospital with her 4-year-old son, Owen. Both Melissa and her husband had 

paid sick days that allowed them to be at his side so they could, as Melissa put it, 

hold his hand and whisper in his ear every time he was poked and prodded. Fortunately, Owen will be fine. But it broke Melissa’s heart to see how many children 

were alone during the day. When they took Owen for a walk through the halls in 

a red wagon, he didn’t ask why so many of the kids were bald. But he did ask, 

‘‘Where are that boy’s mommy and daddy? . . . He shouldn’t be all by himself.’’ 56

Talking to a parent in the family kitchen one evening, Melissa learned that this 

woman’s 18-month-old daughter was about to be discharged with a feeding tube. 

Her day care won’t take children with feeding tubes. ‘‘I don’t know how I’m going 

to be able to keep my job,’’ the woman said. ‘‘I don’t know what I’m going to do.’’ 

It may be very difficult to cure the diseases that afflict these children. But it is 

not difficult to institute policies like paid sick days and family and medical leave 

insurance so that their parents can hold their hands and whisper in their ears. 

We thank you for holding this hearing today and hope that you will champion 

these policies—not as a favor to women but as a way to strengthen families, businesses and the economy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bravo. 

Ms. Goss Graves. 

STATEMENT OF FATIMA GOSS GRAVES, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW 

CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. GOSS GRAVES. Thank you, Chairman Harkin and Ranking 

Member Alexander and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the National Women’s Law Center. We’ve had 50 years of laws on the books that provide baseline 

protections against discrimination in the workplace. But what we 

know is that employment discrimination still takes place across the 

income spectrum, and workers in low-wage jobs are hit shockingly 

hard by it. 

Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem, and the cases 

are filled with reports that seem like they must come from another 

time. Women report being verbally and physically abused and even 

raped on the job. One positive step is the recently introduced Fair 

Employment Protection Act, which would help provide stronger 

protection for workers who experience harassment on the job from 

their bosses. 

22 

Despite the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, women continue to 

face sex discrimination because of stereotypes about women who 

are pregnant or who have caregiving responsibilities, including 

being forced off the job entirely because of their pregnancy. 

One of our clients, Amy Crosby’s, case illustrates this problem. 

She worked as a cleaner in a hospital in Florida, lifting up to 50 

pounds each day. The hospital refused her request for an accommodation when her doctor advised that she receive one, placed her on 

unpaid leave, and threatened to fire her. Never mind that they accommodated workers who had temporary disabilities and those 

that had been injured on the job for other reasons. 

Cases like Amy Crosby’s are just the tip of the iceberg. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would provide a lifeline to pregnant 

workers who need reasonable accommodations to be able to stay on 

the job. 

We also know that pay discrimination is present, even in the 

lowest paying fields. In the 10 largest low-wage occupations, 

women working full-time were typically paid 90 percent of what 

their male counterparts were paid each week. Latoya Weaver of 

Maryland is one example. She worked full-time at a hotel in Maryland, ultimately making $8.88 an hour. She later learned that two 

male co-workers were paid $10 an hour for doing the same job. The 

Paycheck Fairness Act would make it easier to detect pay discrimination and provide employers with more incentives to address it 

voluntarily. 

We know that women who are paid low wages and who are juggling multiple personal and caregiving and financial responsibilities have a lot on their shoulders, and we know they can least afford to have their livelihood threatened by discrimination. We really owe it to these workers to make a serious effort to address the 

many remaining barriers that they face. 

Thank you for having me today, and I look forward to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Goss Graves follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FATIMA GOSS GRAVES

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the National Women’s 

Law Center on the critical issue of economic security for working women. The National Women’s Law Center has been working since 1972 to secure and defend women’s legal rights. We advance the issues that cut to the core of women’s lives in education, employment, family and economic security, and health and reproductive 

rights—with special attention given to the needs of low-income women and their 

families. We believe that ending all forms of workplace discrimination is crucial to 

removing barriers to women’s economic opportunity. 

Employment discrimination takes place across the income spectrum, but workers 

in low-wage jobs are hit shockingly hard. For example, about 50 percent of pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) between 1996 and 2005 involved the service or retail industries.1

Between January and November 2011 alone, 37 percent of sexual harassment 

charges filed with the EEOC came from women in the restaurant industry.2 These 

are jobs that tend to be low-wage. 

Women working in low-wage jobs, who are juggling multiple personal, caregiving, 

and financial responsibilities, can least afford to have their livelihoods threatened 

by discrimination. But they also unfortunately confront systemic discrimination that 

shapes their basic employment opportunities. Women are subject to sexual harassment, experience discrimination when pregnant or caregiving, and are paid less in 

nearly every occupation, even those that pay the very lowest wages. These and other 

basic violations of the employment discrimination laws continue 50 years after ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
23 

gress outlawed workplace discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 

undermine the advancement of women in jobs in nearly every sector.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT REMAINS PERVASIVE IN LOW-WAGE WORKPLACES

Sexual harassment remains a persistent problem in workplaces overall and in 

low-wage workplaces in particular. In fiscal year 2013, the combined total number 

of harassment charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) and State and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies was over 30,000.3

More than 10,000 of these charges involved sexual harassment, and 82 percent were 

brought by women.4 But these numbers probably do not even come close to reflecting the extent of sexual harassment. In a recent survey, 60 percent of workers who 

experienced harassment said they never reported it.5 The pervasiveness of sexual 

harassment has also been well-documented among low-wage workers.6 In a study 

of more than 1,200 predominantly low-income union workers in the Boston area, 26 

percent of women and 22 percent of men reported experiencing sexual harassment.7

African-American women were more likely to report having experienced sexual harassment (28 percent) than white women (21 percent) and Latinas (17 percent).8

Sexual harassment is pervasive in many low-wage sectors. For example, a survey 

conducted by Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC) United found that more than 

1 in 10 workers in the restaurant industry reported that they or a coworker had 

experienced sexual harassment, and this is likely an undercount.9 As noted above, 

a 2011 review by MSNBC of EEOC charge data found that nearly 37 percent of 

EEOC sexual harassment charges from January to November 2011 came from 

women in the restaurant industry.10 Workers have described harassment in restaurants as simply ‘‘an accepted part of the culture.’’ 11 Women working in agriculture, who are often migrant workers, are also especially vulnerable to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment and assault is so common that farms in California 

have been referred to by farm workers as the ‘‘field of panties’’ and farms in Florida 

as the ‘‘Green Motel.’’ 12

More than 15 years ago, the Supreme Court put in place strong protections 

against workplace harassment. Recognizing the potential for supervisors to abuse 

their power over their subordinates, in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and 

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the Supreme Court held that employers have a 

heightened legal responsibility to protect workers from supervisor harassment.13

Faragher and Ellerth established an important principle: because a supervisor’s 

ability to harass is a direct result of the authority given to the supervisor by the 

employer, the employer should be liable for the supervisor’s actions unless the employer can show that it took steps to prevent harassment and to address harassment 

when it occurred, and that the plaintiff failed unreasonably to take advantage of the 

opportunities provided by the employer to report and address the harassment.14

This rule encourages employers to put policies in place to prevent harassment and 

to respond promptly and effectively when harassment occurs. 

However, the Supreme Court recently undermined this longstanding principle in 

the narrow 5–4 decision in Vance v. Ball State University.15 Maetta Vance, an African-American employee who worked in the catering department at Ball State, filed 

a lawsuit against her employer for racial harassment alleging that Saundra Davis, 

whom Vance argued was her supervisor, subjected Vance to racial slurs, threats, 

and intimidation.16 Because Davis did not have the power to take tangible employment actions against Vance, the Court held that Davis did not qualify as Vance’s 

supervisor, and that Ball State could not be held vicariously liable for Davis’s actions.17 The decision held that heightened protections from harassment no longer 

apply to harassment by those higher-ups who direct daily work activities but do not 

have the power to hire and fire.18 Now, workers who are harassed by their boss 

must proceed under the more difficult negligence standard that applies in coworker 

harassment cases, unless that boss has the power to hire and fire.19 And their cases 

may be thrown out as a result. 

Unfortunately this decision has the potential to have negative consequences for 

millions of workers, and especially for low-wage workers. Based on a review of the 

academic literature and an informal survey of sector-based organizations advocating 

for workers, we believe that millions of lower-level supervisors have significant 

power over low-wage workers.20 First, our analysis shows that there are more than 

6-million lower-level supervisors in our Nation’s workplaces, and that more than 

half of these oversee low-wage workers.21 Second, our analysis suggests that these 

lower-level supervisors have significant responsibility for directing entry-level workers’ day-to-day activities.22 And finally, our analysis suggests that most of these 

lower-level supervisors have no formal authority to hire or fire workers, which often 

lies with managers.23 All of that tells us that most employees with the day-to-day 

24 

management authority are not the ones with the formal power to hire or fire employees, and are therefore not supervisors in the eyes of the law when it comes to 

holding their employers liable for harassment that they might perpetrate. 

Because they often have little bargaining power, workers in low-wage jobs can be 

severely affected by harassment that involves manipulation of their daily work activities.24 And this is exactly the type of harassment that lower-level supervisors are 

well-positioned to perpetrate. The person who tells you to clean toilets instead of 

working the register, to stay late, to work on weekends, or to work the night shift, 

is enough of a boss to make your life miserable. 

Take 15-year-old Megan McCafferty, for example. Jacob Wayne Peterson was 

McCafferty’s 21-year-old shift supervisor at McDonald’s, and was often the most 

senior person on duty when McCafferty worked. Peterson participated in McDonald’s manager-in-training program, assigned job duties, scheduled break time, and 

had authority to authorize overtime and to send employees home when work was 

slow or when an employee had engaged in misconduct. One day McCafferty agreed 

to cover a shift for a coworker, and Peterson promised to pick her up from school 

to give her a ride to work. But when Peterson picked up McCafferty he told her that 

she did not have to report to work that day; instead he drove her to his friend’s 

home and then his own house, where she alleged that he supplied her with drugs 

and alcohol and repeatedly sexually assaulted her. McCafferty brought a sexual harassment lawsuit, but the trial court dismissed her case on the grounds that her employer could not be held liable for Peterson’s actions, since he was not a supervisor 

as defined in the Vance decision because he did not have the power to hire, fire, 

or promote employees. The appellate court then affirmed the lower court’s dismissal 

on these grounds.25

In March Senator Baldwin, Chairman Harkin, Representative Miller, and Representative DeLauro introduced the Fair Employment Protection Act, which addresses this loophole in the law.26 The bill would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and other Federal nondiscrimination laws to restore strong protections from harassment by making clear 

that employers can be vicariously liable for harassment by individuals with the authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment actions or with the authority to direct an employee’s daily work activities. In other words, workers who report 

to higher-ups without the authority to hire and fire—and many of the employees 

making these reports will be low-wage workers—would once again have an effective 

remedy if these higher-ups abuse their power through harassment. Such robust protection against sexual harassment is critical if women are to have a fair shot to succeed in the workplace. 

II. WOMEN ARE PENALIZED FOR PREGNANCY AND FOR CAREGIVING, LEAVING THEM WITH

LOWER WAGES AND SOMETIMES FORCING THEM OUT OF A JOB ALTOGETHER

Despite women making up nearly half the labor force today, women also still continue to shoulder a far larger share of caregiving responsibilities than men, on average.27 And women continue to experience sex discrimination at work because of employers’ gender stereotypes about the competence and commitment of women with 

caregiving responsibilities. A recent study about the penalty that women who are 

mothers face in the workplace illustrates this point. In that study, employers recommended mothers for hire less often, recommended lower starting salaries for 

them, and rated them as less competent than non-mothers with nearly identical resumes.28 (In contrast, fathers were recommended for hire more often, regarded as 

more competent, and recommended for higher salaries than non-fathers.) 29 Indeed, 

motherhood accounts for a large proportion of the wage gap between women and 

men. Women who work full-time, year-round are typically paid only 77 cents for 

every dollar paid to their male counterparts.30 However, there is an even larger gap 

between parents: among full-time, year-round workers, mothers earn only 69 percent what fathers earn.31 Sociologists have documented a wage penalty of approximately 4 to 15 percent per child, with low-wage workers suffering the largest penalties.32 Discrimination against caregivers based on gender stereotypes constitutes 

sex discrimination,33 and enforcement of protections against this form of discrimination is especially important for women in low-wage jobs. 

Pregnant workers face particular burdens. Prior to the Pregnancy Discrimination 

Act of 1978 (PDA), it was not uncommon for employers to categorically exclude pregnant workers from particular jobs, particular industries, or the workforce entirely. 

The PDA changed this forever by providing that the right to be free of discrimination on the basis of sex includes: (1) the right not to be treated adversely because 

of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and (2) the right for workers 

25 

affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to be treated as well 

as other employees not so affected who are ‘‘similar in their ability or inability to 

work.’’ 34

While these protections have been critical to women’s advances in the workforce, 

the latest data show that women continue to face pregnancy discrimination on the 

job. In fact, between 1997 and 2011 the number of pregnancy discrimination charges 

received by the EEOC and State and local counterparts increased by nearly 50 percent.35 Today, women are still being forced off the job because of pregnancy. 

In particular, pregnant workers sometimes have a medical need for temporary adjustments of job duties or work rules so that they can continue to work safely and 

provide the income on which their families depend. While many women will work 

through their pregnancies without any need for accommodations, these adjustments 

are necessary for others, especially in jobs that require running, lifting, long periods 

of standing, or repetitive motions—physical activities that may pose challenges to 

some women at some stages of pregnancy. However, too often when pregnant workers ask even for modest accommodations recommended by their medical provider, 

like the opportunity to sit on a stool or drink water during a long shift, they are 

instead forced onto unpaid leave, or even fired.36 Indeed, 35 years after the passage 

of the PDA, employers continue to believe that they have no obligation to provide 

reasonable accommodations to workers with limitations arising out of pregnancy, 

even when they provide these accommodations to workers with similar limitations 

arising out of disabilities or injuries unrelated to pregnancy.37 One recent survey 

estimated that more than a quarter of a million pregnant workers are denied their 

requests for reasonable accommodations nationally every year.38

Amy Crosby’s case illustrates this problem. She worked as a cleaner in a hospital 

in Florida, cleaning 20 to 30 hospital rooms per shift and lifting up to 50 pounds 

of trash and linens each day. After she became pregnant, she started experiencing 

intense shooting pains in her back and arms due to carpal tunnel syndrome exacerbated by her pregnancy, and her OB-GYN advised that she not lift more than 20 

pounds. But the hospital refused to accommodate her, because it said it would only 

accommodate workers injured on the job or people with disabilities and that she did 

not qualify under either of those categories, since she was pregnant. Crosby knew 

of other cleaners in her department who were accommodated when they had medical needs unrelated to pregnancy, by being allowed to perform other tasks or getting help with heavy lifting. But the hospital placed Crosby on 12 weeks of FMLA 

leave, which was due to run out more than a month before her due date—and 

threatened to fire her if she did not return to work without restrictions once this 

leave was up, even though she would be in the middle of her last trimester.39

As this story shows, women working in low-wage jobs often work in jobs that are 

physically demanding—for example, jobs in the retail sector, in food service, in nursing assistance, or in housekeeping—and are particularly likely to have a medical 

need for workplace accommodations during pregnancy as a result. Yet these same 

sectors often are marked by inflexible workplace cultures, which lead to employers 

refusing to make accommodations as simple as providing a stool to sit on or the 

right to drink water during a long shift. 

Women of color and immigrant women make up a disproportionate share of the 

workers in low-paying jobs that are also physically demanding. For example, immigrant women make up just 7 percent of employed workers but 45 percent of workers 

are employed as maids or housekeepers.40 Workers in these jobs are typically paid 

less than $10 an hour.41 Latinas make up only 7 percent of employed workers, but 

make up 26 percent of workers employed as hand packers and packagers 42—jobs 

that also pay only $10 per hour.43 These are jobs where workers can spend the bulk 

of their days standing, walking, or moving and lifting heavy objects 44—which can 

be a challenge or pose a health risk for some pregnant workers. 

To address this problem, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must 

follow through on its identification of pregnancy accommodations as a strategic enforcement priority, and strengthen enforcement of the PDA and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, to ensure pregnant workers receive the accommodations to which 

they are entitled under current law. In addition, the Pregnant Workers Fairness 

Act, introduced by Senator Casey, Senator Shaheen and Representative Nadler, 

would provide a lifeline to pregnant workers.45 This bill would make it unmistakably clear that workers who need changes in job rules or duties because of physical 

limitations arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition can get 

such reasonable accommodations. In other words, the bill treats medical needs for 

accommodation arising out of pregnancy or childbirth in the same way that the 

Americans with Disabilities Act treats medical needs for accommodation arising out 

of disability, requiring that employers provide these accommodations if they can do 

so without undue hardship.46

26 

Low-wage jobs that are primarily held by women are also marked by work scheduling policies and practices that pose particular challenges for workers with significant responsibilities outside of their job, including caregiving, pursuing education 

and workforce training, or holding down a second job.47 The work schedules in these 

jobs are often unpredictable, unstable and inflexible. For example, in some low-wage 

sectors ‘‘just-in-time’’ scheduling practices, which base workers’ schedules on perceived consumer demand, often result in workers being given very little advance notice of their work schedules48—a practice that can make it nearly impossible to arrange child care, take a second job, or enroll in post-secondary courses. Indeed, in 

the retail sector workers report that they are routinely required to work call-in 

shifts, which means they must call their employer to find out whether they will be 

scheduled to work that day—and if they are told to report to work, they often must 

do so within 2 hours.49 Many workers in low-wage jobs experience unstable schedules with hours that vary from week to week or month to month, or periodic reductions in work hours when work is slow, leading to major fluctuations in income that 

put workers and their families in financial jeopardy. And many of these jobs require 

working nights, weekends or even overnight, or offer only part-time work, despite 

many workers’ need for full-time hours. 

These challenging work schedules have a cascade of negative consequences for 

both workers in low-wage jobs and their children. In contrast, fairer work schedules 

benefit employees and employers alike. Workers in low-wage jobs report that more 

job autonomy and involvement in management decisionmaking led to less negative 

spillover from work to their non-work life.50 Employees with flexible workplaces are 

less stressed and have better physical and mental well-being.51 Less negative spillover from work also leads to greater productivity and job retention: lower-wage 

workers with flexibility are almost half as likely as other workers to intend to leave 

their positions within 2 years.52 State and local governments have taken the lead 

in exploring innovative solutions to some of the problems posed by abusive scheduling practices, including requiring some minimum hours of pay for workers who 

are called into a shift or premium pay for workers required to work particularly 

challenging schedules. Some have also protected workers’ rights to request changes 

in their schedules at work, without fear of retaliation—as would be protected 

through the Flexibility for Working Families Act introduced by Senator Casey and 

Representative Maloney.53 These State and local innovations suggest ways in which 

Federal law could promote fairer work schedules, which is particularly important 

for workers with caregiving responsibilities. 

III. WOMEN EXPERIENCE PAY DISCRIMINATION, EVEN IN THE LOWEST PAID JOBS

The wage gap between women and men persists in nearly every occupation, and 

affects women across the income spectrum.54 There are a range of unfair factors 

that contribute to the wage gap including: job segregation, and the fact that womendominated jobs pay less than male-dominated jobs; the lower pay that women who 

are mothers face, as discussed above; and the fact that even when women are working in the same jobs as men, they are often still paid less.55 The wage gap exists 

even in the lowest paid fields. In the 10 largest low-wage occupations, women working full-time were typically paid only 90.4 percent of what their male counterparts 

were paid each week—an average wage gap of 9.6 cents for every dollar earned by 

men.56

Latoya Weaver is one woman who experienced pay discrimination first-hand. She 

worked full-time as a Guest Services Representative at a hotel in Maryland, ultimately making $8.88 an hour. 

In 2012 she was offered another job that would pay more, but she wanted to stay 

at the hotel so she asked for a raise to $9.50. Her manager turned her down because 

she said that the hotel was undergoing construction, so Weaver ended up taking the 

other job. During her time at the hotel, employees were told that they were not supposed to discuss their pay with each other. However, just before Weaver left the 

hotel for her new job she saw some papers that her manager left sitting out that 

showed that two men recently hired as Guest Services Representatives were each 

making $10 an hour. As a single mother of three children, being paid fairly would 

have made a huge difference to Weaver, who struggled to pay $100 out-of-pocket 

each week for child care. In order to finally get a job that would pay her more, she 

had to travel 45 minutes from her home. 

The Equal Pay Act (EPA), along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, has helped 

to reduce pay discrimination, but the protection offered by the EPA is weakened by 

court decisions that have opened loopholes in the Act—including by allowing employers to escape accountability for pay disparities even when they are not related 

to business needs—and by the incomplete remedies the Act provides.57 In addition, 

27 

too often wage disparities go undetected and thus unremedied because employers 

maintain policies that punish employees who voluntarily share lary information with 

their coworkers.58

The Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by Senator Mikulski and Representative 

DeLauro, is a commonsense piece of legislation that would strengthen the EPA in 

a number of important ways by making it easier to identify and remedy discriminatory pay decisions, closing loopholes in the law, and providing incentives for employers to voluntarily comply with the law.59 For example, the bill would prohibit retaliation against employees for discussing their pay; bring the remedies for equal pay 

violations in line with those available for other pay discrimination based on race or 

ethnicity by allowing plaintiffs who win their equal pay cases to recover compensatory and punitive damages; and tighten the defenses available to employers by requiring employers to provide a business justification for paying unequal wages.60

The Fair Pay Act, introduced by Chairman Harkin and Representative Holmes 

Norton, would address the devaluation of women’s work simply because it is done 

by women.61 The bill would ensure that female-dominated jobs receive the same pay 

as male-dominated jobs that require equivalent skill level, effort, responsibility and 

working conditions. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlined a fundamental promise—a promise that a woman’s sex or race or ethnicity would no longer prevent her from having 

access to any opportunity in the workplace. Yet, the sort of biases that underlie all 

of these discriminatory practices that I’ve described today, and more, are really rooted in outmoded stereotypes about women. For example, the stereotype that women 

are not breadwinners and that families do not rely on women’s income and women 

therefore do not need higher pay often underlies employer decisions to pay men 

more than women and to offer career-track, family-supporting jobs to men only. 

Women are also regularly confronted by the idea that women working particular 

jobs should just put up with harassment as a part of the job, and the idea that 

women cannot be productive workers and take care of their families at the same 

time. It is clear that a serious effort is still required to fulfill that promise and address the many remaining barriers to women’s economic equality, especially for 

those in the lowest paid jobs. 

REFERENCES

1. See NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES, THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT: WHERE WE STAND 30 YEARS LATER Chart A (Oct. 2008), available 

at http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/PregnancylDiscriminationl 

ActlherelWelStandl30lYearslL.pdf?docID=4281. 

2. RESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED, ET AL., TIPPED OVER THE EDGE: 

GENDER INEQUITY IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY 23 (Feb. 2012), available at http:// 

rocunited.org/tipped-over-the-edge-gender-inequity-in-the-restaurant-industry/. 

3. E-mail from Indu Kundra, Senior Program Analyst, Program Planning and 

Analysis Division, Office of Research, Information and Planning, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to Lauren Khouri, Fellow, National Women’s 

Law Center (Feb. 27, 2014) (on file with the National Women’s Law Center). 

4. Id.; E-mail from Indu Kundra, Senior Program Analyst, Program Planning and 

Analysis Division, Office of Research, Information and Planning, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to Lauren Khouri, Fellow, National Women’s 

Law Center (March 3, 2014) (on file with the National Women’s Law Center). 

5. ABC News & Washington Post, One in Four U.S. Women Reports Workplace 

Harassment (Nov. 16, 2011), available at http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/ 

1130a2WorkplaceHarassment.pdf. 

6. Not only does sexual harassment make working conditions for women in lowwage jobs extremely difficult, it also operates to keep women from moving into higher-paying traditionally male fields. Sexual harassment plays a major contributing 

role in the persistence of occupational segregation between men and women. See, 

e.g., Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 58 (2006). This occupational segregation in turn plays a significant role in women’s predominance in lowwage jobs, discussed further below. 

7. Nancy Krieger, et al., Social Hazards on the Job: Workplace Abuse, Sexual Harassment, and Racial Discrimination, 36 INT’L J. HEALTH SERVICES 51, 67 (2006). 

8. Id. 

9. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, supra note 2, at 23. 

10. Id. 

11. Id. 

12. Rebecca Clarren, The Green Motel, MS. MAGAZINE, Summer 2005, available at 

http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/greenmotel.asp. 

28 

13. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 763–65 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 802–7 (1998). See also Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 754– 

55 (applying the principles of agency law to title VII employer liability). 

14. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 763–65; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 801–7. See also U.S. EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, NOTICE NO. 915.002, ENFORCEMENT GUID- ANCE ON VICARIOUS EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT BY SUPER- VISORS (1999), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html. 15. 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013). 

16. Brief for the Petitioner at 6–10, Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S.Ct. 2434 

(2013) (No. 11–556). 

17. 133 S. Ct. at 2454. 

18. Id. at 2443, 2448. 

19. Id. at 2448. 

20. See NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, REALITY CHECK: SEVENTEEN MILLION

REASONS LOW-WAGE WORKERS NEED STRONG PROTECTIONS FROM HARASSMENT

(2014), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/finallnwlcl vancereport2014.pdf. 21. Id. at 8. 

22. Id. at 5–6. 

23. Id. 

24. Stephanie Bornstein, Work, Family, and Discrimination at the Bottom of the 

Ladder, 19 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POL’Y 1, 8–11 (2012). 

25. McCafferty v. Preiss Enterprises, Inc., 534 F. App’x 726 (10th Cir. 2013) 

26. Fair Employment Protection Act, S. 2133, H.R. 4227, 113th Cong. (2014). 

27. NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, 50 YEARS & COUNTING: THE UNFINISHED

BUSINESS OF ACHIEVING FAIR PAY 14, 9 (2013), available at http://www.nwlc.org/ 

sites/default/files/pdfs/finallnwlclequallpaylreport.pdf. 28. Shelley J. Correll, Stephan Benard, & In Paik, Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?, 112 AM. J. SOC 1297, 1315–17 (2007), available at http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/motherhoodpenaltyl0.pdf. 29. Id. 

30. NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, THE WAGE GAP OVER TIME (Oct. 2013), 

available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/wagelgaploverltime loverall.pdf. 31. HALF IN TEN AND NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, HALF IN TEN REPORT

2014—POVERTY AND OPPORTUNITY PROFILE: MOTHERS (2014), available at http:// 

www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothers-poverty-opportunity-profile.pdf. 32. Michelle Budig, Parenthood exacerbates the gender pay gap, THE HILL CON- GRESS BLOG, Sept. 30, 2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-abudget/121869-parenthood-exacerbates-the-gender-pay-gap. 

33. See U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ENFORCEMENT

GUIDANCE: UNLAWFUL DISPARATE TREATMENT OF WORKERS WITH CAREGIVING RESPONSIBILITIES (2007), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving 

.html. 

34. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). 

35. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pregnancy Discrimination 

Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: fiscal year 19k97–fiscal year 2011, http:// 

www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/pregnancy.cfm. 

36. For stories of women pushed out of work because they were denied the temporary accommodations that they sought during pregnancy, see generally NATIONAL

WOMEN’S LAW CENTER AND A BETTER BALANCE, IT SHOULDN’T BE A HEAVY LIFT: 

FAIR TREATMENT FOR PREGNANT WORKERS (2013), available at http://www.nwlc 

.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pregnantlworkers.pdf. 

37. Id. 

38. NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES, LISTENING TO MOTHERS: THE

EXPERIENCE OF EXPECTING AND NEW MOTHERS IN THE WORKPLACE 3 (Jan. 2014), 

available at http://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/workplace-fairness/pregnancy-discrimination/listening-to-mothers-experiences-of-expecting-andnew-mothers.pdf. 

39. See It Shouldn’t Be a Heavy Lift, supra note 36, at 8. 

40. National Women’s Law Center calculations based on Integrated Public Use 

Microdata—American Community Survey (IPUMS–USA), 2010–12 multi-year ACS 

(three-year estimates), Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, 

https://usa.ipums.org/usa/index.shtml (last visited Mar. 24, 2014). 

41. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS, MAY

2013 NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE ESTIMATES UNITED STATES

(2014), available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oeslnat.htm#00-0000. Maids 

and housekeeping cleaners had a median hourly wage of $9.51 in 2013. 

29 

42. National Women’s Law Center calculations based on Integrated Public Use 

Microdata—American Community Survey (IPUMS–USA), 2010–12 multi-year ACS 

(three-year estimates), Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, 

https://usa.ipums.org/usa/index.shtml (last visited Mar. 24, 2014). 

43. Bureau of Labor Statistics, supra note 41. Hand packers and packagers had a median hourly wage of $9.60 in 2013. 

44. See, e.g., O*NET OnLine, Details Report for: 37–2012.00—Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners, http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/37-2012.00 (last visited 

May 16, 2014); O*NET OnLine, Details Report for: 53–7064.00—Packers and Packagers, Hand, http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/53-7064.00 (last visited May 

16, 2014). 

45. Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, S. 942, H.R. 1975, 113th Cong. (2013). 

46. See NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, THE PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS

ACT: MAKING ROOM FOR PREGNANCY ON THE JOB (MAY 2012), available at http:// 

www.nwlc.org/resource/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-making-room-pregnancy-job. 47. See, e.g., RESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED, THE THIRD SHIFT: CHILD CARE NEEDS AND ACCESS FOR LOW-WAGE WORKING MOTHERS IN RES- TAURANTS 1–2 (July 2013), available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/161943672/ 

The-Third-Shift-Child-Care-Needs-and-Access-for-Working-Mothers-in-Restaurants. 48. See generally NANCY C. CAUTHEN, DE ̄MOS, SCHEDULING HOURLY WORKS: HOW

LAST MINUTE, JUST-IN-TIME SCHEDULING PRACTICES ARE BAD FOR WORKERS, FAMI- LIES AND BUSINESS (2011), available at http://www.de ̄mo.org/sites/default/files/ 

publications/SchedulinglHourlylWorkerslDe ̄mos.pdf. 

49. STEPHANIE LUCE & NAOKI FUJITA, RETAIL ACTION PROJECT, DISCOUNTED

JOBS: HOW RETAILERS SELL WORKERS SHORT 13 (2012), available at http:// 

retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/7–75lRAP+coverllowres.pdf. 

50. James T. Bond & Ellen Galinsky, How Can Employers Increase the Productivity and Retention of Entry-Level, Hourly Employees?, Families and Work Institute 

12 (Nov. 2006), available at http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/ 

brief2.pdf; see also Ellen Galinsky, James T. Bond & Eve Tahmincioglu, What if Employers Put Women at the Center of Their Workplace Policies? When Businesses Design Workplaces that Support their Employees, Both the Businesses and the Employees Benefit, in THE SHRIVER REPORT: A WOMAN’S NATION PUSHES BACK FROM THE

BRINK (Olivia Morgan & Karen Shelton eds., 2014) (‘‘Overall, 55 percent of lowincome mothers surveyed said it would be ‘‘extremely important’’ to ‘‘have the flexibility I need to manage my work and personal or family life. . . . No one surveyed 

said it was ‘not important.’ ’’). 

51. Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College, Why Employees Need Workplace Flexibility, http://workplaceflexibility.bc.edu/need/needlemployees (citing 

sources). 

52. WFD CONSULTING, CORPORATE VOICES FOR WORKING FAMILIES, INNOVATIVE

WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY OPTIONS FOR HOURLY WORKERS 94–5 (OCT. 2006), available at http://www.wfd.com/PDFS/InnovativelWorkplacelFlexibilitylOptionsl 

forlHourlylWorkers.pdf. 

53. Flexibility for Working Families Act, S. 1248, H.R. 2559, 113th Cong. (2013). 

54. See 50 Years & Counting, supra note 27, at 1. 

55. Id. at 4–9. 

56. JOAN ENTMACHER, KATHERINE GALLAGHER ROBBINS, & LAUREN FROLICH, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, WOMEN ARE 76 PERCENT OF WORKERS IN THE 10 

LARGEST LOW-WAGE JOBS AND SUFFER A 10-PERCENT WAGE GAP (Mar. 2014), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/womenlarel76lpercentl 

oflworkerslinlthel10llargestllow-wageljobslandlsufferlal10lpercentl 

wagelgap.pdf. 

57. See NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, PAYCHECK FAIRNESS: CLOSING THE

‘‘FACTOR OTHER THAN SEX’’ GAP IN THE EQUAL PAY ACT (May 2012), available at 

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/factorotherthanlsexfactsheetl5.29 

.12lfinal.pdf. 

58. See NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, COMBATING PUNITIVE PAY SECRECY

POLICIES (Apr. 2012), available at http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ 

paysecrecyfactsheet.pdf. 

59. Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 84, H.R. 377, 113th Cong. (2013). 

60. NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, HOW THE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT WILL

STRENGTHEN THE EQUAL PAY ACT (2012), available at http://www.nwlc.org/resource/how-paycheck-fairness-act-will-strengthen-equal-pay-act. 

61. Fair Pay Act, S. 168, H.R. 438, 113th Cong (2013). 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Legros, please tell us your story. 

30 

STATEMENT OF ARMANDA LEGROS, LOW-WAGE WORKER, 

JAMAICA ESTATES, NY 

Ms. LEGROS. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Armanda 

Legros. I live in Queens, NY, with my two young boys. It’s just 

them and me, and I am the sole breadwinner for our family. 

I worked for an armored truck company on Long Island for 2 

years before I was pushed out of my job. I was 61⁄2 months pregnant when I pulled a muscle in my stomach doing some heavy lifting at work. My doctor told me to avoid heavy lifting so I wouldn’t 

hurt myself again. He was also concerned because I had a miscarriage a few months earlier. My manager took one look at the 

note and sent me home without pay, indefinitely. 

The result was devastating. Having a child shouldn’t mean losing 

your job. It should not lead to fear and financial dire straits. But 

the experience of having my son, without a paycheck, was one of 

the hardest for my family. I had no choice but to apply for public 

assistance. 

When I was 81⁄2 months pregnant, my health insurance was cutoff. Once my baby arrived, just putting food on the table for him 

and my 4-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to use water in 

his cereal at times because I could not afford milk. I was scared 

every time I looked in my empty fridge. 

I’m doing my best to get back on my feet, but it’s been really 

hard. I recently started a new job, but they only give me 17 to 18 

hours per week and no benefits. I have to wait 6 months to be considered for full-time. I used to have some security in my job. I used 

to be able to support my family and myself. Now I worry what will 

happen if I get sick or my kids get sick. We simply can’t afford it. 

The lawyers at A Better Balance are working to defend and advance my legal rights. They have also inspired me to use my voice 

to seek fairness and justice for all women. That’s why I’m here 

today. I implore you to stand up for women like me so we have an 

equal shot in the workplace. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would help keep women 

healthy and earning a paycheck when they need it the most. And 

the workers in this country need paid sick days, family leave to 

care for a new child or a seriously ill family member. If you truly 

value families and children, then you have to make sure that the 

women who bear those children and raise them can earn the fair 

and equal wages we need to support them. 

Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for listening. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Legros follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARMANDA LEGROS

My name is Armanda Legros. I live in Queens, NY, with my two boys, Aveyl (age 

4) and Ayden (16 months). It’s just them and me—I am the sole breadwinner for 

our family. 

I worked for an armored truck company on Long Island for 2 years before I was 

pushed out of my job. I was 61⁄2 months pregnant when I pulled a muscle in my 

stomach doing some heavy lifting at work and had to miss the rest of the week recovering. My doctor told me to avoid heavy lifting so I wouldn’t hurt myself again, 

and gave me a note to bring into work. My manager took one look at the note and 

sent me home without pay, indefinitely. He said I could only work if I had no restrictions—company policy. I knew this wasn’t true: they had accommodated my coworker who had injured his back on-the-job. The result was devastating. 

31 

Having a child shouldn’t mean losing your job. It should not lead to fear and financial dire straits. But the experience of having my son—without a paycheck—was 

one of the hardest for my family. 

I tried to get another job, but I was showing and could tell from the interviews 

that no one was going to hire me. I had to go 7 months without pay when I needed 

that income more than ever. My credit score dropped and I almost lost my apartment when I fell behind on rent payments. Even when I applied for emergency rental assistance, I didn’t qualify because I didn’t have any income coming in. My employer fought my unemployment benefits, and when they did finally arrive, it was 

still only a fraction of my original salary. I had no choice but to apply for public 

assistance. The experience was so draining. I almost fainted after waiting in line 

for hours. I actually fell to the ground. Thankfully, the stranger behind me was kind 

enough to help me up. I was desperate to leave but dreaded the thought of going 

back. 

When I was 81⁄2 months pregnant, my health insurance was cutoff. I couldn’t afford the COBRA payments and had to apply for Medicaid for my prenatal care. 

Once my baby arrived, just putting food on the table for him and my 4-year-old was 

a challenge. I was forced to use water in his cereal at times because I could not 

afford milk. 

I was scared every time I looked in my empty fridge. 

I’m doing my best to get back on my feet, but it’s been really hard. I had to apply 

for Medicaid for my kids, and have relied on food stamps to help feed my family. 

I started a new job in February but they only give me 17–18 hours of work per 

week, about $260/week. As a part-time worker, I don’t get any benefits. And since 

I work in Nassau County, the New York City Paid Sick Time law does not protect 

me. If I got pregnant again and needed a modest accommodation to maintain a 

healthy pregnancy or recover from childbirth, the New York City Pregnant Workers 

Fairness Act wouldn’t help me either. I have to wait 6 months to be eligible for a 

full-time position at my new job, which means it will be August 2015, at the earliest, before I could be entitled to Family and Medical Leave. 

I used to have some security in my job. I used to be able to support my family 

and myself. Now I worry what happens if I get sick or my kids get sick. We simply 

can’t afford it. I can’t even afford childcare for both of my kids—care for them costs 

an entire month’s paycheck. 

I hate knowing this happens to other women in New York and all over the country, but I know it does. All the time. The lawyers at A Better Balance are working 

to defend and advance my legal rights—I shouldn’t have been pushed out of my job 

for being pregnant and trying to do right by my family. They’ve also inspired me 

to use my voice to seek fairness and justice for all women—both in New York and 

nationwide. That’s why I’m here today. 

I implore you to stand up for women like me so we have an equal shot in the 

workplace. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure that no expecting 

mother in America has to choose between her job and a healthy pregnancy. And 

workers in this country need paid sick days and family leave to care for a new child 

or seriously ill family member. If you truly value families, and children, then you 

have to make sure that the women who bear those children and raise them can earn 

the fair and equal wages we need to support them. 

Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for listening. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for being here and telling us your 

story. We’ve got a lot of experts here today. You’re the best expert. 

Ms. Traub, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF AMY TRAUB, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

DE ̄ MOS, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. TRAUB. Thank you for the opportunity to participate today 

on behalf of De ̄mos. De ̄mos is a nonpartisan public policy organization working for an America where we all have an equal say in our 

democracy and an equal chance in our economy, and economic security for women is an essential part of an economy where we all 

have an equal chance. 

My testimony is going to focus on women in the retail industry, 

a major sector of the American economy and one that’s projected 

to add more than a million jobs by 2022. I believe the experience 

of women working in retail illuminates many of the broader chalVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
32 

lenges facing women trying to earn a living throughout our economy. 

Currently, 7.2 million American women work in the retail industry, and retail salesperson is the most common occupation in the 

country today. Yet the typical woman working this job earns just 

$10.58 an hour, a wage that keeps a family of three near poverty, 

even if the employee is able to secure enough hours for full-time 

work. 

Erratic schedules, a lack of sufficient work hours, and a scarcity 

of basic benefits like paid sick days contribute to making hourly retail jobs insecure for American women, with serious consequences 

for their families and for our Nation as a whole. The reality is that 

women, who make up about half of the retail workforce, are disproportionately represented among low-wage retail workers and 

among retail’s working poor. 

At the same time, women still assume the majority of family 

caregiving responsibilities, meaning that it’s disproportionately female retail employees who juggle care for children and other family 

members with the unpredictable and unstable work schedules that 

prevail for hourly workers in this industry. 

I would like to say a few words about scheduling, in particular, 

because I think it’s an under-appreciated problem. In an effort to 

optimize labor costs, retail employers increasingly use scheduling 

software to match workers’ hours to the projected need for labor 

that day or even that hour. This just-in-time scheduling practice 

can have a highly detrimental impact on workers’ lives. 

Without a stable and predictable work schedule, incomes fluctuate and workers can’t budget effectively. Ever shifting schedules 

mean working mothers can’t plan childcare arrangements in advance. Efforts to move into a better paying job might also be 

blocked since pursuing education or training is more difficult with 

an ever-changing work schedule. 

Attempts to take a second job to make up for inadequate income 

in the first job are similarly problematic. In fact, unstable and unpredictable schedules deprive working women of both income and 

opportunities to rise up. 

There’s good news, which is that the retail industry, like the rest 

of our economy, does not have to pay low wages and offer unstable 

schedules. For example, successful retail chains that we’re all familiar with, like Trader Joe’s Supermarkets and Costco Wholesale 

Clubs, invest in their workforce, provide stable schedules, and also 

offer low prices and solid business performance. 

But, historically, we know that widespread change hasn’t come 

mostly from voluntary actions like this from employers. Legislation 

raising the minimum wage, promoting equal pay, guaranteeing 

paid sick time and paid family leave, and strengthening women’s 

right to band together and form unions is going to be critical to improving women’s economic security in the retail industry and really 

beyond as well. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Traub follows:] 

33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMY TRAUB

SUMMARY

My testimony will focus on women in the retail industry, a major sector of the 

American economy, and one that is projected to add more than a million new jobs 

by 2022.1 Retail is one of the top industries employing women, and I believe that 

the experience of women working in retail illuminates many of the broader challenges facing women trying to earn a living throughout our economy. 

Currently 7.2 million American women work in the retail industry.2 According to 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, retail salesperson is the most common occupation 

in the country today.3 Yet the typical woman working in this job earns just $10.58 

an hour: a wage that keeps a family of three near poverty, even if the employee 

is able to secure enough hours for full-time work.4 Erratic schedules, a lack of sufficient work hours, and the scarcity of basic benefits like paid sick days contribute 

to making hourly retail jobs—not just for salespeople, but for cashiers, stockers, and 

other front-line positions—insecure jobs for American women, with serious consequences for their families and our Nation as a whole. 

In many cases, hourly retail jobs are insecure positions for men in the retail industry as well, but the reality is that women, who make up about half of the retail 

workforce are disproportionately represented among low-wage retail workers and 

among retail’s working poor. It’s also the case that in retail—as in other sectors— 

a substantial wage gap persists between male and female workers doing the same 

job: the typical female salesperson, for example, is paid $4 less per hour than her 

male counterpart. Overall in sales and related occupations, women must work the 

equivalent of 103 days longer every year than their male co-workers doing the same 

job in order to bring home the same paycheck.5 At the same time, women still assume the majority of family care-giving responsibilities, meaning that it is disproportionately female retail employees who must juggle care for children and other 

family members with the rigid, unpredictable, and unstable work schedules (often 

with insufficient hours) that prevail for hourly workers in the retail industry. In 

turn, these rigid and unstable work schedules also impose extensive social costs on 

the Nation in terms of poverty, public health, child well-being, and educational opportunities and outcomes for retail workers and their families. Low wages impose 

public costs as well, because families often must rely on public benefits, such as food 

stamps and Medicaid, to supplement women’s income from retail jobs. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the labor costs of the Nation’s largest and most profitable retailers. 

The retail industry does not have to pay low wages and offer unstable schedules. 

For example, successful retail chains like QuickTrip convenience stores, Trader Joe’s 

Supermarkets, and Costco wholesale clubs invest in their workforce while also offering low prices and solid business performance. 

The recent decision by The Gap to significantly raise pay for its 65,000 U.S. retail 

employees 6 illustrates how a company can shift its business model to improve compensation. Even more striking are the steps recently taken by the Nation’s largest 

retailer, Walmart, which recently improved scheduling and treatment of pregnant 

workers after years of organizing and strikes by its employees, as well as a lawsuit 

and shareholder resolution relating to conditions for pregnant workers.7 The 

changed business strategies at these two major companies in the last year illustrate 

a growing recognition of the inadequacy of retail jobs and the potential for retailers 

to improve employment conditions when pushed by workers and political leaders. 

Women working in retail are consistently the biggest beneficiaries. 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the HELP Committee: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak to you about economic security 

for working women, particularly the experience of women in the retail industry. My 

name is Amy Traub and I am a senior policy analyst at De ̄mos. De ̄mos is a nonpartisan public policy organization working for an America where we all have an 

equal say in our democracy and an equal chance in our economy. Economic security 

for women—who make up half of America’s workforce and contribute to the incomes 

of a majority of American households—is an essential part of an economy where we 

all have an equal chance. 

My testimony this afternoon will focus on women in the retail industry, a major 

sector of the American economy, and one that is projected to add more than a million new jobs by 2022.8 Retail is one of the top industries employing women, and 

I believe that the experience of women working in retail illuminates many of the 

broader challenges facing women trying to earn a living throughout our economy. 

34 

Currently 7.2 million American women work in the retail industry.9 According to 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, retail salesperson is the most common occupation 

in the country today.10 Yet the typical woman working in this job earns just $10.58 

an hour: a wage that keeps a family of three near poverty, even if the employee 

is able to secure enough hours for full-time work.11 Erratic schedules, a lack of sufficient work hours, and the scarcity of basic benefits like paid sick days contribute 

to making hourly retail jobs—not just for salespeople, but for cashiers, stockers, and 

other front-line positions—insecure jobs for American women, with serious consequences for their families and our Nation as a whole. 

In many cases, hourly retail jobs are insecure positions for men in the retail industry as well, but the reality is that women, who make up about half of the retail 

workforce (48.7 percent) are disproportionately represented among low-wage retail 

workers and among retail’s working poor. It’s also the case that in retail—as in 

other sectors—a substantial wage gap persists between male and female workers 

doing the same job: the typical female salesperson, for example, is paid $4 less per 

hour than her male counterpart. Overall in sales and related occupations, women 

must work the equivalent of 103 days longer every year than their male co-workers 

doing the same job in order to bring home the same paycheck. At the same time, 

women still assume the majority of family care-giving responsibilities, meaning that 

it is disproportionately female retail employees who must juggle care for children, 

ill family members, and elderly parents with the rigid, unpredictable, and unstable 

work schedules (often with insufficient hours) that prevail for hourly workers in the 

retail industry. In turn, these rigid and unstable work schedules also impose extensive social costs on the Nation in terms of poverty, public health, child well-being, 

and educational opportunities and outcomes for retail workers and their families. 

Low wages impose public costs as well, because families often must rely on public 

benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid, to supplement women’s income from retail jobs. In effect, taxpayers are subsidizing the labor costs of the Nation’s largest 

and most profitable retailers. 

The retail industry does not have to pay low wages and offer unstable schedules. 

Before I go into detail about the challenges facing women in low-paid retail jobs, 

I want to highlight some bright spots: cases where retail offers jobs that advance 

the economic security of working women. For example, retail expert Zeynap Ton 

notes in the Harvard Business Review, ‘‘highly successful retail chains—such as 

QuickTrip convenience stores, Mercadona and Trader Joe’s Supermarkets, and 

Costco wholesale clubs—not only invest heavily in store employees but also have the 

lowest prices in their industries, solid financial performance, and better customer 

service than their competitors.’’ 12 The recent decision by The Gap to significantly 

raise pay for its 65,000 U.S. retail employees 13 illustrates how even companies with 

a history of paying low wages can shift their business model to improve compensation. Even more striking are the steps recently taken by the Nation’s largest retailer—Walmart—to upgrade its scheduling practices for hourly workers and improve its treatment of pregnant employees. Walmart improved scheduling and treatment of pregnant workers after years of organizing and strikes by its employees, 

as well as a lawsuit and shareholder resolution relating to conditions for pregnant 

workers.14 While neither The Gap nor Walmart have taken sufficient steps to offer 

adequately paid, sustainable jobs to the workers who make their stores profitable, 

their changed business strategies in the last year illustrate both a growing recognition of the inadequacy of retail jobs and the potential for retailers to improve employment conditions. 

My testimony explores the challenges to women’s economic security in the retail 

industry in terms of wages and schedules; the public costs of the lack of economic 

security for women in the retail industry; and a discussion of the benefits of raising 

wages and improving schedules for women in the retail industry, including benefits 

for retailers themselves. 

CHALLENGES TO WOMEN’S ECONOMIC SECURITY IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

Poverty wages for women in retail 

5.5 million American women were classified as working poor in 2012, and millions 

more live just over the poverty level.15 The retail industry is one of their leading 

employers, with 571,000 working poor women—one in every 10 working poor women 

in the Nation—employed in retail. 1.3 million women working in retail lives in poverty or near poverty (defined as within 150 percent of the poverty line). And with 

substantial job growth projected for the industry in the coming years, the Nation 

can expect hundreds of thousands retail jobs that pay wages too low to support a 

family if wages do not rise. 

35 

Retail jobs are a critical source of income for the families of women working in 

this sector. Approximately 93 percent of women working year-round in the retail industry are ages 20 and above, not teens looking for extra spending money, while 

36 percent of them are raising children. Whatever the household composition, retail 

wages provide for household necessities. Four out of ten (39.5 percent) of women 

workers in retail contribute at least half of their family’s total income. A large number of them—more than one in five—are the sole earner of their household. The lowest paid women in retail are even more likely to be supporting their households single-handedly. 

The gender pay gap in retail is another major concern: in sales and related occupations, the typical woman is paid just 72 cents for every dollar made by the typical 

man. The impact of that pay gap reverberates beyond individual households to the 

larger economy: in 2012, lost wages to women mounted to an estimated $40.8 billion, with steep costs for female retail workers, their families, and the economy as 

a whole. 

Scheduling problems for women in retail 

Retail employees trying to work their way out of poverty face an obstacle that 

goes beyond low wages: the lack of sufficient work hours and predictable, stable 

schedules. If retail workers cannot secure enough hours of work each week, higher 

wages will not be sufficient to provide a decent standard of living and will fail to 

lift families out of poverty. In 2012, nearly 1 in every 5 women employed in lowwage retail jobs worked part-time hours despite wanting a full-time position. Some, 

although officially working as full-time employees, were simply not scheduled to 

work full hours every week, cutting into their incomes. These findings are consistent 

with the results of the CitiSales Study, a 2006 survey of more than 6,000 predominantly female employees of a large retail firm which found that 33 percent of fulltime retail employees, and 43 percent of part-time employees would like to work 

more hours.16 Our analysis of Census data suggests scarcity of work hours was not 

limited to small retailers with few workers on the payroll: among workers at the 

largest retail firms—which might seem to have greater resources to offer sufficient 

hours to employees eager for more work—the percentage of involuntary part-time 

workers was even higher than at smaller companies. 

The problem of inadequate and unstable hours in retail is not limited to workers 

officially classified as involuntary part-timers: many women trying to balance their 

jobs with educational pursuits, family responsibilities, additional employment, or 

other commitments choose to work only part time. Yet rigid, unpredictable, and unstable work schedules threaten the economic stability of full and part-timers alike. 

De ̄mos’ 2011 report, ‘‘Scheduling Hourly Workers,’’ documented the rise of just-intime scheduling practices in retail and other service industries.17 In an effort to optimize their labor costs, employers use scheduling software and measures of consumer demand such as floor traffic, sales volume, or weather conditions to match 

workers’ hours to the projected need for labor on a daily or even hourly basis. The 

Retail Action Project’s 2012 survey of New York City retail employees is one of the 

best sources of data on this growing industry practice.18 According to the survey, 

only 17 percent of New York retail workers—and 10 percent of part-timers—had a 

fixed work schedule. For others, hours varied week to week or month to month, with 

70 percent of workers reporting that they were notified of their schedule just a week 

in advance. 

Without a stable and predictable work schedule, incomes fluctuate and workers 

cannot budget effectively. At the same time, low-income workers may lose eligibility 

for public benefits that supplement their incomes if they do not work the required 

amount of hours. Ever-shifting schedules mean working mothers cannot plan child 

care arrangements—meaning they may lose the opportunity to work a much-needed 

shift (or the job itself) if they cannot arrange last-minute child care. Efforts to move 

into a better-paying job may also be stymied, as pursuing education or training opportunities is made more difficult, if not impossible, by ever-changing work schedules. Attempts to take a second job to make up for inadequate income in the first 

are similarly unfeasible. In effect, unstable and unpredictable schedules deprive 

women in retail of both income and opportunities to rise up. 

The rigidity of retail schedules poses a related problem. If workers are scheduled 

for a shift they cannot work, they may face disciplinary measures and a loss of income. The problem is exacerbated by the lack of paid leave, including time off for 

the inevitable illness. Less than half of workers at retail trade establishments are 

provided with any paid sick days 19 and it is disproportionately low-paid workers 

that lack this benefit. In a 2013 survey of low-wage workers in a range of industries, 

14 percent of workers overall, and 19 percent of working mothers, reported having 

lost a job because they got sick or stayed home to care for child or parent.20 For 

36 

women, who still disproportionately assume the majority of family caregiving responsibilities, a lack of paid sick time and paid family leave pose particularly serious risks of income loss and job loss. 

PUBLIC COSTS OF THE LACK OF ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WOMEN

IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

Taxpayers subsidize retailers’ payroll 

Retail’s most obvious public cost stems from large retailers paying their employees 

so little that workers and their families must rely on publicly funded benefits, such 

as food stamps, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, to make ends meet. 

With women employed by large retailers more likely to be in low-wage jobs and 

more likely to be raising families, this is a key issue for women in the industry.21

A recent study by Americans for Tax Fairness estimates that the Nation’s largest 

retail employer, Walmart, receives $6.2 billion annually in taxpayer subsidies in the 

form of benefits that supplement its low wages.22 The research builds on a congressional study finding that employees at a single Walmart supercenter in Wisconsin 

rely on $904,542 to $1,744,590 per year in public benefits because Walmart does not 

pay enough to support a family.23 While other retailers have not been analyzed as 

systematically, a review of State-level studies by Good Jobs First found that 

Walmart routinely leads the list of corporations whose payroll costs are subsidized 

by taxpayers, followed by other large retailers such as Target, Kroger, and Home 

Depot, as well as fast food companies, nursing homes, and meat processors.24 Absent a wage increase or other policy change, the taxpayer bill for subsidizing the 

labor costs of the Nation’s largest and most profitable retailers will continue to increase as the low-paid retail workforce grows. 

The public health costs of low wages and rigid, unstable schedules in retail 

A growing body of research illustrates how low wages and unstable schedules contribute to public health crises such as the obesity epidemic that impose steep public 

costs.25 Special concerns arise for female workers when they are pregnant or their 

children are young. For example, pregnant employees may be unable to safely carry 

out typical retail tasks such a climbing ladders to bring down merchandise, lifting 

heavy boxes, using harsh cleaning chemicals, or even standing on their feet for prolonged periods. Yet as a recent lawsuit and shareholder resolution at Walmart vividly illustrated, some retailers refuse to accommodate pregnant workers with light 

duty, potentially imperiling their pregnancy, or pushing them to take unpaid leave 

they cannot afford.26 The lack of paid maternity leave is a related problem. Just 5 

percent of workers in retail trade establishments are offered paid leave to care for 

a new baby,27 increasing the financial pressure on low-income mothers to return to 

work very soon after birth. This too has a public health consequence, as short leaves 

at pregnancy are associated with higher rates of infant mortality, lower birth weight 

babies, and shorter duration of breast feeding.28

As children grow up, last-minute unpredictable work schedules make it difficult 

to set up doctor’s appointments. As noted earlier, less than half of workers in retail 

have access to paid sick days, increasing parents’ risk missing regular infant and 

childhood medical check-ups and immunizations. Because mothers are more likely 

to be the parent taking their children to the doctor, female workers and their families are disproportionately affected. The lack of paid sick days also increases the risk 

that retail workers will go to work (and their children will go to school or daycare) 

while sick, potentially spreading the flu or other communicable diseases to customers and contributing to outbreaks. If large retailers shifted to offer paid sick 

days and more stable schedules, they could contribute to significant public savings: 

the Institute for Women’s Policy Research calculates that 1.3 million hospital emergency department visits could be prevented in the United States each year if businesses of all kinds provided paid sick days to workers who currently lack access, 

reducing medical costs by $1.1 billion annually, with over $500 million in savings 

for public health insurance programs.29

Low wages and unstable schedules in retail block opportunity for the next generation 

Beyond public health, the unpredictable and inflexible schedules associated with 

retail and other low-wage work hinder parents from participating in their children’s 

education and development, constraining opportunity for the next generation of 

Americans and entrenching economic inequality. No matter how much they want to, 

women working the unstable schedules common in the retail industry may not be 

regularly available to help children with homework, attend parent-teacher conferences or other school events, or otherwise have sustained involvement in their 

child’s education. Indeed, an analysis of the American Time Use Survey finds that 

low-wage women working non-standard schedules spend less time with their famiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
37 

lies—particularly with school-age children—than those working standard schedules.30 The study also notes that retail is among the top industries employing workers with non-standard schedules, defined as work before 6 a.m. or after 6 p.m. or 

on the weekends. Researchers at New York University examined the consequences 

of this time deficit, finding that low-income parents working changing shifts at nonstandard hours were more likely to have children with behavior problems at school 

and lower school performance as reported by teachers.31

Retail’s low wages are also an impediment to opportunity for children, with potentially devastating consequences for their future life chances. Children of low-income 

parents are seven times more likely to drop out of school than are higher income 

youth 32 and are far more likely to become parents in their teen years.33 Young people whose parents hold low-wage jobs are more likely to become ‘‘disconnected 

youth’’ in their post-high school years, neither working nor pursuing education or 

training.34 Considering the tremendous societal loss, researchers at the University 

of Massachusetts note, ‘‘the effects of non-high school completion are profound . . . 

lifelong income loss, diminished health, and more likely reliance on publicly funded 

services results in considerable societal expense. Yet, arguably, the greatest cost to 

society is the loss of talents, abilities, and affiliation of millions of young people.’’ 35

And yet, a different path is possible. Based on his studies of low-income working 

parents in Milwaukee, Harvard professor Hirokazu Yoshikawa observes that ‘‘a 

work trajectory that’s characterized by full-time work with wage growth over the period of the 2-years resulted in increases in children’s school performance and reductions in their acting out behaviors . . . positive work experiences that result in increases in income over time . . . can help actually improve children’s school success.’’ 36 By investing in stable careers for the women working in its stores, the retail industry can make a positive difference for the next generation. 

Low wages and unstable schedules in retail combine with high pay at the top to fuel 

inequality 

The United States has seen a highly unbalanced economic recovery, with the Nation’s highest earners pocketing nearly all of the economic growth since the Great 

Recession, and the top 10 percent taking home their greatest share of income in recorded history.37 This growing concentration of income at the top, combined with a 

wave of strikes and protests by low-wage workers—including retail workers employed by Walmart—has brought renewed attention to the corrosive effects of inequality. And retail is among the most unequal sectors of the economy. 

In 2012, CEOs in the retail industry earned 304 times the annual income of the 

average retail worker—among the highest CEO-to-worker ratios of any sector in the 

economy in any year since 2000.38 Over the years between 2000 and 2012, the only 

economic sector with greater average pay disparities than retail is accommodations 

and food services. And the trend is worsening: after dipping briefly during the Great 

Recession, pay disparities in retail have grown since 2009, nearly recovering their 

pre-Recession peak. This mounting inequality has a gendered face: while women 

make up more than half of the retail labor force at large firms, they account for 

just 1.8 percent of retail CEOs in the Fortune 1000, according to Catalyst.39

The growing inequality fueled by retail and other low-wage industries has farreaching effects on our society. Increasingly, research shows that inequality is associated with slower economic growth and volatility, as well as social instability and 

declines in the quality of health and education.40 At the same time, studies suggest 

that inequality undermines our democracy, as political decisionmaking increasingly 

reflects the policy preferences of major political donors with substantially different 

priorities than the voting public.41 Of course, no single industry caused this damage 

on its own or can fix it single-handedly. Nevertheless, as the employer of 1 in 10 

working Americans—and 1 in 10 working poor women—raising wages and improving schedules in the retail industry would be a significant step toward reducing inequality and the harms it causes throughout society. 

THE BENEFITS OF RAISING WAGES AND IMPROVING SCHEDULES FOR WOMEN

IN THE RETAIL INDUSTRY

In De ̄mos’ forthcoming paper on women in the retail industry, we model the effects of a wage increase to $12.25 an hour (the equivalent of $25,000 a year for a 

full-time worker) at large retail companies. We look at costs to retailers, the price 

increase for consumers, and the impact on the Nation’s gross domestic product and 

job creation. We also consider the impact of improved scheduling practices such as 

providing work schedules further in advance, guaranteeing workers a consistent 

number of hours, and giving workers opportunities to swap shifts, cross-train for different positions, or work in different store locations, ensuring that both employee 

and employer scheduling needs are met. While the numerical results of that study 

38 

are not yet available, this section discusses the evidence for the benefits of raising 

wages and improving schedules for women in the retail industry. 

Improving wages and schedules for women in retail would benefit the economy 

Families living in or near poverty spend close to 100 percent of their income just 

to meet their basic needs, so when they receive an extra dollar in pay, they spend 

it on goods or services that were out of reach before. This ongoing need makes lowincome households more likely to spend new earnings immediately—channeling any 

addition to their income right back into the economy. High-income households, in 

contrast, put a larger portion of their money into long-term investments such as retirement savings that do not factor into consumer demand.42 Because spending patterns differ widely across income groups, investments that enhance the budgets of 

low-income households have a greater impact on the economy than money given to 

those at the top. For example, the economic stimulus payments of 2008 increased 

spending among low-income households far more than higher earners, with a substantial portion of the new purchases going toward durable and non-durable retail 

goods.43 Increasing the purchasing power of low-income households is good economic 

policy during a period of flagging demand. By raising the floor of large chain retail 

wages, these businesses can provide a private sector stimulus without depending on 

the government to enact the change. 

The amount of economic activity generated by a wage raise is determined by what 

economists refer to as the multiplier. The multiplier indicates how many times a 

new dollar will circulate in the economy before its amplifying effects fade away. 

When a worker receives a raise, she will have additional money to spend—that 

spending becomes someone else’s new income, either the business owner where she 

makes a purchase or the worker at the store who gets more hours or more money 

when business is good. Multipliers differ depending on where the dollar appears in 

the economy; if low-income households have an extra dollar to spend the multiplier 

is higher than if that dollar goes to high-income savers. A transfer of purchasing 

power to low-wage workers will boost economic activity to the degree that the multiplier forecasts ripple effects across consumer spending. 

In order to predict how a raise for employees at large retail firms will impact the 

economy, we incorporate both the positive effect of the multiplier on household 

spending and the potentially negative effect on the balance sheet of employers. 

Firms can either pay for the wage raise out of profits, pass on the cost of the additional wage bill to consumers through higher prices, or combine both tactics to cover 

the cost. The extent to which retail employers will place the burden of higher wages 

on their customers is unclear. Research on the relationship between prices and the 

minimum wage focuses entirely on the fast food industry and presents mixed results.44 But there is reason to believe that firms will pass-through less than 100 percent of the cost. That is because the new minimum produces gains to the firm that 

offset part of the cost before either profits or consumer spending have to make up 

the difference. 

Employers that invest in their labor force are better able to hang on to their best, 

most experienced workers, increasing operational efficiency and cutting down on the 

costs of labor turnover. The differences can be dramatic. One study from the Wharton School of Business found that a $1 increase in payroll at retailers leads to an 

additional $4 to $28 in sales each month, with a 25 percent rise in payroll generating 2.6 percent more in sales.45 Revenue grows because well-paid, experienced employees are better able to provide the essential services that customers need—with 

knowledge of inventory, products, brands, and prices—and satisfied customers spend 

more money in the store.27 The benefits of the new wage floor appear on the balance 

sheet as profits, mitigating a part of the wage bill so that customers and firms take 

on only the remaining part of the cost. A raise for retail wages is an investment 

in the labor force, increasing productivity and translating to lower costs and higher 

sales for the firm, and negating a portion of the wage bill before it ever reaches consumers. 

Higher wages and better schedules lead to higher sales 

The reality is that large retail firms won’t have to cover the entire wage bill or 

cost of improving scheduling because these improvements to retail jobs have the potential to pay for themselves, at least in part. A large body of research shows that 

paying higher wages in the retail sector results in greater productivity and higher 

sales. Zeynep Ton, an expert on the retail sector at MIT, has shown that businesses 

that make an investment in their retail workforce find that well-paid, knowledgeable, and experienced employees can be a driver of sales, rather than costs.46 Paying 

for high quality workers who can answer customer requests and identify priorities 

39 

meets the long-term goals of the business, as opposed to simply satisfying shortterm cost minimization. 

Ton’s close study of retailers like Home Depot and the defunct Borders bookstore 

chain leads to similar conclusions about scheduling: retailers’ efforts to precisely 

match labor supply to consumer traffic often fall short because just-in-time scheduling strategies fuel employee turnover, absenteeism and tardiness. This means that 

despite sophisticated scheduling software, retailers ‘‘don’t know who will quit, who 

will be late tomorrow, and who just won’t bother to show up.’’ 47 Finally, Ton concludes that a misguided effort to cut labor costs leads many retailers to under-staff 

their stores, losing sales and passing up profits. Missed sales opportunities could be 

recaptured if, for example, retailers drew on the pool of more than 1 million women 

working part-time retail jobs who report wanting full-time hours. 

Ton’s findings are supported by other research on the performance of retail firms. 

For example, the CitiSales study conducted by researchers at Boston College and 

the University of Kentucky finds that giving retail employees more control over 

their work schedules optimizes recruitment among the hourly workforce, boosts retention of key talent, promotes employee productivity, engages employees, cultivates 

quality customer service, and reduces costs associated with turnover.48 Researchers 

have also compared Costco, a high-wage retail employer that guarantees employees 

a set number of hours per week, with its warehouse club rival, low-wage employer 

Sam’s Club, revealing a substantial payoff to paying fair wages and offering stable 

schedules: sales per employee at Costco are nearly double the average sales per employee at Sam’s Club.49 Across the retail sector higher payroll levels and more stable schedules are associated with customer satisfaction, which translates to more 

money in the register.

CONCLUSION

The retail industry has tremendous potential to offer good, family sustaining jobs 

to the 7.8 million American women projected to work in the industry in the next 

decade. To realize this potential, and advance women’s economic security, retailers 

must raise wages and improve scheduling policies for their workforce. Recent movements toward increasing pay at the Gap and improving schedules at Walmart have 

been encouraging, but broad change is likely to occur only as a result of legislation. 

Legislation to increase the minimum wage, strengthen the Equal Pay Act, facilitate 

union organizing, and guarantee a minimum number of paid sick days and paid 

family leave would enhance the economic security of women in the retail industry 

and throughout the economy. Congress should also consider the models offered by 

State laws on reporting pay, which compensate employees for a minimum number 

of hours during a work shift for which they have been scheduled. 

ENDNOTES

1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the retail industry will employ approximately 16 million Americans by 2022, a number of private employees exceeded 

only by health care and social assistance (22 million workers) and professional and 

business services (21 million workers). See The Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employment by major industry sector, 2002, 2012, and projected 2022,’’ 2013. http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t03.htm. 

2. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March Supplement, 

2012. 

3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2013’’ 

2014. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf. 

4. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March Supplement, 

2012. 

5. De ̄mos calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

6. Gap, ‘‘Gap Inc. Announces Increase in Minimum Hourly Rate for U.S. Employees,’’ Bloomberg, February 19, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2014-02- 

19/aM2Qeuhusl2E.html. 

7. Lydia Depillis, ‘‘Under pressure, Wal-Mart upgrades its policy for helping pregnant workers,’’ Washington Post, April 5, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ 

blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/05/under-pressure-walmart-upgrades-its-policy-forhelping-pregnant-workers/. 

8. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the retail industry will employ approximately 16 million Americans by 2022, a number of private employees exceeded 

only by health care and social assistance (22 million workers) and professional and 

business services (21 million workers). See The Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employment by major industry sector, 2002, 2012, and projected 2022,’’ 2013. http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t03.htm. 

40 

9. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March Supplement, 

2012. 

10. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2013’’ 

2014. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf. 11. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey March Supplement, 

2012. 

12. Zeynep Ton, ‘‘Why ‘Good Jobs’ Are Good for Retailers,’’ Harvard Business Review, January–February 2012, http://hbr.org/2012/01/why-good-jobs-are-good-forretailers. 13. Gap, ‘‘Gap Inc. Announces Increase in Minimum Hourly Rate for U.S. Employees,’’ Bloomberg, February 19, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2014-02- 

19/aM2Qeuhusl2E.html. 14. Lydia Depillis, ‘‘Under pressure, Wal-Mart upgrades its policy for helping 

pregnant workers,’’ Washington Post, April 5, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost 

.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/05/under-pressure-walmart-upgrades-its-policyfor-helping-pregnant-workers/. 15. Meaning they were in the labor force for at least 27 weeks in the last year, 

their household incomes did not rise above the poverty level http://stats.bls.gov/ 

cps/cpswp2012.pdf. 16. Cited in: Liz Watson and Jennifer E. Swanberg, ‘‘Flexible Workplace Solutions 

for Low-Wage Hourly Workers,’’ May 2011, http://workplaceflexibility2010.org/images/uploads/whatsnew/Flexible%20Workplace%20Solutions%20for%20LowWage%20Hourly%20Workers.pdf. 17. Nancy K. Cauthen, ‘‘Scheduling Hourly Workers,’’ De ̄mos, March 14, 2011, 

http://www.de ̄mo.org/publication/scheduling-hourly-workers-how-last-minute-justtime-scheduling-practices-are-bad-workers. 18. Stephanie Luce and Naoki Fujita, ‘‘Discounted Jobs,’’ Retail Action Project, 

January 2011, http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/FINAL lRAP.pdf. 19. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ownership/private/table21a.htm. 20. The survey defined ‘‘low-income’’ as holding a job paying $14 or less. Oxfam 

America, ‘‘Hard Work, Hard Lives,’’ 2013, http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/ 

oa4/low-wage-worker-report-oxfam-america.pdf. 21. There 35 percent more women than men among low-wage earners at large retailers. 40.3 percent of women employed at large retailers has children, compared 

to 30.3 percent of men. 

22. Americans for Tax Fairness, ‘‘Walmart on Tax Day,’’ April 2014, http:// 

www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-TaxFairness-1.pdf. 23. Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, ‘‘The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy,’’ May 2013, http://democrats.ed 

workforce.house.gov / sites / democrats.edworkforce.house.gov / files / documents / Wal 

MartReport-May2013.pdf. 

24. Good Jobs First, ‘‘Hidden Taxpayer Costs,’’ July 24, 2013, http://www.good 

jobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs. 

25. Lisa Dodson, Randy Albelda, Diana Salas Coronado and Marya Mtshali, ‘‘How 

Youth Are Put At Risk by Parents’ Low-Wage Jobs,’’ Center for Social Policy, University of Massachusetts Boston, Fall 2012, http://cdn.umb.edu/images/centers 

linstitutes/centerlsociallpolicy/YouthlatlRiskParentslLowlWagelJobsl 

Falll121.pdf. 

26. A Better Balance, ‘‘Pregnant Workers at Walmart,’’ 2014. http:// 

www.abetterbalance.org/web/ourissues/fairnessworkplace/293-pregnant-workers-atwalmart. 

27. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘National Compensation Survey,’’ March 2013, 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ownership/private/table21a.htm. 

28. Curtis Skinner and Susan Ochshorn, ‘‘Paid Family Leave,’’ National Center 

for Children in Poverty, April 2012, http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text 

l1059.pdf. 

29. Kevin Miller, Ph.D., Claudia Williams and Youngmin Yi, ‘‘Paid Sick Days and 

Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Department Visits,’’ Institute for 

Women’s Policy Research, November 2011, http://www.iwpr.org/publications/ 

pubs/paid-sick-days-and-health-cost-savings-from-reduced-emergency-departmentvisits. 

30. Urban Institute, ‘‘Nonstandard Work Schedules and the Well-being of Low-Income Families,’’ July 31, 2013, http://www.urban.org/publications/904597.html. 

31. Working Nonstandard Schedules and Variable Shifts in Low-Income Families. 

Hsueh, JoAnn; Yoshikawa, Hirokazu. Developmental Psychology, vol. 43 issue 3 May 

2007. p. 620–32. 

41 

32. Lisa Dodson, Randy Albelda, Diana Salas Coronado and Marya Mtshali, ‘‘How 

Youth Are Put At Risk by Parents’ Low-Wage Jobs,’’ Center for Social Policy University of Massachusetts Boston, Fall 2012, http://cdn.umb.edu/images/centersl institutes/centerlsociallpolicy/YouthlatlRiskParentslLowlWagelJobslFall l121.pdf. 33. Ibid. 

34. Ibid. 

35. Ibid. 

36. Hirokazu Yoshikawa, ‘‘Making it Work: Low-wage employment, family life, 

and child development,’’ http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/decisions/audioDD101-uklhylq1.html. 37. Emmanuel Saez, ‘‘Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the 

United States,’’ UC Berkeley, September 3, 2013, http://elsa.berkeley.edu/∼saez/ 

saez-UStopincomes–2012.pdf. 

38. Catherine Ruetschlin, ‘‘Fast Food Failure,’’ De ̄mos, 2014. http:// 

www.de ̄mos.org/publication/fast-food-failure-how-ceo-worker-pay-disparity-undermines-industry-and-overall-economy. 39. ‘‘Pyramid: Women in U.S. Retail Trade,’’ Catalyst, 2014. http:// 

www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-us-retail-trade–0. 40. Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg, and Charalambos G. Tsangarides, ‘‘Redistribution, Equality, and Growth,’’ International Monetary Fund Research Department, February 2014, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402 

.pdf. 

41. See, for example: Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, ‘‘Testing Theories of 

American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,’’ April 9, 2014, 

https://www.princeton.edu/∼mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/ 

Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7- 

14.pdf. 

42. BLS Consumer Expenditures Survey, Table 1202. Income before taxes: Annual 

expenditure means, shares, standard errors, and coefficient of variation, 2012 

http://www.bls.gov/cex/#tables. 43. Jonathan A. Parker, Nicholas S. Souleles, David S. Johnson, and Robert 

McClelland, ‘‘Consumer Spending and the Economic Stimulus Payments of 2008,’’ 

NBER Working Paper No. 16684, January 2011, http://www.nber.org/papers/ 

w16684. 44. James MacDonald and Daniel Aaronson, ‘‘How Do Retail Prices React to Minimum Wage Increases? ’’ Federal Reserve of Chicago Working Paper 2000–20, 2000, 

http://www.chicagofed.org/digitallassets/publications/workinglpapers/2000/ 

wp2000l20.pdf Carrie Colla, Will Dow and Arindrajit Dube, ‘‘The Labor Market 

Impact of Employer Health Benefit Mandates: Evidence from San Francisco’s 

Health Care Security Ordinance,’’ NBER Working Paper 17198, 2011, http:// 

www.nber.org/papers/w17198. 45. Fisher, M., J. Krishnan and S. Netessine. ‘‘Retail Store Execution: An Empirical Study,’’ Wharton School Working Paper, Philadelphia, PA: The Wharton School, 

University of Pennsylvania, 2006, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/ 

1336.pdf. 46. Zeynap Ton, The Good Jobs Strategy: How the Smartest Companies Invest in 

Employees to Lower Costs and Boost Profits. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. 

47. Zeynap Ton, The Good Jobs Strategy: How the Smartest Companies Invest in 

Employees to Lower Costs and Boost Profits. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. p. 

142 

48. Jennifer E. Swanberg, Jacquelyn B. James, and Sharon P. McKechnie, ‘‘Can 

Business Benefit By Providing Workplace Flexibility to Hourly Workers? ’’ University of Kentucky CitiSales study, http://www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin/citisales/ lpdfs/IB3-HourlyWorkers.pdf. 49. Wayne F. Cascio, ‘‘Decency Means More than ‘Always Low Prices’: A Comparison of Costco to Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club,’’ Academy of Management Perspectives, August 2006, http://www.ou.edu/russell/UGcomp/Cascio.pdf. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Traub. 

Ms. Pelletier. 

STATEMENT OF LORI PELLETIER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARYTREASURER, CONNECTICUT STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, 

ROCKY HILL, CT 

Ms. PELLETIER. Thank you, Senator Harkin, Senator Alexander, 

Senator Mikulski and, if I may, Senator Murphy from Connecticut. 

42 

My name is Lori Pelletier, and I’m the executive secretary-treasurer of the Connecticut AFL–CIO. Today, I have the honor of being 

here representing what is the largest women’s organization in the 

Nation with 6.5 million working women of the AFL–CIO. 

I think that our point here is exactly what Senator Alexander 

talked about in his opening remarks about jobs and about flexibility, and that jobs need to pay. We have a consumer-driven economy, and so the more that people make, the more money they can 

put into the economy and spend, and more jobs are created. If we 

are looking to create more low-wage jobs, again—and we wonder 

why our economy may sputter. 

As far as flexibility goes, I will say to you that the best flexibility 

is a collective bargaining agreement, when both sides can come to 

the table and decide on what’s important, what needs to be looked 

at, issues like family medical leave that first of all was passed in 

Connecticut over 20 years ago and brought to this august body by 

then-Senator Chris Dodd. 

The flexibility—as a member of the Machinist Union, a rank and 

file member at the time, when we were trying to implement the 

family medical leave in our shops, it was very helpful that as a 

union representative, I could sit down with the employer and try 

to figure out how this was best implemented. 

The idea that since the 1970s, the pay equity problem is becoming more and more rampant, also goes hand in glove with the fact 

that the labor movement has also been in decline and has gotten 

worse as far as the percentage of the workforce. Again, I’m honored 

to be here today. I’m thrilled to be able to answer any questions 

you have, and thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pelletier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LORI PELLETIER

Good morning, my name is Lori Pelletier, and I am president of the Connecticut 

AFL–CIO. As a woman in the labor movement, I know 6.5 million women stand 

with me everyday. We’re the largest working women’s organization in the country. 

I want to focus on the importance of unions and collective bargaining for the economic security of women. I also want to explain why we in the labor movement are 

among the strongest supporters of labor standards like the minimum wage and paid 

sick days and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and why we believe so 

strongly in the funding of agencies that enforce our labor standards. 

There has been a lot of attention given lately to the growth of economic inequality 

and the stagnation of workers’ wages since the late 1970s. One important reason 

why wages have stagnated is that the percentage of workers who belong to unions 

is a lot lower now than it was then. The decline of unions has had a bigger impact 

on men’s pay than on women’s, but it also had a big impact on women. About onefifth of the growth of wage inequality among women workers from 1973 to 2007 was 

because of the decline of unions. 

Unions today continue to be critical to the economic security of working women 

and their families, who still face an uphill battle in the workplace. What we are seeing in Connecticut is more and more jobs moving offshore and being replaced with 

lower paid jobs without benefits, and this puts women’s economic security at risk. 

When women are protected by a mutually agreed upon collective bargaining 

agreement, it gives them an important weapon to combat the undermining of their 

economic security. Collective bargaining raises women’s wages by 12.9 percent, and 

the union difference is even higher for African-American women, Latino women, and 

women who have immigrated recently. 

The union difference is especially pronounced for women who have less formal 

education, and for women workers in low-wage industries. In the retail food industry, where women workers are now the majority, unionized women workers earn 31 

percent more than their non-union counterparts. 

43 

Collective bargaining is one of the best solutions for gender discrimination because a union contract sets standard rates for different positions. As a result, the 

gender pay gap for workers covered by a union contract is much smaller—91 cents 

on the dollar—than for non-union workers. As women become the majority of the 

workforce, it is even more important for them to join together collectively to protect 

themselves and their families. 

Collective bargaining also gives women workers more economic security by increasing their chances of having employer-provided health insurance and pension 

benefits. The share of women workers who have employer-provided health insurance 

is 18.4 percentage points higher for union women, and the share of women workers 

who have an employer-provided retirement plan is 22.8 percentage points higher. 

Two other ways that collective bargaining helps union workers are paid family 

leave and short-term disability benefits. Union workers are more likely than nonunion workers to have both. 

Finally, collective bargaining levels the playing field when it comes to training 

and opportunities for advancement. When employers offer training programs, often 

one big issue is whether child care and elder care will be available for workers who 

want to participate. Without this training, women workers may be put in the position of not being qualified for a promotion, which hurts them and their families. But 

the availability of child care and elder care is the kind of thing you can negotiate 

collectively through the union. 

I’ve seen the same kind of productive and fruitful bargaining when it comes to 

implementation of legislation passed by Congress. Take for example the Family and 

Medical Leave Act, the FMLA. When it came time to implement the FMLA, collective bargaining made things so much simpler for the workers, for management, for 

everybody. When we hit bumps in the road, we were able to smooth them out 

through the union. And when it came time to educating our members about how 

the new law worked, well, that’s one of the things the union does best. Everybody 

benefits from that. 

Speaking of which, I want to say just a few words about labor standards legislation. We believe legislation and collective bargaining go hand in hand. One of the 

best ways for unions to protect our members is by working with our representatives 

to pass legislation. We in the labor movement have always been among the strongest supporters of increasing the minimum wage, paid sick days, and paid family and 

medical leave, and we always will be. 

In Connecticut we were the first State in the country to pass legislation requiring 

paid sick days. That would not have happened without the labor movement. Our 

members are not the main beneficiaries, but we understand that everybody does 

better when everybody does better. 

In the Connecticut General Assembly, we also a have a task force working on paid 

family and medical leave. The FMLA was a giant step forward, but too many workers can’t afford to take FMLA leave. 

We in the labor movement strongly support an increase in the Federal minimum 

wage to $10.10. We understand that women are over-represented in low-wage occupations. Almost a quarter of women workers would benefit from an increase in the 

minimum wage, and that more than half the workers who would benefit are women. 

We also understand the importance of raising the minimum wage for tipped workers, such as restaurant servers, bartenders, and hairstylists, which has not been 

raised since 1991. Almost three quarters of tipped workers are women. Tipped workers are paid 40 percent less than other workers, on average, and they are twice as 

likely to be poor. 

I hear people in the business community complain about these labor standards 

and demand less regulation because they say the ‘‘free market’’ will take care of 

things. But what that boils down to in reality is a lower paid, less safe, and a more 

exploitable workforce. It’s the role of government to ensure that people are protected 

and are not treated like the property of the business owner. 

By claiming ‘‘government doesn’t work’’ and then gutting the budget of enforcement and protection agencies because they represent ‘‘big government,’’ they are 

making sure government doesn’t work as well as it should. They are rendering these 

agencies powerless. Employers in Connecticut know that the chance of an OSHA 

audit are very low, and an inspection by a State DOL wage and hour investigator 

is not likely to happen. 

So I just want to put in a good word for the funding of enforcement agencies. 

When Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, there was one 

wage and hour investigator for every 11,000 workers. By 2007, there was only one 

investigator for every 164,000 workers. In 1980 there were about 50 percent more 

investigators per employee than there are today. 

44 

One way for workers to be protected in the workplace is when the employer is 

responsible and treats people with dignity and respect. But in my experience this 

is often not the case. That’s why collective bargaining and legislation and enforcement are so important for women workers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Pelletier. 

Ms. Troy. 

STATEMENT OF GAYLE E. TROY, SPHR, HUMAN RESOURCE 

MANAGER, GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, PITTSFIELD, NH 

Ms. TROY. Good afternoon, Chairman Harkin, Senator Alexander, 

and other Senators. Thank you for inviting me to be here today. 

My name is Gayle Troy. I’m the Human Resources Manager for 

Globe Firefighter Suits—that’s our trade name—in Pittsfield, NH. 

I’m pleased to be here to represent the Society for Human Resources Management, or SHRM, of which I’ve been a member for 

28 years. 

This topic is particularly relevant to Globe. Our workforce is 71 

percent female, so it’s very important to us. We are the world’s 

largest manufacturer of firefighters’ protective clothing. We 

produce over 100,000 garments per year for firefighters in more 

than 80 countries, including approximately one-third of the gear 

sold here in the United States. I’m especially proud to say that our 

products helped to clothe and protect many of the brave first responders on and after September 11th. 

Ensuring that Globe is a great place to work is very important 

to our company owners. One of the best ways we support our workforce is by helping our employees with work-life fit through our 

flexible hours program. This program allows our non-exempt employees, almost all of them—about 90 percent of our employees are 

non-exempt—to choose their start time, between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m., 

and to end their work day eight and a half hours later, between 

2:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Interestingly, most of those people, about 

80 percent, have chosen the 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift, likely to 

maximize time with their families. 

In addition, Globe instituted a new approach to paid time off in 

response to high turnover rates, especially among new employees. 

Our new flexible approach to paid time off is known as Globe Time 

Off or GTO. Under GTO, non-exempt employees receive 12 days off 

per year to use for any purpose, meaning the time could be used 

to care for a sick child or for the employees themselves, to run errands, or as a vacation day. Six of these days are paid, and six are 

unpaid, and any unused paid time is given as a bonus at the end 

of the year. 

All these practices are voluntary. We’re not required to offer 

these benefits. But we do because they work well for our employees 

and help us attract and retain the best people. 

Because one-size-fits-all mandates limit employer flexibility and 

innovation, pending legislation such as the Healthy Families Act 

actually could curtail leave flexibility. Life cannot always be divided between sick and vacation buckets. Sometimes an employee 

needs to chaperone a school trip or they need to renew a driver’s 

license. Are these examples of sick time or vacation time? Requiring employees to use leave for very specific reasons does not proVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
45 

vide the flexibility valued by employees in meeting their work-life 

needs. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share Globe’s 

story and the impact new Federal leave mandates would impose on 

employers. SHRM remains committed to working with the committee to ensure that employers can continue to provide workplace 

flexibility to employees in a manner that does not threaten existing 

benefits or create unnecessary and counterproductive regulations. 

Thank you again for allowing me to share my views, and I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Troy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAYLE E. TROY, SPHR 

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and distinguished 

Senators. My name is Gayle Troy, and I am the Human Resources Manager at 

Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC at our company headquarters in Pittsfield, 

NH. I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Society for Human 

Resource Management (SHRM). Thank you for this opportunity to participate in 

this roundtable discussion. 

SHRM is the world’s largest association devoted to human resource (HR) management. Representing more than 275,000 members in over 160 countries, the Society 

serves the needs of HR professionals and advances the interests of the HR profession. Founded in 1948, SHRM has more than 575 affiliated chapters within the 

United States and subsidiary offices in China, India and United Arab Emirates. 

By way of introduction, I have been a SHRM member for nearly 28 years, and 

have twice served in a volunteer leader role as President of the Human Resources 

Association of Greater Concord, my local chapter of SHRM. I have 32 years of experience as an HR professional, including 28 years working in human resources for 

Globe. With 424 employees across four States including Oklahoma, Virginia, and 

Maine, today Globe is the world’s largest manufacturer of firefighters’ protective 

clothing, producing over 100,000 garments (coats or pants) every year in more than 

80 countries, including approximately one-third of all garments sold in the United 

States. 

Globe opened in 1887 in Lynn, MA and was moved to Pittsfield, NH, in 1901. 

Business operations and manufacturing continue today from this small New Hampshire town and the business is currently owned and managed by the fourth generation of the Freese family. The owners live locally so they tend to meet our employees 

everywhere—at the grocery store, the movies, or the motorcycle rally. It is extremely 

important to the owners to know that they are offering their employees a quality 

place to work. 

In order for my company to be an employer of choice, remain competitive and promote economic security, Globe actively works to create an environment that encourages employee development and retention. At Globe, we focus on employee retention 

by frequently connecting our employees to our mission. For example, firefighters will 

occasionally visit the company and share how their lives were saved by the gear produced by employees. During these visits, our team gathers in the cafeteria to meet 

these professionals, examines the remains of the garments, and asks questions. One 

firefighter brought a letter ‘‘written’’ by his toddler-aged daughter, thanking us for 

saving her Daddy so he could go in the pool with her—a moment none of us will 

ever forget. 

In addition, we are diligent about promoting from within the organization. Our 

two most senior production managers (each with more than 40 years of service) both 

started as front-line workers. Each of them was eager to learn, and took the bold 

step of asking for more responsibility. Neither has formal education beyond a high 

school diploma, but both are absolutely star performers for the company. 

In my testimony, I will share with you how Globe’s rich benefits and workplace 

flexibility practices promote economic security, describe the merits and challenges 

inherent in both current and proposed Federal leave mandates, reveal recent SHRM 

research on employer practices, offer SHRM’s workplace flexibility policy recommendations to Congress and discuss SHRM’s effort to educate HR professionals 

about the importance of effective and flexible workplaces. 

46 

PROMOTING ECONOMIC SECURITY THROUGH WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY

The purpose of today’s roundtable is to discuss ways to promote economic security 

for working women across our country. This topic is particularly relevant and important for Globe’s workforce which is made up of 71 percent women. 

As I mentioned earlier, ensuring Globe is a great place to work is very important 

to the owners. As such, we are a company that invests in our people, by focusing 

on recruiting, retaining, and advancing our skilled workforce. We have found that 

one of the best ways to retain talented and dedicated employees is to create an effective and flexible workplace, with generous benefits and innovative workplace flexibility policies. At Globe, our employees are treated like true professionals with more 

control over their work time and schedules, which helps improve engagement and 

morale, increases productivity, retains top performers, and, ultimately, improves 

business performance. 

Our workplace flexibility practices help meet the work-life needs of our workforce 

while also ensuring business operations continue. In other words, our policies and 

programs work for both our employees and for our company. As a small company, 

Globe is creative in providing employee benefits and flexible work strategies. These 

employee benefits have contributed to our company’s 93 percent employee retention 

rate. Higher employee retention leads to greater economic security and stability for 

our workforce. Organizations like ours want to be able to continue to manage our 

workplace in ways that work for our company culture and that help us meet our 

business objectives, including our financial sustainability. 

Below I have outlined some of Globe’s total rewards offerings that help ensure we 

are an employer of choice. These include: 

• Flexible Work Hours—Offering flexible work hours is one of the best ways we 

help employees meet their work and life obligations. Our Flexible Hours program 

allows most non-exempt employees to choose their start time between 6 a.m. and 

8 a.m. and correspondingly, to end their workday 8.5 hours later, between 2:30 p.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. Employees may choose to change their start and end times at any 

time as long as they have their supervisor’s approval. Interestingly, almost 80 percent of eligible employees have chosen the 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift. I believe many 

employees choose this shift to maximize time with their families. 

• Globe Time Off (GTO)—Globe instituted a new approach to paid time off in 

reaction to high turnover rates, especially with our new employees. In order to keep 

the best talent, we developed a comprehensive package of benefits, which included 

a flexible approach to paid time off, that we termed, ‘‘Globe Time Off.’’ Under the 

Globe Time Off program, non-exempt employees (90 percent of our workforce) receive 12 days off per year to be used for any purpose. The time could be used to 

care for a sick child or for the employees themselves, to run errands, or as a vacation day. Six days are paid, and 6 days are unpaid. Any unused paid time is paid 

as a bonus at the end of the year. 

• Paid Vacation Days—In addition to GTO, Globe offers 10 to 20 paid vacation 

days, depending on length of service. Any unused vacation time is paid as a bonus 

at the end of the year. 

• Paid Leave Days—In addition to the GTO program and paid vacation days 

mentioned above, Globe offers additional paid-time-off policies important to our 

workforce. For example, we remove some of the disincentives associated with blood 

donation by ensuring workers continue to be paid while traveling to and from the 

donation site. As a manufacturer of firefighter suits, we believe it is important to 

offer Volunteer Firefighters Time, allowing for unlimited paid time off during working hours to respond to fires and other serious emergencies in our community. To 

further incentivize employee advancement and growth, we offer paid time (at half 

their regular rate) for employees to attend classes to become certified as a firefighter 

and we provide paid time provisionally for disaster relief in other areas of the country. Additionally, we provide unlimited time off at full pay for jury duty and for time 

spent in criminal cases where the employee is a crime victim or if the employee is 

a witness to a crime and is called upon to testify. All employees receive 10 paid holidays as well. 

• Disability—Our short-term disability program is paid 100 percent by the company and provides 70 percent of regular pay for up to 26 weeks in a 2-year period. 

Our long-term disability program is also paid 100 percent by Globe; it begins after 

26 weeks and continues as needed. 

• Equipping Our Workers—At Globe, we want to ensure that our employees 

have the tools needed to be safe and successful in the workplace. That is why we 

provide a shoe allowance of $75 per year to spend on appropriate footwear for employees whose jobs require them to stand or walk for most of the day. In addition, 

the company provides all general safety equipment; however, if an employee prefers 

47 

to purchase prescription safety glasses, the company will reimburse 50 percent of 

the cost, up to $150, every 2 calendar years. 

• Employee Well-Being—Globe offers high-quality health care to our employees, 

contributing 87 percent toward the single health insurance plan and 81 percent of 

the family health insurance plan. In addition, we provide dental insurance and 

Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA), which allow employees the opportunity to set 

aside pre-tax dollars to pay for medical expenses not covered by their health insurance. In order to encourage participation and promote employee well-being, Globe 

contributes $100 to the FSA for each employee who participates. Another way Globe 

encourages employee health and well-being is through our smoking cessation program. When an employee is smoke-free for 1 year, our company pays half of the 

smoking cessation program and the employee is taken to a celebratory lunch by the 

three company owners. 

• Employee Financial Health—Promoting long-term economic security through 

competitive pay and a variety of retirement and profit-sharing tools is a major component of our compensation package. Globe provides an array of retirement tools to 

help our employees and their families prepare for the future. Through Globe’s 401(k) 

plan, the company matches 50 percent of our employee’s contributions up to 6 percent and offers a 3 percent company contribution. 

Mr. Chairman, these offerings, whether employee benefits or workplace flexibility 

strategies, are intended to improve employee engagement and retention while improving business results. All of these practices I described are voluntary. We are not 

required to offer these benefits at Globe, but we do because they work well for our 

employees and help us attract and retain the best people. However, if Globe’s benefits were forced onto another employer in New Hampshire, or across the State or 

the country, these benefits might not work as well in meeting the business needs 

of the organization and the personal needs of its employees. What works at one company may not be appropriate for another organization’s culture, business structure 

or industry. 

THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT?

To date, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is the only Federal statute 

that mandates employee leave. While SHRM supports the spirit and intent of the 

Act, it is an example of a well-intended Federal employment law that has had unexpected consequences and burdensome administrative requirements. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the FMLA provides unpaid leave for the birth, adoption or foster care placement of an employee’s child, as well as for the ‘‘serious 

health condition’’ of a spouse, son, daughter, or parent, or for the employee’s own 

medical condition. The Act also provides specific protections for employees who have 

family members that have been called up to serve on active duty in the military, 

and for employees to take care of a covered service member who has suffered an 

injury or illness incurred in the line of duty. 

From the beginning, HR professionals have struggled to interpret various provisions of the FMLA. What began as a fairly simple 12-page document has become 

200 pages of regulations governing how the law is to be implemented. This is the 

result of a well-intentioned, but counterproductive attempt to anticipate every situation in every workplace in every industry—without regard for the evolving and diverse needs of today’s workforce or the new operations and technologies that organizations employ to stay competitive. For example, one of my human resources staff 

members has estimated that she spends up to 65 percent of her time on FMLA compliance work. In my office, there are only three of us, so that accounts for one-fifth 

of my team. 

Vague FMLA rules mean that practically any ailment lasting 3 calendar days and 

including a doctor’s visit now qualifies as a serious medical condition. Unfortunately, if the doctor has written the certification without great care, the employer 

has little to no recourse. Although Congress intended medical leave under the 

FMLA to be taken only for truly serious health conditions, sometimes I’m concerned 

that employees use this leave to avoid coming to work. This behavior is damaging 

to employers and fellow employees alike. 

At Globe, our challenges with the FMLA center on the definitions of a serious 

health condition, intermittent leave, and medical certifications. In particular, Globe 

has struggled with intermittent leave for episodic conditions. Intermittent leave 

means that employees can basically be absent from work on any random day as long 

as it fits the parameters given by the medical provider. Currently, more than 10 

percent of my workforce could be out on any given day. A few years ago, 25 percent 

of our workforce could be out on any given day. When large segments of your emVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
48 

ployee population can take this time off, without much advance notice, production 

and output is negatively impacted. 

PROPOSED LEAVE MANDATES

Congress’s examination of proposals to help employees navigate their work-life 

needs should focus on encouraging or incentivizing employers to voluntarily adopt 

workplace flexibility offerings that work for the organization and the employees, not 

on additional, rigid mandates. 

For example, the one-size-fits-all mandate contained in S. 631, the ‘‘Healthy Families Act’’ (HFA) raises serious concerns. The bill would require public and private 

employers with 15 or more employees to provide 56 hours—effectively 7 days—of 

paid sick leave annually to each employee. Employees who work for 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding year would be eligible for HFA leave. 

If organizations are required to offer paid sick leave as envisioned in the HFA, 

they will likely absorb this added cost by cutting back or eliminating other employee 

benefits, such as health or retirement benefits, or forgo wage increases. Keep in 

mind that many employees may prefer higher wages or other benefits over receiving 

more paid sick leave—yet another way the HFA’s one-size-fits-all approach will not 

meet the needs of all employees. 

SHRM believes the Federal Government should encourage paid leave—without 

creating new mandates on employers and employees. As has been our experience 

under the FMLA, proscriptive attempts to micromanage how, when and under what 

circumstances leave must be requested, granted, documented and used would be 

counterproductive to encouraging flexibility and innovation. If a paid sick leave 

mandate were enacted, an employer’s focus would have to be on documentation of 

incremental leave and the reasons for the leave, rather than on seeking innovative 

ways to help employees to meet the demands of both their work and personal lives. 

As mentioned, Globe provides over 20 days of paid leave, plus 10 paid holidays 

and other leave. It is unclear whether the HFA would require Globe to provide another 7 days of leave in addition to our vacation and GTO. In this economy, many 

employers cannot afford that. Even those that can afford it will have to cut employee benefits somewhere else. At Globe, profits are shared with the employees 

through our 401(k) and profit sharing programs. The cost of adding 7 additional 

days of paid leave, on top of our 30-plus days of leave, would have to come from 

somewhere and would therefore curtail or remove some other benefit, or would lessen our profit sharing. 

We provide generous paid leave so that we can continue to be an employer of 

choice for employees and applicants in our area. What we do not want is a government-imposed paid-leave mandate to take away our competitive edge over other employers. 

SHRM RESEARCH

Today’s roundtable is well-timed with the recent release of a new report by SHRM 

and the Families and Work Institute (FWI), the 2014 National Study of Employers, 

which looks at changes in the workplace since 2008. First conducted by FWI in 

1998, the National Study of Employers is the most comprehensive and far-reaching 

study of the practices, policies, programs and benefits provided by U.S. employers 

to address the changing needs of today’s workforce and workplace, including workplace flexibility, health care and benefits, caregiving leave and elder care assistance. 

The study found that more employers are adopting flexibility policies over when 

and where full-time employees work. This includes options such as working remotely occasionally (telecommuting) and control over overtime. The most common 

forms of flexibility are control over taking breaks, time off for important family and 

personal needs, and flextime. Overall, from 2008 to 2014, the study found employers 

have continued to increase their provision of options that allow at least some employees to better manage the times and places in which they work. These include 

occasional flex place (67 percent in 2014 compared with 50 percent in 2008); control 

over breaks (92 percent in 2014 compared with 84 percent in 2008); control over 

overtime hours (45 percent in 2014 compared with 27 percent in 2008) and time off 

during the workday when important needs arise (82 percent in 2014 compared with 

73 percent in 2008). 

The data show that employers continue to find ways to offer flexibility to their 

employees, despite the economic challenges they face. Employers are dealing with 

lingering economic instability by trying to accomplish more with fewer employees. 

While it may have been expected that employers would cut back on flexibility entirely during the economic downturn, we are seeing employers leverage flexibility 

to remain competitive. 

49 

SHRM’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A 21ST CENTURY WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY POLICY

Because HR professionals are on the front lines of devising workplace strategies 

to create effective and flexible organizations, SHRM and its members have given 

careful consideration to the role public policy can play in advancing the adoption 

of workplace flexibility. It is our strong belief that public policy must not hinder an 

employer’s ability to provide flexible work options. Rather, public policy should 

incentivize and enhance the voluntary employer adoption of workplace flexibility 

programs. 

SHRM and its members believe the United States must have a 21st century workplace flexibility policy that reflects the nature of today’s workforce, and that meets 

the needs of both employees and employers. It should enable employees to navigate 

their work and personal needs while providing predictability and stability to employers. Most importantly, such an approach must encourage employers to offer 

greater flexibility, creativity and innovation to meet the needs of their employees’ 

families. 

In 2009, SHRM developed a set of five principles to help guide the creation of a 

new workplace flexibility public policy. In essence, SHRM believes that all employers should be encouraged to provide paid leave for illness, vacation and personal 

days to accommodate the needs of employees and their family members. In return 

for meeting a minimum eligibility requirement, employers that choose to provide 

paid leave would be considered to have satisfied Federal, State and local requirements and would qualify for a statutorily defined ‘‘safe-harbor.’’ The principles are 

as follows: 

• Shared Needs—SHRM envisions a ‘‘safe-harbor’’ standard where employers 

voluntarily provide a specified number of paid leave days for employees to use for 

any purpose, consistent with the employer’s policies or collective bargaining agreements. A Federal policy should: 

• Provide certainty, predictability and accountability for employees and employers. 

• Encourage employers to offer paid leave under a uniform and coordinated set 

of rules that would replace and simplify the confusing—and often conflicting—existing patchwork of regulations. 

• Create administrative and compliance incentives for employers that offer paid 

leave by offering them a safe-harbor standard that would facilitate compliance and save on administrative costs. 

• Allow for different work environments, union representation, industries and 

organizational size. 

• Permit employers that voluntarily meet safe-harbor leave standards to satisfy 

Federal, State and local leave requirements. 

• Employee Leave—Employers should be encouraged to voluntarily provide paid 

leave to help employees meet work and personal life obligations through the safeharbor leave standard. A Federal policy should: 

• Encourage employers to offer employees some level of paid leave that meets 

minimum eligibility requirements as allowed under the employer’s safe-harbor plan. 

• Allow the employee to use the leave for illness, vacation, personal and family 

needs. 

• Require employers to create a plan document, made available to all eligible 

employees, that fulfills the requirements of the safe-harbor. 

• Require the employer to attest to the U.S. Department of Labor that the plan 

meets the safe-harbor requirements. 

• Flexibility—A Federal workplace leave policy should encourage maximum 

flexibility for both employees and employers. A Federal policy should: 

• Permit the leave requirement to be satisfied by following the policies and parameters of an employer plan or collective bargaining agreement, where applicable, consistent with the safe-harbor provisions. 

• Provide employers with predictability and stability in workforce operations. 

• Provide employees with the predictability and stability necessary to meet personal needs. 

• Scalability—A Federal workplace leave policy must avoid a mandated one-sizefits-all approach and instead recognize that paid leave offerings should accommodate the increasing diversity in workforce needs and environments. A Federal policy 

should: 

50 

• Allow leave benefits to be scaled to the number of employees at an organization; the organization’s type of operations; talent and staffing availability, 

market and competitive forces, and collective bargaining arrangements. 

• Provide pro-rated leave benefits to full- and part-time employees as applicable 

under the employer plan, which is tailored to the specific workforce needs and 

consistent with the safe-harbor. 

• Flexible Work Options—Employees and employers can benefit from a public 

policy that meets the diverse needs of the workplace in supporting and encouraging 

flexible work options such as telecommuting, flexible work arrangements, job sharing and compressed or reduced schedules. Federal statutes that impede these offerings should be updated to provide employers and employees with maximum flexibility to navigate work and personal needs. A Federal policy should: 

• Amend Federal law to allow employees to manage work and family needs 

through flexible work options such as telecommuting, comp time, flextime, a 

part-time schedule, job sharing and compressed or reduced schedules. 

• Permit employees to choose either earning compensatory time off for work 

hours beyond the established work week, or overtime wages. 

• Clarify Federal law to strengthen existing leave statutes to ensure they work 

for both employees and employers. 

One approach to providing additional workplace flexibility that works for both employers and employees and that meets the principles outlined above is legislation 

to allow for compensatory (comp) time off in the private sector. S. 1626, the Family 

Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act of 2013, would allow more U.S. workers to 

access comp time. Specifically, the bill would modernize the application of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act to the private sector by permitting employers to offer employees the voluntary choice of taking overtime in cash payments, as they do today, or 

in the form of paid time off from work. Currently, Federal employees are offered 

a similar benefit. 

At Globe, we are in close proximity to our State capital of Concord. Many current 

Globe employees are former State employees and are often surprised when they 

learn that compensatory time is not available to private-sector employees. Since 

comp time has worked well within the public sector at the State and Federal level 

for nearly three decades, I think it is disappointing that Congress has not extended 

this same benefit to private-sector employees. 

WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS

As SHRM continues to advocate for public policy proposals that encourage or 

incentivize employers to create effective and flexible workplaces, the Society has 

also formed a multi-year partnership with the FWI to educate HR professionals 

about the business benefits of workplace flexibility. The primary goal of the SHRM/ 

FWI partnership is to transform the way employers view and adopt workplace flexibility by combining the research and expertise of a widely respected organization 

specializing in workplace effectiveness with the influence and reach of the world’s 

largest association devoted to human resource management. 

Although FWI is an independent non-advocacy organization that does not take positions on these matters, and the position of SHRM should not be considered reflective of any position or opinion of FWI, I’d like to mention one of the key elements 

of the SHRM/FWI partnership, When Work Works, a national initiative to bring research on workplace effectiveness and flexibility into community and business practice. When Work Works partners with communities and States around the country 

to: 

• Share rigorous research and employer best practices on workplace effectiveness 

and flexibility. 

• Recognize exemplary employers through the Sloan Award for Excellence in 

Workplace Effectiveness and Flexibility. 

• Inspire positive change so that increasing numbers of employers understand 

how effective and flexible workplaces benefit both employers and employees, and use 

this information to make work ‘‘work’’ better. 

Change is constant in business. We know that in order for organizations to remain competitive, they must employ strategies to respond to the changes in the 

economy, the workforce, and work itself. By highlighting strategies that enable people to do their best work, When Work Works promotes practical, research-based 

knowledge that helps employers create effective and flexible workplaces that fit the 

21st century workforce and ensures a new competitive advantage for organizations. 

51 

CONCLUSION

In the global, 21st century economy, workplace flexibility policies help both multinational corporations and small businesses meet the needs of their employees. At 

its core, workplace flexibility is about improving business results by providing employees with more control over how, when and where work gets done. In order for 

workplace flexibility strategies to be effective, however, they must work for both the 

employer and the employee. 

SHRM remains committed to working with the committee and Congress to ensure 

employers can continue to provide workplace flexibility to employees in a manner 

that does not threaten existing benefits or create unnecessary and counterproductive 

regulations. We believe it’s time to pursue a new approach to this issue absent rigid, 

unworkable mandates. 

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Troy. 

Ms. Riner. 

STATEMENT OF RHEA LANA RINER, PRESIDENT, RHEA LANA’S, 

INC., CONWAY, AR 

Ms. RINER. Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, and 

members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify 

today. 

In 1997, I began my small business as a young mom after my 

family transitioned from a corporate salary to a ministry salary. I 

loved cute clothes but did not have the budget to dress my children 

the way I hoped. So I invited a few friends to a small event in my 

living room to buy and sell children’s clothing. 

From this humble beginning, my heart swelled for families with 

budget struggles trying to provide for their children. I wanted to 

offer them the opportunity to save money. The moms, grandmoms, 

and husbands who joined together to host consignment events like 

ours create a marketplace in which their families can both sell and 

purchase gently used children’s clothing, toys, and baby equipment. 

My business, called Rhea Lana’s, is simply a facilitator. We help 

these families succeed and we love it. Rhea Lana’s offers families 

the same types of real world opportunities that E-bay offers its participants in the virtual world. Like Rhea Lana’s, E-bay offers a 

marketplace where buyers can find low-price products from people 

looking to sell their goods. Everyone understands that E-bay participants are looking out for their own interests, just like Rhea 

Lana’s consignor volunteers. 

In 2013, I encountered a huge obstacle to my business’ success. 

The Department of Labor ruled that my best customers should be 

classified as employees. The DOL then sent letters to these customers suggesting that they sue me. The DOL also warned if we 

did not follow their advice, we could be penalized for willful violations with astronomical fines. 

In doing so, the DOL ignored zero complaints against us; ignored 

a favorable ruling by the State of Arkansas; ignored interviews 

with our consignors, none of whom support the DOL’s conclusions; 

and ignored the benefits of a nationwide industry faithfully serving 

millions of moms, dads, and children over the past 25 years. Frankly, the actions of the DOL have been the exact opposite of economic 

security for this working woman. 

We were forced to file a complaint against the Department of 

Labor in Federal court. The case was brought by cause of action, 

52 

and we now ask your support of S. 1656 sponsored by Senators 

Pryor and Boozman, which was referred to this committee. 

Members of the committee, I support our government’s duty to 

verify the lawfulness of the actions of its citizens. However, the Department of Labor is acting to oppose struggling families who are 

seeking to help themselves. I believe the government should instead do more to honor a precious American resource, the ingenuity 

and courage of America’s entrepreneurs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Riner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RHEA LANA RINER

In 1997, I began my small business as a young mom after my family transitioned 

from a corporate salary to a ministry salary. I loved cute clothes, but did not have 

the budget to dress my children the way I hoped. So, I invited a few friends to a 

small event in my living room to buy and sell children’s clothing. 

After that very first sale, my husband suggested that we computerize everything 

so that consignors could enter their items online, and we bar coded our tags. From 

that time until now, we have worked hard on developing our unique, copyrighted 

software and we continually strive to increase and improve our technology. We 

value the precious little time that moms have to do all that they must do. Our 

events are about loving and serving people. 

From this humble beginning, my heart swelled for families with budget struggles 

trying to provide for their children. I wanted to offer them the opportunity to save 

money. The moms, grandmoms, and husbands who join together to host consignment events like ours create a marketplace in which their families can both sell and 

purchase gently used children’s clothing, toys and baby equipment. My business, 

called Rhea Lana’s, is simply a facilitator. We help these families succeed, and we 

love it! 

In 2008 we took a huge step and expanded our business. We now support seventy 

new business women who serve many thousands of families in their own communities. We are proud of these ladies! They have had the love and courage to step 

out of their comfort zones. It is my heart’s desire to add value to the lives of families 

by providing excellent quality merchandise at affordable prices. And it is also my 

desire to help women learn to gracefully wear those hats that we all wear—and to 

mature personally, professionally, spiritually and emotionally. 

The last 17 years have been an incredible journey. I never intended to be a business person. But I am deeply thankful to God for putting this desire in my heart, 

pushing me out of my comfort zone, and blessing my attempts in building this business. Just as with any pursuit, there have been highs and lows, victories and challenges. But I was raised to be a hard worker and to never give up. 

Please allow me to tell you how my current struggle began. 

In Spring 2011, I sent an e-mail to central Arkansas families announcing an upcoming Rhea Lana’s event. The e-mail mentioned that moms could volunteer at the 

event if they were interested in helping out. One of these e-mails went to a family 

member of an Arkansas Department of Labor employee that had signed-up for our 

mailing list. Arkansas Labor officials soon began investigating Rhea Lana’s to determine if we were violating any laws by allowing volunteers to help at events. We 

cooperated fully, and in the end, received a favorable response from our State. After 

slightly tweaking our business model, we signed a Consent Agreement with Arkansas in January 2012 that allowed us to continue using consignor-volunteers. The 

State then audited Rhea Lana’s in June 2012 and utilized the Consent Agreement 

to interpret their findings. 

While our experience with the Arkansas Department of Labor resulted in significant legal expense to our small company, we ultimately were very satisfied with the 

result. In fact, I would like to commend the Arkansas Department of Labor for applying a common sense approach to Rhea Lana’s business model that allows us to 

continue operating and serving Arkansas families. 

But then, in January 2013, we were contacted by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

There are over 2,000 consignment events held each season nationwide, and we have 

never heard of any of them being investigated. Yet now, we were about to undergo 

our second investigation in 2 years! We learned at a hearing before a joint session 

of the Arkansas Senate and House Insurance and Commerce committees that the 

State of Arkansas had originally referred Rhea Lana’s to the U.S. DOL, which at 

first declined to investigate us. Only after the State of Arkansas completed their inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
53 

vestigation and signed our Consent Agreement did the U.S. DOL decide to investigate us. 

Our initial meeting with the U.S. DOL was held in Little Rock on February 28, 

2013. Staff members from Congressman Griffin and Senator Boozman’s office attended, along with Denise Oxley, Counsel for the Arkansas Department of Labor. 

In the spirit of full cooperation, we provided DOL with the contact information of 

10 moms who had participated as consignor-volunteers for the DOL to interview. 

These moms come from all walks of life. For example, two were teachers, one was 

a stay-at-home mom, two were nurses, and one was a radiologist. We thought that 

once the U.S. DOL spoke with these moms and recognized that they were participating on a limited basis for their own benefit, not because Rhea Lana’s had some 

control over them, the U.S. DOL would realize they are not employees. We also 

shared with the U.S. DOL the Consent Agreement we had entered into with the Arkansas State Department. Unfortunately, this did not satisfy the U.S. Department 

of Labor. DOL asked for all of our payroll records going back 2 years, submitted 

formal questions to us that required the assistance of lawyers to respond, and unpredictably showed up at one of our events to surreptitiously interview our moms. 

The moms told us that they told the DOL that we are all in this together, and that 

they choose to participate to help their families. 

Ignoring the moms’ input, in a letter responding to Congressman Griffin, the DOL 

cited a 1985 Supreme Court case involving cult leaders who used adults and children in horrible ways that violated the law. The DOL’s target in this 1985 Supreme 

Court case, Tony Alamo, is a convicted child offender who exploited cult members. 

By relying upon this case, the DOL appears to be comparing me and my children’s 

consignment business to a criminal who preyed upon and manipulated many families here in Arkansas. 

This should come as no surprise to you, but Rhea Lana’s does not abuse its volunteers! Moms love Rhea Lana’s, and they are certainly NOT exploited cult members. 

The DOL also told us that the participating moms should be considered employees 

because they volunteer at our event location. Our consignment events are like multifamily garage sales in many ways. Certainly the DOL does not expect neighbors to 

issue W–2’s for participating in the neighborhood garage sale. Hopefully, government regulations will never come to this, but this is the same type of model under 

which Rhea Lana’s operates. 

Incredibly, the U.S. DOL even sent letters to all of our consignor-volunteers, asserting they had the right to sue us. The letter was also mailed to our past employees and implied that we may not have paid them for their labor—which we certainly 

did. We note that we have received ZERO complaints from our consignor-volunteers 

and employees. None of them took action against us—even after DOL’s prompting. 

In August 2013, DOL sent us a letter citing legal provisions that ‘‘provide for the 

assessment of a civil money penalty for any repeated or willful violations . . . in 

an amount not to exceed $1,100 for each such violation.’’ After being investigated 

for 2 years, when I received that letter it was my most terrifying and discouraging 

experience. However, we at Rhea Lana’s will not be victims. We are defending ourselves against the U.S. DOL’s seemingly arbitrary position. We have two bills in 

Congress. House Bill H.R. 3173 is sponsored by our Representative Tim Griffin, and 

co-sponsored by all of Arkansas’s Congressmen—Rep. Tom Cotton, Rep. Steve 

Womack and Rep. Rick Crawford, as well as Missouri Congresswoman Vicki 

Hartzley. Senate Bill S. 1656 is sponsored by both Senator Mark Pryor and Senator 

John Boozman. We are mobilizing moms nationwide to help Congress to understand 

that moms have the right to join together to help their families. If you have suggestions about how we can mobilize Members of Congress outside our State, we are 

very open to hearing from you. 

Also, on January 6, 2014, Cause of Action, an advocacy group for economic freedom, filed a legal complaint on our behalf against the DOL in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia. Again, we believe the Fair Labor Standards Act 

and case law are on our side. 

Members of the committee, I understand and support our government’s duty to 

verify the lawfulness of the actions of its citizens. This is part of living in a civilized 

world. However, unlike our own State of Arkansas, the Federal Government is now 

acting to oppose and frustrate struggling families. It is acting in this chilling manner even after fully investigating the intentions and activities of our industrious 

moms. I am doing all I can to protect my business and the rights of these precious 

women from their own government. I am grateful for a chance to speak with you, 

and I hope you will join me. Our children—and their moms—deserve our best. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Riner. 

54 

Thank you all very much for your very concise statements. I read 

over your statements last evening. They’re all excellent written 

statements, and I appreciate it very much. 

We’ll start a round—as I said, we’ll do just one question each, 

and then we’ll get through that, and maybe we’ll get some discussions going. Like I said, if a question is asked of the panel, and if 

you would like to respond to it, just, as Senator Mikulski showed 

you, turn your name up like that. 

So I’ll have the first question, and it is a panel question. I understand that much of the developed world has already implemented 

many of the public policies that we’re discussing here today. Can 

any of you address what some of those policies are, and how successful have they been for women in some of these other countries, 

if you’re aware of any such thing like that? 

I’ve heard of Canada, and I’ve heard of some European countries 

and others in the OECD countries. Are any of you aware of what 

they’ve done in any other countries? 

Ms. Bravo. 

Ms. BRAVO. When I was pregnant with my first child in the late 

1970s, I had a good friend who lives in France who said, ‘‘I feel so 

sorry for you that you have to have this baby in the United States.’’ 

And I was shocked to learn how backward we were in comparison 

to the rest of the world. 

You mentioned developed countries. It isn’t only developed countries. I used to give a quiz when I taught a class for master’s level 

students on family practices, and I put up, ‘‘Which of these countries don’t have paid family leave, Iran, Mongolia, Kenya?’’ And we 

were the only one besides Papua New Guinea and then Swaziland—now it’s Oman—who don’t have paid leave for mothers, and 

many have paid leave for fathers. 

One of the things that’s really great is that many countries who 

have far more time than we do have studied what the impact is 

on fathers’ involvement with their kids. For example, countries like 

Denmark and Sweden and Norway require fathers to spend at 

least a certain amount of time with their newborn or the family 

loses it. And it has hugely changed their involvement, not just with 

their infants, but with their kids throughout their lives. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you want to respond to that also? 

Ms. TANDEN. Yes. I’ll just briefly say that our economic competitors, Germany, China—they all offer paid leave proposals. So if 

you’re thinking about this from a competitiveness perspective, 

those countries have recognized, as all other developed nations 

have recognized, that ensuring that women participate is an important economic challenge. Countries like Italy and Japan are actually trying to increase their women’s participation rate in the workforce, because they recognize it’s a competitive advantage, not a 

disadvantage. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Riner, that’s a really interesting story you tell about your 

company and the special efforts you’ve made to give volunteers a 

chance to have an advantage. You’ve got a bipartisan bill by both 

the Democratic and Republican Senators from Arkansas to change 

55 

the attitude of the Department of Labor. If the Department of 

Labor were to be successful in requiring you to treat your volunteers as employees, what would be the cost to your company, and 

what would be the effect on your company? 

Ms. RINER. There would be a tremendous cost, sir. That’s why 

we’re fighting for it. It would definitely negatively affect us. We 

have moms, our consignor mom volunteers, that just volunteer a 

few hours. We hold events twice a year. So to have to have the 

added burden and regulation and the red tape that goes into 

classifying them as employees would be an incredible burden. 

We have definitely felt targeted and singled out. There are consignment events going on all over the country, and we disagree 

with their position, quite frankly. We feel—the Supreme Court has 

said that when you apply the Fair Labor Standards Act that you 

look at the economic reality of the whole situation. So we use our 

common sense to look at the whole work activity. 

The work activity of our business is that it’s moms coming together to work for themselves. They’re co-venturing with us to sell 

their children’s items. So they’re not our employees, and that decision by the DOL would negatively affect our business and our opportunity, quite frankly, to serve our customers. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. On my list, I have Senator Mikulski, Senators 

Franken, Casey, Warren, and Murphy. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKULSKI

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to both 

you and Senator Alexander for convening this hearing. Women in 

this country have always worked. There is somehow or another this 

myth that there are these little ladies at home that suddenly 

emerged after radical feminism flamed their desires to join the 

workforce in the 1960s. 

Whether it was the founding mother, like Abigail Adams, who 

kept the farm going while John came down and wrote the Constitution, to women who kept farms and others going during wars, to 

some who came to this country to escape chains, some in chains, 

worked, and we know about the sweat shops. Women have always 

worked. But the work has often been undervalued, underpaid, or 

made invisible. 

Then we have a modern employer, and my question goes to you, 

Ms. Troy. First of all, congratulations to this company making stuff 

to protect our firefighters. Second, you have to be competing with 

China. We understand that you’re a global competing company. 

How does a company like yours offer these benefits and still remain competitive in this world? 

And I gather you also turned a profit, because you’re turning 

every argument against what we want to do on its head. Can you 

speak from the business perspective about how you’re able to do 

this, and does it actually increase profitability? 

Ms. TROY. Yes. Thank you. I thank you for your kind comments. 

We are a family-owned and -operated company. We’ve been in the 

same family for 127 years. We invented the fire suit, so we have 

a leg up on the competition, and it was ours to lose, I guess. We 

56 

actually do not compete with China or any other overseas entities, 

mostly because our garments are customized. 

What is not well-known outside of our very small niche industry 

is that every single garment we make, all 100,000-plus of them, are 

measured to fit a particular firefighter. And then we add onto that 

different selections of materials, different selections of various components, and then after we do all that, we put on options. Options 

are pockets and snaps and various things that you can attach your 

rope to. So you can’t make them in China. 

We make them one at a time for an individual firefighter. We 

have 1.7 million combinations of options that can go on a fire suit, 

and we can make all 1.7 million combinations in our two main 

manufacturing facilities in New Hampshire and in Oklahoma. 

The owners have always been committed to working with the 

employees. They live in town with us. It’s a small town. I don’t live 

in the town, but I think it’s 5,000 people or so. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Apart from wanting to be a good employer, do 

you feel that these practices increase productivity and profit, or are 

they kind of neutral, or are they negative? 

Ms. TROY. There are some of each. Some things increase productivity. We have a nice profit sharing plan where we do a quarterly 

profit sharing bonus to all employees if the company meets its 

goals. We all have to work together in order to be both productive 

and efficient and to meet our quality standards. That certainly motivates employees. They get a weekly report as to how they’re 

doing, and then a bonus is paid out quarterly to every employee if 

we meet those goals. We do a lot of things like that. 

We spend a lot of time actually talking with our employees and 

working with them. We listen to them when they have concerns or 

when things come up, and we try to balance our programs and our 

policies around the issues that come up in the workplace to make 

sure that we’re meeting their needs as well as the company’s. And, 

yes, we are profitable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Casey. No, I’m sorry. Senator Franken. I apologize. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANKEN

Senator FRANKEN. It’s quite all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Bravo, I was very taken with your testimony about the children in the hospital with no parent there. Quite a while ago, a 

friend of mine—their child was very, very sick, and I went to visit 

the family, and both parents were able to be there. They were able 

to do that. But as I went around this pediatric ward, I saw there 

were kids that didn’t have a parent. 

We have this sort of philosophical debate. I think Senator Alexander said a mandate versus not. We have the Family Medical 

Leave Act, which is mandated, so you can have medical leave for 

your kid, but it’s not paid. So parents who can’t afford to take the 

medical leave don’t do it, and their kid is there, and the kid is 

alone. 

What I wonder about is what is it like in other countries? Do we 

have children alone—very sick children alone in the hospital without their parents, or do they have paid medical leave? And if they 

do, is it a mandate? What’s the tradeoff here? It broke my heart, 

57 

and these parents of the child I was visiting were very cognizant 

of these other children and so was that child. What is that like 

around the world, and what is it like here, and what’s it like in 

California? This is open for anyone. 

Ms. TANDEN. Around the world, there’s a mandate for leave, and 

you can take it for sick children in many countries. But you ended 

with California—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Is it paid, though? 

Ms. TANDEN. Yes, it’s paid leave in other countries. We stand out 

as a country that does not offer paid leave, and, therefore, we have 

bigger burdens on workers and their families and their children. I 

also think we should just look at the example of California, which 

has a paid leave model. That model is one where the workers pay 

out, so it’s not a particular burden just on employers, but workers 

pay into a system, and then they get basically paid leave insurance. 

We have lots of data about this so-called tradeoff, and businesses—the vast majority of businesses report that it’s a positive 

or neutral on the bottom line. It increases productivity. It helps 

keep workers. It helps retain high-quality workers. It helps retain 

women workers. Women are too often forced to come out of the 

workforce and then come in at a lower salary than they otherwise 

would. 

So you see a lot of economic benefits, not in another country, but 

in a State like California, and New Jersey is another one. It’s a 

model that shouldn’t be foreign to us, because we have good examples that work here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Bravo. 

Ms. BRAVO. I have references to all these studies that show that 

impact on kids, on health, as well as on businesses’ bottom line in 

my written remarks. But, you know, in 1995, there was a bipartisan commission appointed by Congress to study the impact of the 

then unpaid Family Medical Leave Act, and I was one of those 12 

people. 

I remember one of the more striking things—because as someone 

who fought for the bill, we were told over and over that it isn’t necessary, that employers are doing it on their own. Of those employers who are covered, let’s never forget that 40 percent of the workforce isn’t covered, and the majority of employers aren’t required to 

offer it. 

Two-thirds of the covered employers had to change one or more 

of their policies in order to comply. Do you know what that often 

meant? Covering adoptive parents, covering dads, covering people 

to take care of their aging parents or to take care of a kid with cancer. It was a really good thing that we did this, and now the 2012 

survey on FMLA showed that most employers find it easy to deal 

with and a good thing, and that will happen with these other laws, 

too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Traub, I’ll give you a short answer. We’re out of 5 minutes 

on this one. 

Ms. TRAUB. Yes, sorry about that. I always think I talk fast, and 

then I do. I think about, thankfully, not all of us have a child who 

is sick for a long time. But anyone who is a parent—you’re going 

58 

to have a child that is sick from time to time. Everyone gets sick. 

And so a basic benefit like paid sick days is—you know, everybody 

gets sick, and yet not every job accommodates somebody—that very 

human reality that every child gets sick, every adult gets sick at 

one time or another, and we need time to take care of ourselves 

and our children. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Casey. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASEY

Senator CASEY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

members of the panel for being here. It’s a great panel, and we’re 

learning a lot as we listen and as we hear the questions. 

I wanted to focus specifically on the issue of discrimination in the 

workplace as it relates to pregnant women. A number of you mentioned the legislation that Senator Shaheen and I have, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. 

I have to say when I heard the very personal testimony that you 

provided, Ms. Legros, that you did, what I’ve been trying to do for 

months, which is to summarize in one or two sentences what it’s 

all about. 

We have a problem that we thought we fixed a long time ago. 

We had a Pregnancy Discrimination Act passed in 1978, but—we 

later found it had a gaping hole in it. We didn’t do for pregnancy 

what we were able to do, thankfully, for disabilities in 1990. So instead of having a provision, as we did in the ADA, which passed 

with overwhelming support under George Herbert Walker Bush, 

the first President Bush, the so-called reasonable accommodations. 

What we’re trying to do with this bill is to provide that same protection. 

I wanted to ask you one question, in particular. But I wanted to 

re-read to everyone what you said earlier. You said, ‘‘Having a 

child shouldn’t mean losing your job. It should not lead to fear and 

financial dire straits.’’ You have encapsulated the problem with 

that sentence—or both sentences, really—and you’ve encapsulated 

the reason why we need to pass the bill. 

I guess I would ask you, in your own experience, in terms of the 

work you were doing, after you had pulled a muscle—you pulled a 

muscle, and you’re told not to strain yourself. Your doctor gives you 

a note. You hand the note to the employer and he says, ‘‘Go home.’’ 

That’s a quick summary. But in your workplace, what was the accommodation or change that would have helped you to stay on the 

job and do the job, even as you were pregnant? 

Ms. LEGROS. Thank you, Senator. With my job, I had different 

duties. I could have been accommodated by doing clerical duties instead of the heavy lifting. It was just a minor accommodation to 

have someone else to lift those, but it was just only me at the time. 

So they did not want to have somebody else help me at the time. 

But it could have been done. They were accommodating others at 

the time, but when it came to me, he just decided not to. 

Senator CASEY. Does anyone else want to comment on that, in 

particular? 

Ms. Goss Graves. 

59 

Ms. GOSS GRAVES. Ms. Legros’ story is very consistent with the 

type of intake we get at the National Women’s Law Center. We 

thought we had solved this problem with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and what we’re finding is that some employers are basically saying that everyone can be accommodated if their doctor tells 

them that they need it, except for women who are pregnant. And 

that’s the exact opposite of what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act 

was supposed to do. 

Sometimes it’s even basic accommodations, like having a step 

stool if you’re working at a cash register, having the ability to go 

to the bathroom or take a water break. These aren’t huge accommodations, and with Amy Crosby, the example I gave, lifting 20 

pounds was OK. It was just 50 pounds that her doctor advised her. 

Senator CASEY. I’ll conclude with this. The individuals in this 

category, in terms of the whole workforce, are 1.5 percent of the 

workforce. It seems that we could come up with something to protect 1.5 percent of the workforce. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Casey. 

Senator Warren. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARREN

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Alexander. We’ve heard today how the deck is stacked against 

women, particularly working moms, and about how it’s getting 

worse. We also know that two out of every three minimum wage 

workers is a woman, and that a mother working full-time at minimum wage cannot keep herself and a baby out of poverty. 

Minimum wage workers have not received an increase in their 

wages in 7 years. Women also make up about three-quarters of 

tipped minimum wage workers, and they haven’t received a raise 

in 23 years. This is bad for women. It doesn’t reflect our values. 

CEOs got raises. Managers got raises. But the mothers who cook 

and clean and work hard are just kept at the same poverty level 

wages. 

We could change this if Congress would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. More than 15 million women and their families 

would have a chance to lift themselves and improve their economic 

prospects. So what I’d like to ask the panel is how increasing the 

minimum wage would lift women and their families, to expand on 

what it means if we move to a $10.10 an hour minimum wage, and 

what kind of opportunities that would create for working families. 

Anyone? Yes, please. 

Ms. PELLETIER. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the question. 

In Connecticut, we did just pass legislation that raised it to $10.10. 

For about 80,000 women and men, that’s going to mean that they’ll 

have more money to spend in the economy. 

When their wages go from $8.65 to $10.10, that’s going to mean 

more to the local baker. That’s going to mean more to the local dry 

cleaner. And in turn, that will then allow the local baker and dry 

cleaner to go out and buy some other product or do some other 

service. 

Again, the idea that women making $7.25 on the Federal level 

after 40 hours, or roughly $300 a week, or $1,200 a month—how 

they make ends meet—clearly, they’re magicians. We need to make 

60 

sure that the minimum wage gets raised. For tip workers, again, 

the idea that they haven’t had a raise since I was very young is 

heartbreaking, and these are hardworking men and women who 

are trying to make ends meet but haven’t gotten a raise. 

Thank you. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

Ms. Goss Graves. 

Ms. GOSS GRAVES. I just want to add that we have a new study 

out that highlights that one in five working moms are working in 

very low-wage jobs. This is an issue for women overall. It’s an issue 

especially for working moms. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. That’s important to note. 

Ms. Tanden. 

Ms. TANDEN. I would just like to add that I know that there’s a 

lot of concern about tight Federal budget dollars these days, and, 

unfortunately, a lot of low-income women rely on food stamps. The 

Center for American Progress recently issued a report that showed 

that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would save 

$46 billion in food stamps and would lift a lot of women, obviously, 

out of poverty. But I think for those members of the committee concerned about tight Federal dollars, increasing the minimum wage 

would be a phenomenal way to have more fiscal stability. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Ms. Tanden. 

Ms. Bravo. 

Ms. BRAVO. Minimum wage workers without paid sick days are 

sub-minimum wage workers. Paid sick days is a way of keeping 

your pay as well as keeping your job, and we so appreciate your 

comments on that. Thank you. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you. 

I want to thank the panel on this. I just want to summarize here 

if I can, Mr. Chairman. What we hear is that if we would raise the 

minimum wage, it would be good for the economy, that it would reduce Federal spending at least to the tune of $46 billion, that it 

would affect one in five working mothers, and from the data we already know, it would permit 15 million women and their families 

to lift their economic circumstances and build a fighting chance for 

their children. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Senator Murphy. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURPHY

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to this fantastic panel. You’ve all been excellent. I 

want to drill down on one particular subject, and I’ll maybe point 

the question to my great friend, Lori Pelletier, and then ask others 

to comment if you’d like. 

I wanted to talk about specific industries that have disproportionate shares of males versus females. I think of an article that 

was in the Wall Street Journal at the end of last year, particularly 

on the issue of manufacturing—and that’s Ms. Pelletier’s background—that said that we are at a 20-year low in terms of the 

number of women who are working in manufacturing today, 27 

percent of the workforce. 

61 

And yet we’ve added a couple of hundred thousand manufacturing jobs over the past couple of years, and there are all sorts of 

estimates to suggest that this is going to be one of the primary 

growth areas for our economy, and yet only one of four individuals 

working in manufacturing are women. I’d look at military service 

in the same way. This is an area of huge employment opportunity, 

and yet women are tremendously underrepresented. We’ve had 

some changes in combat rules which may change that dynamic. 

But I’ll maybe ask the question specifically with respect to manufacturing and, more broadly, in terms of other industries. How can 

we try to remedy some of these disparities, especially within industries like manufacturing, where we see tremendous job growth over 

the next several years or several decades? 

Ms. PELLETIER. Thank you, Senator. I think that one of the best 

things that we can do is invest in the science, technology, education, and math schools for our kids, for our young women. I was 

very fortunate. I had two parents that never said that as a young 

girl I couldn’t play little league, and I was the first girl in my town 

to play little league. And it was OK for me to go out and to enjoy 

math and enjoy science, although I do wish I had been part of the 

AV squad with all the computers today instead of the softball team. 

But that’s what we need to do. We need to encourage young 

women and say to them, ‘‘Hey, it’s OK to like math. It’s OK to go 

into the sciences. It’s OK to learn how to be a mechanic on a jet 

engine.’’ I look at my niece, Gabriella, who is going to be 13 in a 

couple of weeks, and she loves math, and she loves science. For me 

and for all of us, we should be encouraging more of that, and then 

that way, those jobs that pay well, that have good benefits, that are 

here to stay, women can be part of. 

Senator MURPHY. Any other comments on this question? 

Go ahead, Ms. Goss Graves. 

Ms. GOSS GRAVES. I was just going to add that there’s a leaky 

pipeline in STEM. But some of it is sort of the environment that 

women who are in those jobs are working in now, and some of the 

barriers that we talked about, including harassment. It comes up 

in manufacturing. You hear about rampant pregnancy discrimination and other barriers. I think encouragement and recruitment is 

critical. But we also need reinforcement of our civil rights laws. 

Senator MURPHY. A quick question to you, Ms. Tanden. It seems 

as if the debate over repeal of the healthcare law has maybe been 

set on the sidelines for now. But can you just give us a quick 

minute and a half on the economic consequences for women if the 

repeal efforts were successful? 

Ms. TANDEN. Thank you, Senator. I welcome the day that there’s 

no longer controversy with the ACA. There’s really two sets of economic impacts of the ACA. First, particularly, there’s a range of 

benefits championed by many people in this room. Senator Mikulski was a lead champion of ensuring that there was a range of preventive benefits that are available for women and, most importantly, that women would no longer be discriminated against in insurance protections. 

Women, before the ACA, paid much more, often 20 percent to 30 

percent more for their insurance. That is no longer possible with 

the ACA. It is a mandate, but I think it is a fair mandate. I also 

62 

would note, though, that, as importantly, costs for healthcare are 

reducing, the level of cost in the Affordable Care Act. And I know, 

Senator, that you have shown tremendous leadership on the issue 

of healthcare costs and put forward many ideas. 

But as we reduce healthcare costs, that is also going to be a benefit to employment, because in the United States, employers and 

employees bear the cost of health insurance directly. As we lower 

those costs, we will lower barriers to employment. In both ways, 

women workers are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act, and 

I think it would be a tragedy to reach out and take those protections away from them. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Baldwin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. We have the basic premise in 

America that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should 

have a fair shot at getting ahead. It’s just a basic premise that we 

all agree on, but we know that for too many, it is not the case. So 

I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for convening this 

roundtable to discuss some of the barriers that we see to realizing 

it. 

One of the barriers that I would like to explore a little further 

is the role of discrimination and harassment, in particular, sexual 

harassment in the workplace and how that threatens the economic 

security of women and their families. Just a few statistics on this 

topic—the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says that 

they’re receiving annual claims of sexual harassment of over 10,000 

per year, and yet according to polls and other research, it’s drastically underreported. Only 41 percent of women surveyed indicate 

that they have reported harassment out of those who have actually 

experienced it. 

Now, workplace sexual harassment was already clearly a significant threat to the economic security of working women. But last 

year, I think there was a significant setback when the U.S. Supreme Court worsened an already difficult environment by stripping away some critical protections against workplace harassment 

in Vance v. Ball State University. In Vance, the court made it harder to hold employers accountable 

when the harassment was perpetrated by what you could describe 

as lower level supervisors, in other words, a supervisor who doesn’t 

have hiring and firing authority over somebody that they supervise, but may yet have all sorts of other control or ability to affect 

the working lives, and beyond, of those that they supervise. So in 

response—and I think before I was able to arrive, there might have 

been some reference to it—I have introduced the Fair Employment 

Protection Act, which would basically restore the critical protections that were stripped away in the Vance decision. 

But I wonder if I might ask you, Ms. Goss Graves—in the Vance 

case, the Supreme Court weakened the employer liability for harassment by lower level supervisors. These people, nonetheless, control daily activities of many workers, particularly those in low-wage 

positions. 

63 

So I’ll ask, in your experience, can’t those supervisors, nevertheless, use their leverage, their control that they have in the workforce, whether it’s to set hours or assign tasks relating to other 

workplace conditions, to harass and discriminate against or sexually harass their subordinates? 

Ms. GOSS GRAVES. That’s absolutely right. In her dissent in the 

Vance decision, Justice Ginsburg said that this new rule was really 

out of touch with the realities of the workplace. In large part, that’s 

because there are a lot of lower level supervisors who control the 

day-to-day activities of workers. They’re the people who say what 

shift you work, whether you work weekends, whether you’re cleaning the toilets or working the register. It is a way to aggravate the 

harassment. So in her dissent, she said the ball is in Congress’ 

court, and we are grateful to you and others for taking it up 

through the Fair Employment Protection Act. 

Senator BALDWIN. Any other comments on the issue of sexual 

harassment in the workplace? 

My friend, Ms. Bravo. 

Ms. BRAVO. I wanted to talk about another form of discrimination that you have addressed and that Senator Alexander referred 

to—people who are working part-time. Part of the problem is that 

we have no law that says if you and I do the same job for the same 

company, but I do it fewer hours a week, I have to get treated the 

same in any way—base pay, any benefits. 

We have a situation where the FMLA, for example, excludes 

many part-time workers, and I appreciate your having championed 

getting rid of that exclusion. We need part-time parity. I may work 

fewer hours, but I’m full-time every hour I’m on the job. And if we 

did that, we’d have more jobs that were better jobs. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. 

Senator Murray. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. I think the issue of economic security for working 

women is critically important to our Nation today as we try to grow 

our economy. I just had a hearing in my Budget Committee on this 

issue last week—what are the policies, what are the things we 

need to be doing as a nation today to make sure that women can 

participate fully in the workforce, everything from minimum wage 

to childcare? 

I think we have to be looking at our country to say, ‘‘What are 

we doing?’’ I appreciate your holding this hearing and my thanks 

to all of our witnesses who are here today. 

Let me focus my time on a slightly different end of the spectrum 

for women, and that’s retirement security. We know that only 

about half of the workers in the private sector today have access 

to an employer-based retirement plan. That is a figure that drops 

to about 30 percent for workers in businesses with fewer than 100 

employees. And, surprisingly, in such a wealthy nation, about 45 

percent of all of our workers have no retirement assets at all—45 

percent. 

That is pretty bad news for everyone. But, in particular, it does 

lead to worse retirement conditions for women. Among people 65 

64 

and older, women have less retirement income and face a greater 

risk of poverty than men, and one in three women today depends 

on social security as their sole source of income. I don’t think it’s 

an exaggeration to say that we have a crisis in America today 

when it comes to retirement for women, in particular. And I wanted to open it up to any of you who would like to comment on that. 

Ms. Tanden, we’ll start with you. 

Ms. TANDEN. I agree on the points you’re making and really 

thank you for your leadership on this issue, Senator Murray, and 

on issues like universal Pre-K and childcare that are so critical to 

working families. I would just note that issues of pay disparity for 

women have retirement implications, because as women are paid 

less throughout their career, that accumulates also in having a disparate pay in their retirement benefits, which are tied to salary. 

So as we look at retirement issues and the real anxiety that so 

many women, especially older women, have about being able to 

face retirement, we also need to recognize that what happens in 

the employment practice and the fact that we still have these disparities replicate themselves in retirement as well. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Ms. Pelletier. 

Ms. PELLETIER. Thank you, Senator. In Connecticut, a study was 

done—and, again, we’re a wealthy nation, and Connecticut is a 

wealthy State. But one out of four seniors lives in poverty in Connecticut. If you think about the fact that women as a whole, if, over 

the course of their work career, are continually making 23 cents 

less, basically, on a 40-year work life, they work 10 years for nothing. That absolutely has something to do with retirement security. 

In Connecticut this past year, we were able to work with the 

Governor’s office and get a study to look at a potential retirement 

for all, a State-run, employee-contributed retirement fund so that 

people may have a chance to put some money away. If people are 

working seven or eight different jobs in their career, and they’re 

not staying at the same employer, this would at least give them the 

security to know that they can still put money in, even—— 

Senator MURRAY. Have you implemented that now? 

Ms. PELLETIER. Yes. The committee is supposed to convene by 

July 1st and work and come back with specific recommendations. 

It’s very important. Again, in Connecticut, one out of every four 

seniors lives in poverty. 

Senator MURRAY. And how many of those are women? 

Ms. PELLETIER. I don’t know. 

Senator MURRAY. Ms. Bravo. 

Ms. BRAVO. Making sure that women have access to affordable 

time for caregiving will also help their retirement income. Fewer 

people will lose their jobs, and fewer people will lose their income 

that affects the pay disparities that Neera was talking about. 

That’s another thing, and thank you so much for bringing this up. 

Senator MURRAY. I think sometimes we don’t connect all the policies we talk about today that we think are so important, whether 

it’s making sure you have childcare so that you can stay at work, 

whether it’s pay equity and how that impacts your finances both 

today and when you retire, or the issue that so many women come 

65 

in and out of the workforce when they have kids because our policies today make it tough. 

What happens is all of a sudden, you’re retired, and your only 

source of income is social security. I think it’s about $13,000 or a 

little more than that a year for somebody to exist on if their sole 

source of income is social security, and one in three women, as I 

said, today depends on that small amount of money. It’s a huge 

economic issue. 

Anybody else? Oh, I am out of time. But this is something I welcome your input on, and I hope that we can focus on this issue, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

We’ll start another round. 

Ms. Bravo, you said that the United States is the only country 

that does not provide paid sick leave for a worker undergoing a 50- 

day cancer treatment. We are one of only three countries that do 

not provide paid sick days for a worker missing 5 days of work, 

say, due to the flu. Does that strike anybody but me as kind of odd? 

I mean, what’s going on here? 

I’ve known a lot of employers in this country and in my State 

and otherwise, and it just seems to me that those who do a better 

job of taking care of their employees, providing for these kinds of 

contingencies, paid maternity leave—my daughter works in California. They have a great system in California. She’s had three 

children now, and it’s just great, the maternity leave in California. 

Why don’t other businesses see the benefit they get from productivity, loyalty, low turnover, lack of absenteeism, when people have 

a baby and they come back to work? I don’t get it. What is it that 

we’re not getting here that other countries and some States are 

getting? What is it we don’t understand? 

Ms. BRAVO. The role of lobbyists. Unfortunately, I think the lobbyists for big corporations do a real disservice to business owners. 

As I said, every one of our coalitions has business partners. They 

already do it, because they see it’s the smart as well as the right 

thing to do, and they also support there being minimum standards 

to guarantee protection for everybody. 

Unfortunately, we have lobbyists who get in the way, and in 

their name—I call it identity theft—say that this is bad for business. You can go back—there’s a great Web site called Cry Wolf, 

and it shows all these quotes, and you think, ‘‘Oh, that’s so and so 

from Today.’’ But, in fact, it was—you know, they had their real 

estate board in New York after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factor Fire 

arguing against fire escapes and not being able to lock the workers 

in while they were on the job—the simplest things. We’ve heard 

that the sky will fall and business will flee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Traub, did you want to respond to that? 

Ms. TRAUB. I do. I think that, in addition, there’s a challenge for 

employers in that employee benefits are easily seen as a cost, and 

wages are seen as a cost. And the benefits that an employer can 

get in terms of more productive employees, in terms of employees 

who may spend more money in the case of retail at the business 

itself, will have more money to spend to strengthen their community and will be more productive when they have that time home 

66 

with their families. That may be more intangible to a business and 

harder to realize that all those benefits really are there. 

At the same time, I think that Ms. Bravo’s point about lobbyists 

that don’t speak for the companies they purport to represent is true 

in our experience, as well. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would just add that sometimes, some of our 

larger employers do a better job. Sometimes the biggest ones do the 

best job. 

Ms. Legros, did you want to respond to that? 

Ms. LEGROS. Yes. I just wanted to clarify something. I just wanted to also add that if I was accommodated at work, there wouldn’t 

have been a lot of things that followed afterwards, not being able 

to support my family, and having to rely on public assistance and 

government assistance and all those things. I just wanted to point 

that out, also. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very true. Thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Ms. Troy, let me ask you this question, and 

there may be others who want to comment on it. I’ve enjoyed the 

testimony. I still am puzzled at how, at a time when the big problem is the lack of jobs in America—and we’re talking about jobs for 

working women, women who work outside of the home as well as 

inside the home—that we keep getting back to the major cure for 

that being a raise in the minimum wage, which Congressional 

Budget Office Director Elmendorf sat right there and told us would 

destroy 500,000 jobs. 

Now, he said it could be as few as not many jobs destroyed, or 

it could be as many as a million jobs destroyed. But he is obligated 

by law to tell us what the truth is, that is what we pay him for. 

He said it would destroy 500,000 jobs. So we’re talking about the 

need for good jobs, and the No. 1 solution is to destroy 500,000 

jobs. How does that make any sense? It doesn’t make any sense to 

me at all. 

Then-CBO Director Elmendorf told us that 80 percent of the benefits go to people who are members of families above the poverty 

level. We also know that two-thirds of minimum wage workers 

earn a raise within 1 year of starting employment. 

If our goal is to help working women and men who are not making enough money, why would we take action that would cost 

500,000 Americans jobs? I mean, each of those persons have 

names. Most of them must be women, according to the testimony 

we’ve heard today. Why don’t we find some better policy? 

So let me suggest some and ask for your comments. Since Federal workers already have the opportunity to request comp time, 

which is paid time off instead of overtime pay, Ms. Troy, why 

shouldn’t private workers be allowed to do that? 

And, second, why should we not consider the reform and expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit as a way to help women and 

men who are working and not making enough money? In the case 

of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the money, we know, goes to lowincome people who work. It goes to people who need the money, 

and so far as I know, there is no suggestion that it would cost jobs. 

Those are two other ways to address the issue of women who work 

outside the home. Do you have a comment on either of those? 

67 

Ms. TROY. I am honestly more familiar with the comp time than 

the Earned Income Tax Credit. That’s not something that we deal 

with a lot. Comp time—I can’t speak specifically for my company, 

because we haven’t discussed it at great length. 

But it makes sense that employees and employers could choose 

whether to allow comp time at the same time and a half rate, so 

that employees would not be harmed by that. And if the employee 

would rather have time off over the summer or when something is 

going on in their own family, instead of taking the overtime pay 

that same week, I think they should be given that choice. 

I think we would discuss it very seriously as a company and decide whether it was something that made sense for us to offer. And 

I suspect some employees would really be happy to do that, and 

some would still choose to take the time-and-a-half pay. I think 

having the choice would be great. 

I know we have employees who are very close to the State capital 

of Concord, NH, and we have employees who are coming to us after 

having worked for the State. And they tend to get upset with us 

that they can’t have comp time, and it’s not us. I’m trying to explain to them, yes, there are rules, but the rules apply differently 

if you work for the government than if you work in the private sector, and it’s very difficult. 

We do get that question fairly frequently. ‘‘Well, why can’t I save 

my time and have some extra vacation or to take care of some personal business?’’ 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. I believe there are two or three 

others, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t know who had theirs up first. 

Ms. Traub, go ahead. 

Ms. TRAUB. Thank you. With all due respect to the Congressional 

Budget Office and their study, there’s a lot of evidence, really, that 

raising the minimum wage does not harm job creation and may encourage it. There’s sort of two sets of studies on this, some that use 

economic models and some that look at the experience of States 

that really have raised the minimum wage and what the impact 

has been. In the studies that look at the experience of States that 

have recently raised the minimum wage, there are not findings 

that this has been detrimental to job creation. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I know there are lots of different studies, 

but that was the Congressional Budget Office testimony after a review. And then President Obama’s new chairman of the Federal 

Reserve Board was asked if CBO was competent to make that review, and she said they’re as good as anybody to study it. They are 

non-partisan. We have to take somebody’s judgment on that. 

Ms. TRAUB. Senator, I do think that the Earned Income Tax 

Credit is a wonderful supplement to an increase in the minimum 

wage and can be a big part of the solution. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Go ahead, Ms. Goss Graves. 

Ms. GOSS GRAVES. The only other thing that I want to add to 

that is that I think today’s roundtable has shown how interconnected these issues are, and that the reality of women’s lives is 

that there’s two-thirds of working adult women who are minimum 

wage workers. Having an increase in the minimum wage would 

68 

make a big difference. But also having an Earned Income Tax 

Credit makes a big difference. I think things like support for 

childcare is going to make a big difference. 

When you pair all of that with the conversation around flexibility, the conversation that we hear at the Law Center a lot is 

around schedules that are unpredictable and unstable and workers 

who aren’t able to deal with their family needs because of that reason. So I think these are interconnected issues, but I don’t think 

it’s a situation where you have to do one or the other. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I think there’s one other comment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have—OK, fine. 

Senator ALEXANDER. There’s one over here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I’m sorry. Ms. Riner. 

Ms. RINER. Thank you, sir. I just wanted to bring a little different perspective as a business owner, a small business owner, 

that I love and care for my employees as if they are our family. So 

just a little different perspective. I’m not an expert in all the regulations that are being discussed today. But just a reminder that 

when we do apply these regulations across the board, it really 

hurts small businesses like myself, and it can hurt with undue regulations. 

One of the things that we offer in our business is franchise opportunities to women. That’s a way I have really enjoyed approaching the economic challenges of women in the workforce. We provide 

an entry level opportunity for a woman to be a business owner. 

I know, Senator Alexander, you discussed flexibility, and from 

my discussions with women across the country, that is what 

women want. We actually want it all. We want to provide and help 

our families financially, but we also want to be present with our 

families. So when we are able to be a business owner, we have 

more control over our schedules, and I just love offering that to 

women. 

We actually have a single mom who is a franchise owner in Kansas. That’s what being a business owner has provided for her. It’s 

given her a chance to own and operate her business and be very 

present with her child. I just wanted to share just another perspective. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Riner. 

Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, 

women hold a disproportionate number of low-wage jobs, making 

up about 76 percent of the workers in the 10 biggest low-wage job 

categories in America. And these include some of the fastest growing occupations in the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

projects that over the next decade, about half of the fastest growing 

occupations will be in low-wage, female dominated, service occupations. That’s the direction we’re headed in. 

Now, many of these jobs lack predictable schedules or hours. 

Many of these workers have little control over their work hours. It 

makes juggling a family, a home, and work for many people almost 

impossible. According to the Retail Action Project, about a fifth of 

retail workers receive their schedules only 3 days in advance. 

As a result of these practices, these workers often have to struggle to cobble together childcare and transportation at the last 

69 

minute. And even after all of that, some of them get to work only 

to be told to turn around and go home because business is slow. 

In Massachusetts, we have something called the 3-hour rule. If 

you’re scheduled for more than 3 hours and you show up for your 

shift, then you must be paid for at least 3 hours at no less than 

minimum wage. That law has been in place for over 30 years, and 

it seems to have worked pretty well. We’ve also heard of other examples of States enacting innovative policies to help working families. 

So my question for the panel is this: Are there innovative approaches at the State or local level that would curb abusive scheduling practices and that would give families a fair shot at trying 

to put together their lives? 

Anyone—yes, Ms. Traub. 

Ms. TRAUB. Massachusetts is such a great model of a reporting 

pay law, and I think this is something that Congress could consider. Eight States now offer laws on reporting pay which compensate employees for a minimum number of hours during a work 

shift for which they have been scheduled. 

Many of these laws guarantee that if a worker is called in for a 

shift, she has to be paid for a certain number of hours. It might 

be 3 hours, 4 hours, even 1 hour. But it at least guarantees that 

workers have that opportunity. If they’ve set up childcare, if 

they’ve arranged for transportation, however they’ve done it, to get 

to work, then they are guaranteed at least a minimum amount of 

pay. 

Senator WARREN. Good. Very helpful. Thank you. 

Ms. Goss Graves. 

Ms. GOSS GRAVES. In addition to the reporting time pay laws, 

there are also laws out there that discourage split shifts. I think 

that DC has an example, and California has an example of that 

type of law. And there’s also the laws that allow for workers to request flexible schedules without receiving a penalty. That’s another 

example, and Vermont has one. 

What we know is that the consequences for workers who have 

these unstable and inflexible schedules is that they can’t also have 

stable childcare arrangements and they can’t also have additional 

educational opportunities. So, another point about all of these 

issues being linked. 

Senator WARREN. Actually, I should add to that people who are 

trying to work two jobs and how impossible that becomes for many. 

Ms. Bravo. 

Ms. BRAVO. In California, the right to request is combined with 

studying the predictable scheduling problem and looking for solutions. That’s a good model. There’s another aspect of this, which is 

enforcement. There are a lot of temp workers who get told, 

‘‘You must show up to see if your name is on the list. If you 

don’t do that, you won’t be called for weeks. But you’re not 

going to get paid for showing up to see if your name is on the 

list.’’ 

Or people who get driven in a van are told they can only get the 

job if they go in the van, and they wind up sitting there an hour, 

and they don’t get paid for that time. Those could be violations of 

wage and hour that we could change. 

70 

Senator WARREN. Very helpful. I just want to ask, since my time 

is up, if we could have more ideas sent in to the committee. This 

is where we need to push the conversation. We can’t always be 

fighting on defense. It’s time to talk about where we could make 

changes that would help families. 

And when we think, particularly, about the direction that we’re 

headed in the workforce and the rise in the number of female dominated, low-wage jobs, the importance of being able to focus on 

things like the scheduling issues, I think, could really be powerful. 

So I invite your continued conversation on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warren. 

Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. I want to talk about paid sick 

time, or actually, more specifically, about the 40 percent of working 

people who don’t have those protections, because it obviously leads 

to these horrible choices between taking care of your own health 

or the health of a family member and losing out on a paycheck or 

perhaps even a job entirely. 

There was some testimony today about the steps forward that 

have been achieved at the local and State level on this issue. The 

old, good news in Wisconsin was that in 2008, voters in Milwaukee 

approved a local ballot measure for mandating paid sick days. But, 

troublingly, the bad news is that in my State of Wisconsin and 

Ellen Bravo’s State of Wisconsin, in 2011, a law was passed to forbid localities from requiring paid time off. 

I wonder, starting with you, Ms. Bravo, if you could talk about 

the trends at the State and local level on paid sick days. I’m curious to know whether Wisconsin is an anomaly with regard to cutting off local measures like this, or whether there are other States 

that have done the same. 

Ms. BRAVO. Thank you so much, Senator Baldwin. There’s lots of 

progress, and we’re going to see more in Senator Warren’s home 

State. I think we’ll see increases in both paid sick time and minimum wage under the umbrella of Raise Up Massachusetts, and 

we’re going to see a number of other places that will add it. 

But, alas, Wisconsin was not the only State. This is another form 

of attack on democracy, trying to limit not only who can vote, but 

what we can vote for. It’s really frightening, and it’s, surprisingly, 

being done by people who claim to care about local control. But it 

is, in essence, an attack on local control for broader protections. 

I remember when it was being stolen from us in Milwaukee, the 

conservative columnist at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote a 

column saying, ‘‘I hate paid sick days.’’ But local control is local 

control. You can’t take it away. But we’re fighting it. We’ve stopped 

in several places, and you’ll see. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Tanden. 

Ms. TANDEN. I would just say, you know, Florida is an example 

where there was a move afoot at the local level to have paid sick 

days, and then statewide there was a move afoot to stop that ability to have that happen. I would just say to the committee that for 

those who support federalism and say that States should be able 

to innovate without Federal intervention, we should have the same 

level of experimentation at the city level. 

71 

We’re seeing paid sick days around the country—San Francisco, 

New York City. These are experiments, and they should not be 

thwarted by statewide action, either. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Pelletier. 

Ms. PELLETIER. Thank you, Senator. In Connecticut, we passed 

paid sick days. It was a 3- or 4-year battle. The sky was supposed 

to fall when it happened, and it did not. This past year, a study 

was released that showed that it had no negative impact on businesses at all. 

And, what really drove it home was those service sector jobs 

where people—we had testimony of people who in the food industry 

had to go to work, serve customers, knowing they were sick. One 

woman who stayed out because she had the flu for 2 days got fired 

by her employer. 

So it was those sort of testimonies that really drove the point 

home, because we can all picture ourselves going into a fast food 

restaurant or any restaurant and thinking, ‘‘My gosh. The person 

who just served my food—were they sick or not?’’ It was a battle, 

but we continue to bring that out. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Troy. 

Ms. TROY. Thank you. As an employer, we have issues with the 

idea of just calling it sick time, because sick time means you have 

to be sick, and I have to define that on who is covered and what 

the documentation looks like, and there’s a lot of paperwork. As an 

employer, we said we don’t want people to have to wait until 

Thursday night or Friday morning and pick up the phone and 

cough at the last minute into the phone and pretend to be sick and 

call us because they need a day off. We want them to be honest 

with us. We want them to be adults. We want them to plan their 

time. 

We already had between 10 and 20 vacation days, depending on 

how long you’ve been with the company, and we added these 12 

GTO days to say, 

‘‘Look, we know you have other reasons you need time off. 

You might be sick, and if you have a family, there’s a bigger 

chance you need some sick time because you have additional 

family members. But maybe you’re a single person and you 

don’t get sick very often, but you have a dog that you love that 

has to go to the vet, or you have all those other things that 

happen in our lives. You have to pick up mom at the airport. 

You have to do those things.’’ 

As an employer, we need to be encouraged to have time off for 

people that’s appropriate, but the sick time bucket is the one-sizefits-all that doesn’t fit everybody. It just doesn’t. To mandate sick 

time—we’re not going to add to sick time if someone mandates 7 

sick days. We’re not going to have 20 days of vacation plus 12 days 

of GTO plus add 7 sick day plus jury duty plus military plus—we’re 

not going to add 7 more. 

We’re going to revamp our GTO time to say, ‘‘OK. Now it’s sick 

time,’’ and that’s going to hurt some employees. It’s going to hurt 

some women employees who have other things to do that have 

nothing to do with being sick, but they need the time off. I think 

it’s really important to think about the unintended consequences. 

72 

The idea of it is wonderful. People need time off to take care of 

family members and themselves, absolutely, positively, and the 

good employers recognize that, and I don’t think those are the ones 

we’re really talking about as much today. But the good employers 

recognize that and try to do something. I’d just caution you to be 

careful. 

Ms. BRAVO. I’m so happy to correct the misunderstanding here. 

We applaud you, Ms. Troy, for the flexibility that you have. Every 

one of these laws is written to say that any paid time that the employer provides can be used to comply, as long as it can be used 

in the same manner for the same reason, meaning that if my child 

is sick, I can use my sick time, and that I can use it without being 

punished. But, absolutely, your policy would comply. Not a problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. 

Ms. Legros, I want to talk to you again. You had this job for 2 

years at this armored truck company. Did you like your job? 

Ms. LEGROS. Yes, I did. I did enjoy my job. It was very difficult 

for me to not be able to work while I was pregnant, especially since 

my employer did accommodate other disabled people that were 

working for the same company. I wasn’t protected under the same 

law that they were. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you belong to a union? 

Ms. LEGROS. No, I did not belong to a union. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did any of your fellow workers belong to a 

union? 

Ms. LEGROS. No, they did not. 

The CHAIRMAN. There was not a union there. So you liked your 

job. You worked there for 2 years, and then you got pregnant, and 

you had this physical problem, and your manager sent you home 

without pay indefinitely. Let me ask you this. Had they provided 

you accommodations, and you’d had your child, and if you’d had 

some decent time off to nurse, that type of thing, would you have 

gone back to work for that armored company? 

Ms. LEGROS. Yes, I would have. I did not have any complications 

with my pregnancy. My doctor just advised me from heavy lifting 

to prevent me from further injury from pulling a muscle in my 

stomach. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then you say later that your employer 

fought your unemployment benefits. 

Ms. LEGROS. Yes, they did. I went 7 months without any pay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why did they fight your unemployment benefits? 

Ms. LEGROS. I believe because I did not fall under the short-term 

disability terms, and they did not want to compensate me for being 

out. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then your health insurance was cutoff. You 

didn’t have COBRA, and you had to go on Medicaid. Now you have 

a part-time job. Is there a reason why you don’t have a full-time 

job? 

Ms. LEGROS. Currently, I’m working a part-time job because of— 

after having my baby, I did go back to work with the help of A Better Balance, and I did go back full-time. Things did get slow, and 

I started getting cut in hours. So I looked for a part-time job to 

73 

compensate for the hours that I was losing. I was recently laid off 

of my full-time job in March again. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you were actually doing two jobs? 

Ms. LEGROS. I was doing two jobs at the time. But, currently, I’m 

just working a part-time job. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many hours were you working when you 

were doing both jobs? 

Ms. LEGROS. I’m sorry? 

The CHAIRMAN. How many hours a day were you working when 

you had the full-time job and a part-time job? 

Ms. LEGROS. The full-time job gave me probably 26 to 30 hours 

a week, and I’m currently working 17 to 18 hours a week. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you were working both at one time. 

Ms. LEGROS. Yes, I did both at one time because I was working 

less hours at the full-time job because work was slow. So I needed 

something to compensate for the loss of hours. And I won’t be eligible for full-time at my part-time job for another 6 months. That’s 

their policy. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think what we tend to forget is there are millions of people, women, in America who have your same situation. 

That’s what we’re trying to address. For a lot of different reasons, 

they find themselves in tough circumstances, and as someone said, 

you shouldn’t have to be choosing between your job and the health 

of your kids and the well-being of your family. 

Certainly we’re a rich enough country to be able to afford that— 

a modicum of decency, of support. Again, I say if other countries 

can do it, and we’re only one of three—that doesn’t make sense 

that other countries can do it and we can’t. We can’t afford it? 

We’re the richest nation in the world. We’re the richest nation in 

the history of the world. And if we’re the richest nation in the history of the world, why do we have all these problems? 

It seems to me that we need to have some societal type agreements that put some floors underneath this, that provide for people 

like Ms. Legros, who are pregnant or who have a medical problem—that there’s accommodations made. Should a person like Ms. 

Legros just be at the whim of whoever the employer is? You say, 

‘‘Well, he owns the business, or she owns the business.’’ I don’t 

know. But some people have the attitude that if you own a business, you can do whatever you want. 

Businesses get tax advantages. They do other things. They’re involved in our society. It seems to me there ought to be some fundamental rules that apply to workers in our country, and, of course, 

one of those is minimum wage, which I’ve been pushing, which is 

my bill. And I’m going to give Senator Alexander a chance to rebut 

me on this, my good friend that he is, and he knows that. We just 

have a difference on this. 

I would say I want to correct this, though. CBO did not do their 

own study. They did not do a study. They only looked at the literature that was out there. They added it all up, and they said 

there could be jobs lost of anywhere from zero to a million. Senator 

Alexander mentioned that. They said they just picked 500,000 as 

the median point. 

But some of those studies were old studies, and there’s new studies, and the quality is quite different. I’ve often used the example 

74 

of when I was an engineering student once, back when we used a 

transit and we used a chain and a rod, and we’d do surveying that 

way, you know, get boundaries like George Washington used to do. 

We plotted different things. 

Today, however, they use GPS and lasers. Now, if they were to 

plot the same land that I plotted 60 years ago, they’d probably be 

a little bit more accurate than I was. So if you’re saying, 

‘‘Well, we want to know what that plot of land really is, so 

we’ll take Harkin’s, which is 60 years old, and we’ll take the 

new one, and we’ll just even them up,’’ 

that doesn’t make sense. If you’ve got something that’s better and 

more accurate, you take that. 

The fact is we have better and more accurate studies that have 

been done in the last few years on the impact of raising the minimum wage that show, basically, that there hasn’t been an impact 

on unemployment. But there has. I mean, the CBO did say that almost a million people would be lifted out of poverty, and $31 billion 

would flow to—not people in poverty, but people below three times 

the level of poverty. So that’s a debate that continues. 

Senator Alexander, do you want to say anything? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I’ve made my point. I thank the witnesses 

for being here today. It’s been very helpful, and I’ve enjoyed listening to them. 

The CHAIRMAN. I, too. And, Ms. Legros, I especially appreciate 

your putting a human face on this. It’s a small comfort. But there 

are a lot of people in this country in your same situation, and I 

think we have a responsibility as a Federal Government to respond 

to a national, I think, crisis that we have in families, especially 

with women and single mothers and single parents in this country. 

I think that as we progress in our ideas of what society should 

be like and how we should advance our social awareness, I think 

this is one of the areas where we’re way behind. Paid sick leave, 

I think, maternity leave, Senator Casey’s bill on the pregnancy act 

are just things I think that make our society more caring, more inclusive, and more considerate of one another. And I don’t think 

that’s a bad thing. 

Thank you all very much for being here. Great testimony. We appreciate your being here. Thank you. 

The committee will stand adjourned. 

[Additional material follows.] 

75 

1 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, December 19). Occupations with the most growth, 

2012 and projected 2022 (Table 1.4). Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ 

epltablel104.htm. 2Glynn, S. (2012, 16 April). The New Breadwinners: 2010 Update. Retrieved 30 May 2014, 

from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/04/16/11377/the-new-breadwinners-2010-update/. 3 National Alliance for Caregiving. (2009, November). Caregiving in the U.S. National Alliance 

for Caregiving and AARP publication. Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://www.caregiving.org/ 

data/CaregivinglinlthelUSl2009lfulllreport.pdf. 4Kaiser Family Foundation. (2011, May). Women’s Health Care Chartbook: Key Findings from 

the Kaiser Women’s Health Survey. Retrieved 30 May 2014, from http://kaiserfamily 

foundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8164.pdf. 5MetLife Mature Market Institute. (2011, June). The MetLife Study of Caregiving Costs to 

Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for Baby Boomers Caring for Their Parents. Retrieved 30 

May 2014, from https://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/caregiving-cost-working-caregivers. 

html#key%20findings. 6 Ibid. 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

JUNE 3, 2014. 

Hon. TOM HARKIN, Chairman, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

428 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 20510. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HARKIN: On behalf of the National Partnership for Women & 

Families, I commend you for holding the May 20th roundtable on Economic Security 

for Working Women. I write to urge you and your colleagues to support the policies 

the panelists discussed, including paid sick days, paid family and medical leave, 

pregnancy accommodations and equal pay. These policies would modernize our Nation’s workplaces to reflect the urgent needs of our families. 

Across the Nation, families are struggling to get by. The economy is recovering 

unevenly, and the jobs that are being created don’t provide the wages or the protections that workers need. Women dominate the industries and fill the lower-paying 

jobs that offer little access to basic paid time off for illness or family and medical 

needs. Nineteen of the 30 fastest growing jobs pay annual wages below the national 

median wage, and most of these jobs will be held by women.1

Women bring home a significant share of their families’ income and are the primary caregivers for children and elders in their families. Women are the primary 

or co-breadwinners in two-thirds of households,2 and two-thirds of all family caregivers are female.3 Overwhelmingly, mothers have primary responsibility for selecting their children’s doctors, accompanying children to appointments and helping to 

ensure they obtain recommended care.4 Women are also more likely than men to 

care for elderly parents.5 They are more likely to drop out of the workforce rather 

than reduce their work hours to manage caregiving responsibilities, leading to longterm financial consequences.6 People across the country are working hard to make 

ends meet and take care of their families, yet the Nation fails to provide the support 

they need and that businesses and our economy need to thrive. 

The United States is on an unsustainable path. It is past time for Congress to 

adopt basic standards to help people manage the dual demands of work and family 

and promote their families’ financial stability. These policies include job-protected 

paid sick days, paid family and medical leave, fair pay and work schedules, affordable child care and job-protected time away from work to attend children’s school 

meetings or preventive medical care appointments. Other policies, such as raising 

the minimum wage, protecting workers’ ability to earn overtime pay and protecting 

the right of workers to organize, are also critically important to prosperity and mobility. 

The National Partnership is proud to convene a national coalition that advocates 

for many of these policies. In particular, this coalition of organizations representing 

women, children, low-wage workers, health care providers, business leaders, faith 

leaders, and the civil rights community urges Congress to take immediate action in 

support of: 

• The Healthy Families Act (S. 631/H.R. 1286), which would allow workers to 

earn up to seven paid sick days to use to recover from illness, access preventive care 

or care for a sick family member; and 

• The Family And Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act) (S. 1810/ 

H.R. 3712), which would create a national insurance program to support workers 

and businesses by providing workers a portion of their typical wages when they 

76 

need time away from their jobs to address their own serious health condition, care 

for a loved one with a serious health condition, care for a new child or address the 

exigencies of a family member’s military deployment. 

Our broad and diverse coalition supports these policies because they improve 

working families’ economic security, improve health outcomes and reduce health 

care costs. Moreover, evidence from States and cities that have adopted these policies show they are working well for workers, families, businesses and communities. 

We look forward to working with you and the HELP Committee to ensure that 

American workers are able to meet their responsibilities on the job and to their families. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

DEBRA L. NESS, 

President. 

Attachment 1.—Coalition Letter in Support of the Healthy Families Act, 

June 3, 2014. 

JUNE 3, 2014. 

DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you 

to support the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286/S. 631) a common sense bill 

that would allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days a year to recover 

from short-term illnesses like the flu, access preventive care, care for a sick 

family member or seek assistance related to domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Without paid sick days, workers are forced to make impossible 

choices when illness strikes: stay home, lose pay and risk their jobs; or go to work 

sick, risk their health and spread disease to their co-workers and communities. Establishing a national paid sick days standard will help make businesses and governments more efficient while giving working families more financial stability—leading 

to a stronger economy for all. 

No one should face the impossible choice between caring for their health 

and keeping their paycheck or job. But more than 43 million workers—nearly 

4 in 10 private sector workers—must make this decision every time illness strikes 

because they don’t have access to earned paid sick days.1 And millions more lack 

paid sick time to care for a sick child or other family member. Working families 

need the job and economic security paid sick days provide. 

The lack of paid sick days is acute in jobs requiring frequent contact 

with the public—with potentially grave public health consequences. Three 

in four food preparation and service workers don’t have a single paid sick day.2

Without paid sick days, workers are forced to take unpaid leave or work sick. In 

the restaurant industry, the result is that nearly two-thirds of servers and cooks report that they have served or cooked while ill.3 This puts workers, customers and 

businesses in danger. Similarly, the vast majority of workers in child care centers 

and nursing homes cannot earn paid sick days.4 When these workers have no choice 

but to work sick, they risk spreading contagious diseases to the very young and the 

very old. 

Ensuring all workers can earn paid sick days will significantly reduce 

public expenditures. Workers without paid sick days are more likely to seek 

treatment at an emergency department because they can’t take time off to get care 

during regular business hours.5 A 2011 study found that if all workers had paid sick 

days, 1.3 million emergency room visits could be prevented each year, saving $1.1 

billion annually. More than half of these savings—$517 million—would accrue to 

taxpayer-funded health insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program.6

Businesses benefit when their employees have access to paid sick days. 

When sick workers are able to stay home, the spread of disease slows and workplaces are both healthier and more productive. Plus, workers recover faster from illness and obtain timely medical care—enabling them to get back to work more quickly and holding down health care costs. Paid sick days also reduce ‘‘presenteeism’’, 

the productivity lost when employees work sick, which is estimated to cost our national economy $160 billion annually and surpasses the cost of absenteeism.7 In addition, workers who earn paid sick days are 28 percent less likely than workers who 

don’t earn paid sick days to be injured on the job—with an even greater difference 

among workers in high-risk occupations.8

Paid sick days enable working parents to care for their children when 

they are sick—shortening child recovery time and reducing community 

contagion. Unfortunately, more than half of working parents are unable to earn 

77 

even a few paid sick days to use to care for a sick child.9 Parents without paid sick 

days are more than twice as likely as parents with paid sick days to send a sick 

child to school or day care.10 When parents have no choice but to do so, children’s 

health and educational attainment is put at risk—as is the health of classmates, 

teachers and child care providers. 

Paid sick days policies have been enacted successfully at the State and 

local levels. Connecticut, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Seattle have all successfully implemented paid sick days laws, and in 2013, Portland, Oregon and New 

York City have become the latest cities to pass paid sick days. San Francisco’s paid 

sick days law has been in place since 2007. Since its passage, the number of businesses and jobs in the city has increased relative to the surrounding five counties 

without paid sick days laws.11 And workers and their families have benefited with 

little to no burden on employers.12 The momentum for paid sick days policies is 

growing in States and cities across the country, but illness knows no geographic 

boundaries and access to paid sick days should not be dependent on where a worker 

is employed. That is why the national paid sick days standard proposed in the 

Healthy Families Act is so important. 

The Healthy Families Act would: 

• Allow workers in businesses with 15 or more employees to earn up to 7 job-protected paid sick days each year to be used to recover from their own illness, access 

preventive care or provide care for a sick family member; 

• Allow workers who are survivors of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault 

to use their paid sick days for recovery or to seek assistance; and 

• Allow employers that already provide paid sick days or paid time off to maintain their existing policies, as long as they meet the minimums set forth in the bill 

for the amount of time, types of use and method of use. 

Working people should not have to risk their financial health when they do what 

the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urge, and what we all agree 

is the right thing to do when illness strikes—stay home to recover. Setting a minimum paid sick days standard will be good for America’s workers, families, communities and businesses. When people have the financial and job security they need, 

our economy gets stronger. 

We urge you to demonstrate your strong commitment to our Nation’s working 

families by becoming a co-sponsor of the Healthy Families Act. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 


88025-2.eps
78 


88025-3.eps
79 


88025-4.eps
80 

Attachment 2.—Coalition Letter in Support of the Family And Medical 

Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act) 

MAY 21, 2014. 

DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: On behalf of the 437 undersigned organizations and 

the tens of millions of working families we represent, we urge you to become a 

co-sponsor of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act of 2013 (FAMILY 

Act). The FAMILY Act, legislation that would create a national family and medical 

leave insurance program, epitomizes our Nation’s commitment to the fundamental 

well-being of its people, especially women, children and seniors. Such a program has 

the support of three-quarters of voters—with majority support or more across demographic, partisan and regional line13—because Americans know that a national paid 

leave program would strengthen the workforce, families, businesses and our economy. 

The FAMILY Act would create a paid family and medical leave insurance 

program. Employees would earn a portion of their wages for a limited period of 

time (up to 60 workdays, or 12 workweeks in a year) to address their own serious 

health issue, including pregnancy or childbirth; to deal with the serious health issue 

of a parent, spouse, domestic partner or child; to care for a new child; and/or for 

specific military caregiving and leave purposes. Employees and employers would 

contribute a small amount in each paycheck to a self-sustaining fund, administered 

through a new Office of Paid Family and Medical Leave. Fund contributions would 

cover both benefits and administrative costs. Eligibility rules would allow younger, 

part-time, low-wage and contingent workers to contribute and benefit, regardless of 

their employer’s size or their length of time on the job. 

Many employer and public workplace policies are currently not meeting 

the basic health and economic needs of workers and their families. A mere 

12 percent of workers in the United States have access to paid family leave through 

their employers, and less than 40 percent have access to personal medical leave 

through an employer-provided temporary disability program.14 Just 50 percent of 

new mothers take even a few paid days away from their jobs to care for a new 

child.15 And lower-wage workers and workers of color are even less likely to have 

basic access to paid leave,16 yet they are often most in need of financial resources 

when a family or medical need arises. 


88025-5.eps
81 

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has been a tremendous help 

to families, but too many people today cannot afford to take unpaid leave. 

The most common reason cited by those who are eligible for FMLA leave but do not 

take it is that they cannot afford to do so. Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of people who are employed say that they or their families would be likely to face significant financial hardship if a serious personal or family illness occurred or a new 

child was born or adopted.17 Many others cut their leave time short, dip into savings 

or go into debt in order to take the time they need to care for their loved ones or 

their own health.18

The American people want to have strong families, to be good parents, 

and to have a job and succeed at it, but they are too often forced to choose 

one of these priorities over another—and that weakens the entire country. 

We can do better, and we can be stronger. 

The FAMILY Act will mean a stronger workforce. Many women and men 

today are both breadwinners and caregivers, and paid time off for family and medical purposes helps workers —particularly women—stay and succeed in their jobs 

and earn higher wages over time. Most women work prior to and after the birth 

of their first child; most families with children have all adults in the workforce; and 

most women and men who provide care to an ill family member also hold paying 

jobs.19 People are working longer and retiring later, meaning older workers with 

health needs are increasingly part of the workforce.20 In addition, employees are increasingly working part-time or on a contingent basis, diminishing their access to 

paid time off when family and medical needs arise.21 The FAMILY Act would create 

a national labor standard that recognizes these fundamental changes in the way 

people live and work. 

The FAMILY Act will help to bring the United States in line with the rest 

of the world. The United States is one of just eight countries in the world that 

do not guarantee paid maternity leave to new mothers,22 one of five highly competitive countries that do not guarantee paid parental leave to new fathers,23 and the 

only highly competitive country that does not guarantee paid medical leave for serious illness.24

The FAMILY Act will strengthen the economic security of working people 

and their families. Paid leave provides income stability for working people and 

families at critical moments in their lives. Having a baby is the most expensive 

health event that families face during their childbearing years,25 and a new child’s 

entry into a household is a leading trigger for a family’s entry into poverty.26 Paid 

leave also promotes financial independence, especially for growing families. In 

the year following a birth, new mothers who take paid leave are 54 percent more 

likely to report wage increases and 39 percent less likely to need public assistance 

than mothers who do not, taking other related socioeconomic factors into account; 

fathers who take paid parental leave are also less likely to need public assistance 

in the year following a child’s birth.27

The FAMILY Act will mean stronger, improved health outcomes for all. 

Paid leave contributes to improved newborn and child health. New mothers who 

take paid leave are more likely to take the amount of time recommended by doctors,28 and their children are more likely to be breast fed, receive medical checkups and get critical immunizations.29 An additional 10 weeks of paid leave for new 

parents, on average, reduces post-neonatal mortality by up to 4.5 percent.30 Children with illnesses also recover faster when cared for by their parents. The presence 

of a parent shortens a child’s hospital stay by 31 percent.31 And active parental involvement in a child’s hospital care may head off future health care needs and costs, 

which is particularly true for children with chronic health conditions.32

Paid leave also allows ill or injured adults to get critical care and needed recovery time. And it enables people to help their loved ones, including older family 

members with health problems, recover from illness, fulfill treatment plans, and 

avoid complications and hospital re-admissions,33 which reduces health costs. Currently, 48 percent of family caregivers who have to take time off to meet their care 

responsibilities lose income when they do so.34

The FAMILY Act will mean stronger businesses. A majority of small business 

employers say they support paid family and medical leave insurance because it 

gives employees the financial security they need, without harming business.35 Paid 

leave keeps people in their jobs and spending money in their communities while also 

reducing turnover costs and increasing employee loyalty. Companies typically 

pay about one-fifth of an employee’s salary to replace that employee.36 But new 

mothers who take paid leave are more likely than mothers who do not to be working 

9 to 12 months after giving birth.37 And in California, one of the three States where 

a successful family leave insurance program exists, workers in low-wage, high-turnVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:20 Feb 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\22615.TXT DENISE
82 

over industries are much more likely to return to their jobs after using the State’s 

program.38

Paid leave also leads to cost savings for high-road employers who already provide 

paid time off because their policies can be coordinated with the Federal program. 

In California, 60 percent of businesses surveyed reported coordinating their benefits 

with the State program, likely reducing their out-of-pocket costs.39 Creating a national standard would also level the playing field for those businesses that want to 

provide paid leave but currently cannot afford to do so. 

The FAMILY Act will mean a more secure retirement for all and a stronger Social Security system. Paid leave safeguards the income and retirement security of workers while complementing our Nation’s well-established Social Security 

system. Social insurance has a long record of success in the United States, lifting 

millions of children and elders out of poverty. The FAMILY Act builds on that success. 

On average, a worker who is 50 years of age or older who leaves the workforce 

to take care of a parent will lose more than $300,000 in wages and retirement income.40 By keeping new parents, ill workers and family caregivers attached to the 

workforce, a national paid family and medical leave insurance program would keep 

people paying taxes, which would help correct projected Social Security shortfalls 

down the road. 

In addition, the paid leave fund would be entirely separate from the Social Security Trust Fund and Social Security Disability Insurance. The funding would be 

used to administer the program and provide benefits. The program would build on 

Social Security’s existing benefits determination and payment infrastructure, and 

any additional demands on the system would be covered through new revenue. 

The FAMILY Act will mean a stronger economy. The benefits of establishing 

a national paid family and medical leave insurance program for our workforce, families’ economic security, businesses and the Nation’s retirement system will all contribute to a healthier, more stable economy for all. When people have to miss a paycheck or lose a job because a serious medical or caregiving need arises, they often 

jeopardize their ability to provide for their families and struggle to afford even the 

most basic necessities. This hurts workers, their families, and the businesses that 

depend on revenue from these purchases, and it stifles the growth of our economy. 

We know paid leave insurance programs like this work—but people 

should have access to affordable family and medical leaves no matter 

where they live. The FAMILY Act builds on State family and medical leave insurance programs, which have a strong record of success. Personal medical leave 

through State temporary disability insurance programs has been working well for 

many decades in California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and 

Puerto Rico. Family leave insurance programs have existed in California since 2004 

and New Jersey since 2009. Rhode Island passed a family leave insurance program 

in 2013 that will be implemented in 2014. Analyses of California’s law show that 

both employers and employees benefit from the program.41 In New Jersey, the program costs are even lower than expected, leading to a payroll tax cut.42 More State 

progress is on the horizon but a national standard is both necessary and more efficient. 

It is well past time for a stronger America that meets our Nation’s needs, 

lives up to the values we all share, and truly honors America’s families. The 

American people know that there is nothing more important than being able to care 

for family—whether you have an ill parent or loved one or a new baby on the way. 

That is why we need a law that guarantees that people can care for themselves and 

their loved ones while still making ends meet and contributing to the economy. The 

FAMILY Act is that law. We urge you to sponsor this critically important legislation 

today. 

Sincerely, 


88025-6.eps
83 


88025-7.eps
84 


88025-8.eps
85 


88025-9.eps
86 

ENDNOTES

1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March). Employee Benefits Survey Table 

32. Leave benefits: Access, private industry workers, National Compensation Survey. 

Retrieved 25 March 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2012/ownership/private/table21a.pdf; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, February 1). Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted (Table B-1a). Retrieved 19 February 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/ 

web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm (Unpublished calculation). 

2. Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress. (2010, March). Expanding Access to 

Paid Sick Leave: The Impact of the Healthy Families Act on America’s Workers. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files 

.Serve&Filelid=abf8aca7-6b94-4152-b720-2d8d04b81ed6. 

3. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United. (2010, September 30). Serving While 

Sick: High Risks and Low Benefits for the Nation’s Restaurant Workforce, and Their 

Impact on the Consumer. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://rocunited.org/roc-serving-while-sick/. 

4. Hartmann, H. (2007, February 13). The Healthy Families Act: Impact on Workers, Business, The Economy and Public Health. Testimony before the U.S. Senate 


88025-10.eps
87 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Retrieved 19 March 2013, 

from http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hartmann.pdf. 

5. Smith, T., & Kim, J. (2010, June). Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences. 

National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago for the Public Welfare Foundation publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://www.publi 

cwelfare.org/resources/DocFiles/psd2010final.pdf. 

6. Miller, K., Williams, C., & Yi, Y. (2011, October 31). Paid Sick Days and 

Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Department Visits. Institute for 

Women’s Policy Research publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http:// 

www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/paid-sick-days-and-health-cost-savings-from-reduced-emergency-department-visits/. 

7. Stewart, W., et al. (2003, December). Lost Productive Health Time Costs from 

Health Conditions in the United States: Results from the American Productivity 

Audit. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45. Retrieved 19 

March 2013, from http://www.workhealth.org/whatsnew/whnewrap/Stewart%20et 

alllost%20productive%20work%20time%20costs%20from%20health%20conditions% 

20in%20the%20USl%20Results%20from%20the%20American%20Productivity%20 

Audit%202003.pdf. 

8. Asfaw, A., et al. (2012, September). Paid Sick Leave and Nonfatal Occupational 

Injuries. American Journal of Public Health, 102(9), e59–e64. Retrieved 19 

March 2013, from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011. 

300482. 

9. Smith, K., & Schaefer, A. (2012, June). Who Cares for the Sick Kids? Parents’ 

Access to Paid Time to Care for a Sick Child. Carsey Institute at the University of 

New Hampshire publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://www.carsey 

institute.unh.edu/sites/carseyinstitute.unh.edu/files/publications/IB-Smith-PaidSick-Leave-2012.pdf. 

10. See note 5. 

11. Petro, J. (2010, October). Paid Sick Leave Does Not Harm Business Growth 

or Job Growth. Drum Major Institute for Public Policy publication. Retrieved 19 

March 2013, from http://paidsickdays.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer 

/PetrolDMIlPaidlSicklLeavelDoeslNotlHarml2010lUnabbrl.pdf?docID 

=7721. 

12. Drago, R. & Lovell, V. (2011, February). San Francisco’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees. Institute for Women’s Policy Research publication. Retrieved 19 March 2013, from http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/San-Fran-PSD. 

13. Lake Research Partners & Chesapeake Beach Consulting survey of 1,024 registered voters, January 23–28, 2013. 

14. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, September). National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2013 

(Table 32). Retrieved 5 November 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/ 

2013/ebbl0052.pdf. 

15. Laughlin, L. (2011, October). Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of 

First-Time Mothers: 1961–2008. U.S. Census Bureau publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70–128.pdf. 

16. Ibid.; Glynn, S., & Farrell, J. (2012, November 20). Latinos Least Likely to 

Have Paid Leave or Workplace Flexibility. Center for American Progress publication. 

Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2012/11/GlynnLatinosPaidLeave1.pdf. 

17. Lake Research Partners & Tarrance Group for the National Partnership for 

Women & Families. (2012, November). Election Eve/Night Omnibus. Retrieved 16 

September 2013, from http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Lakel 

ResearchlandlTarrancelGrouplOmnibuslPolllResultslfo.pdf?docID=11581. 

18. Abt Associates. (2012, September). Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Technical Report. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/fmla2012.htm. 

19. Laughlin, L. (2011, October). Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of 

First-Time Mothers: 1961–2008. U.S. Census Bureau publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70–128.pdf; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, April 26). Families with own children: Employment 

status of parents by age of youngest child and family type, 2011–2012 annual averages (Table 4). Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/news. 

release/famee.t04.htm; National Alliance for Caregiving. (2009, November). 

Caregiving in the U.S. 2009. National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.caregiving.org/data/Care 

givinglinlthelUSl2009lfulllreport.pdf. 

88 

20. Lee, D. (2012, September 4). More older workers making up labor force. Los 

Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://articles.latimes.com/2012 

/sep/04/business/la-fi-labor-seniors-20120903. 

21. American Rights at Work. The Growth of the Exploited, Contingent Workforce. 

Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dm 

documents/ARAWReports/contingentworkforcelfinal.pdf. 

22. Out of 188 for which data are available. Heymann, J., & McNeill, K. (2013, 

February). Children’s Chances: How Countries Can Move From Surviving to Thriving. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 

23. National Partnership for Women & Families research. 

24. Heymann, J., et al. (2009, May). Contagion Nation: A Comparison of Paid Sick 

Day Policies in 22 Countries. Center for Economic and Policy Research publication. 

Retrieved 18 March 2013, from http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/contagion-nation/. 

25. Amnesty International. (2010). Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care 

Crisis in the USA. Amnesty International publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, 

from http://www.amnestyusa.org/dignity/pdf/DeadlyDelivery.pdf. 

26. Rynell, A. (2008, October). Causes of Poverty: Findings from Recent Research. 

Heartland Alliance Mid-America Institute on Poverty publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.woodsfund.org/site/files/735/69201/260704/ 

363127/causes-of-povertylreportlbylHeartlandl 

Alliance.pdf; McKernan, S., & Ratcliffe, C. (2005, November 11). Events that Trigger 

Poverty Entries and Exits. Social Science Quarterly 86, 1146–69. 

27. Houser, L., & Vartanian, T. (2012, January). Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impact of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public. Center 

for Women and Work at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey publication. 

Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site 

/DocServer/PaylMatterslPositivelEconomiclImpactsloflPaidlFamilylL 

.pdf?docID=9681. 

28. Gomby, D., & Pei, D. (2009). Newborn Family Leave: Effects on Children, Parents, and Business. David and Lucile Packard Foundation publication. Retrieved 16 

September 2013, from http://www.packard.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ 

NFLAlfullreportlfinal.pdf. 

29. Berger, L., Hill, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Maternity Leave, Early Maternal 

Employment and Child Health and Development in the U.S. The Economic Journal, 

115(501), F44. 

30. Ruhm, C. J. (2000). Parental leave and child health. Journal of Health Economics, 19(6), 931–60. 

31. Heymann. J. (2001, October 15). The Widening Gap: Why America’s Working 

Families Are in Jeopardy—and What Can Be Done About It. New York, NY: Basic 

Books. 

32. Heymann, J., & Earle, A. (2010). Raising the global floor: dismantling the 

myth that we can’t afford good working conditions for everyone. Stanford, CA.: Stanford Politics and Policy. 

33. See e.g., Institute of Medicine. (2008, April 11). Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce, 254. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2008/Retooling-for-an-Aging-America-Building-theHealth-Care-Workforce.aspx; Arbaje, et al. (2008). Postdischarge Environmental and 

Socioeconomic Factors and the Likelihood of Early Hospital Readmission Among 

Community-Dwelling Medicare Beneficiaries. The Gerontologist 48(4), 495–504. 

Summary retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.rwjf.org/grantees/ 

connect/product.jsp?id=34775. 

34. Aumann, K., et al. (2010). The Elder Care Study: Everday Realities and Wishes for Change. Families and Work Institute publication. Retrieved 16 September 

2013, from http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/elderlcare.pdf. 

35. Lake Research Partners for Small Business Majority survey of 707 small business owners nationwide, conducted from January 24–February 1, 2013. 

36. Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. (2012, November 16). There Are Significant Business 

Costs to Replacing Employees. Center for American Progress publication. Retrieved 

16 September 2013, from http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads 

/2012/11/CostofTurnover.pdf. 

37. Houser, L., & Vartanian, T. (2012, January). Pay Matters: The Positive Economic Impact of Paid Family Leave for Families, Businesses and the Public. Center 

for Women and Work at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey publication. 

Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/Doc 

Server/PaylMatterslPositivelEconomiclImpactsloflPaidlFamilylL.pdf?doc 

ID=9681. 

89 

38. Appelbaum, E., & Milkman, R. (2011). Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker 

Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California. Center for Economic and Policy 

Research Publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.cepr.net/ 

index.php/publications/reports/leaves-that-pay. 

39. Ibid. 

40. MetLife Mature Market Institute. (2011, June). The MetLife Study of 

Caregiving Costs to Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for Baby Boomers Caring 

for Their Parents. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-caregiving-costs-working-caregivers 

.pdf. 

41. Appelbaum, E., & Milkman, R. (2011). Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker 

Experiences with Paid Family Leave in California. Center for Economic and Policy 

Research Publication. Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.cepr.net/ 

index.php/publications/reports/leaves-that-pay. 

42. Press of Atlantic City. (2010, November 15). Paid Family Leave/Working well. 

Retrieved 16 September 2013, from http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion 

/editorials/articlel0d6ba980-3a1d-56f7-9101- 

258999b5d9d0.html. 

RESPONSE BY ELLEN BRAVO TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR HARKIN

Question 1. Many businesses provide leave from work through a PTO (or paid 

time off) policy, which allows a limited amount of leave but for a wide variety of 

purposes. 

Could you please clarify whether companies that provide significant PTO would 

be compliant with the Healthy Families Act? How would the HFA apply to a company like Globe Manufacturing, which offers PTO (called Globe Time Off), which includes 6 paid and 6 unpaid days, as well as 10 to 20 paid vacation days, in addition 

to other types of paid leave? 

Answer 1. The Healthy Families Act states, 

‘‘An employer with a leave policy providing paid leave options shall not be required to modify such policy, if such policy includes provisions for the provision, 

use, and administration of paid sick leave that meet the requirements of subsections (a) through (f).’’ 

As long as employees may use the time to care for a sick family member as well 

as themselves and are not given disciplinary points for taking the time, the Globe 

Time Off policy should be in compliance. 

Question 2. Some business organizations, such as the Society for Human Resource 

Management, have advocated for a policy known as ‘‘comp time’’ or compensatory 

time off, in lieu of traditional overtime pay. Ms. Troy also lauded the concept of 

‘‘comp time’’ in her testimony. However, I am concerned that what results is not 

paid time off when workers need it, but rather unpaid overtime that keeps workers 

away from their families without any guarantee they can use their ‘‘comp time’’ 

when they most need it. 

What are your thoughts on the concept of ‘‘comp time’’? Do you believe it would 

help working families? Do you have concerns about the proposal and if so, please 

explain those. 

Answer 2. All employees need flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities. What people want is more time to spend with their families. Under the comp 

time bill, however, individuals get more time with family only after they have been 

forced to spend more time away from their family, working extra hours. Overtime 

pay was meant as a disincentive for employers to require overtime. By removing the 

pay penalty, this measure would lead to an increase in overtime and in burdens on 

families. 

In addition, flexibility requires control, but the control in this initiative rests with 

the employer. The employer choose whether to offer comp time, who gets to work 

overtime and when workers may take their comp time. 

Comp time could easily result in loss of pay for those who need extra money. In 

assigning overtime, the employer might well favor those who agree to take comp 

time rather than overtime pay. 

Finally, employers right now can offer, as many do, flexibility in schedules so that 

workers can take time to attend a school play and come in earlier or stay later to 

make up the time. Employers right now can ensure, as many do, that workers earn 

paid sick days to use when they or a loved one is ill. We do not need to open the 

floodgates for unscrupulous employers by weakening overtime protections. 

90 

Proponents of comp time argue that government workers have such a program 

and employees in the private sector should as well. But many government workers 

feel cheated by comp time. When that provision was added in 1985, it was framed 

as a cost-saving measure for cash-strapped government agencies, not as a form of 

flexibility for families. The U.S. Department of Labor had to sue to recover over $35 

million in back wages—unpaid comp time—from the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

A similar lawsuit is pending in Mississippi. According to the Clarion Ledger, 

State prison guards have been forced to work more than 135 hours of overtime with 

a promise of time off. Myia Norwood has already banked the hours but she was denied the comp time. If the amount of overtime worked were paid as overtime, Norwood would have received $7,100 last year. Her family could use this money. 

Importantly, many government workers participate in collective bargaining and 

have union representatives to negotiate fair use of comp time provisions. Most employees of private companies have no such protections. 

RESPONSE BY RHEA LANA RINER TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR HARKIN

Question 1. Rhea Lana’s, Inc., is a for-profit company, and your testimony notes 

its growing financial success and expanding business. 

Could you please provide your gross revenues and profits for 2013? 

Answer 1. A 2013 audit of Rhea Lana, Inc. by an independent accounting firm 

shows gross revenues of about $1.4 million, of which about $1.0 million were promised payments to moms, grandmoms and dads who consigned in our events. We returned approximately 70 percent of sales to the families who participate. These families use these funds to clothe and buy toys for their children. Rhea Lana’s is a small 

business which had less than $200,000 in profits in 2013. 

Question 2. Based on the agreements you reached with the Arkansas and Federal 

Departments of Labor, could you please confirm whether you had been properly paying overtime to employees dubbed ‘‘managers.’’ 

Could you please share the total amount of back wages owed to these workers? 

Have you changed your policies to ensure that these workers will be paid overtime 

when they work more than 40 hours per week? 

Answer 2. The Arkansas Department of Labor affirmed in their 2012 audit that 

our original payment of ‘‘managers’’ was a correct business practice. However, the 

DOL determined we should have classified our managers as employees. The DOL 

then calculated back wages owed. Rhea Lana, Inc. agreed to pay this $6,400 amount 

for the DOL audit period. However, we categorically disagree with any attempt of 

the DOL to classify our consignor-volunteers as employees. 

Rhea Lana’s has always strived to treat both our customers and employees fairly 

and according to the law. Since the DOL investigation Rhea Lana, Inc. has modified 

its policies related to ‘‘managers’’ while our complaint against the DOL is being considered in Federal court.

We ask the Senate HELP committee to approve S. 1656, which would provide 

much-needed clarity in the Fair Labor Standards Act as to the nationwide children’s 

consignment event industry. S. 1656 is co-sponsored by Ranking Member Lamar Alexander. S. 1656 is industry-specific. S. 1656 has bi-partisan support and would help 

any American family with children. S. 1656 would give guidance to both the DOL 

and small businesses while allowing this important industry to continue to serve 

families. 

RESPONSE BY NEERA TANDEN TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed to request 

compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-time schedules, i.e., 80- 

hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better balance work and family life? 

Answer 1. The Center for American Progress believes that effective workplace policy solutions must recognize and respond to the needs of both employers and employees. Strong policies that offer employees greater flexibility to address the dual 

demands of work and family without jeopardizing their family’s economic stability 

are critical—and forcing employees to choose between caring for their families and 

making ends meet is not a real solution. The most recent so-called ‘‘comp time’’ proposals that have been debated in Congress would do more harm and less good by 

requiring employees to work for no pay for the hope—but not the promise—that the 

time worked could be used for other purposes later. Greater workplace flexibility 

and fair pay for time worked are not mutually exclusive goals, rather both are critically important to creating strong workplaces and strengthening working families. 

91 

Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is working for Federal 

and other government workers, why shouldn’t private sector workers have the same 

option? 

Answer 2. The impact of compensatory time policies in the public sector merits 

close scrutiny and study, particularly to examine workers’ experiences and the scope 

of potential barriers to flexibility in how such policies are implemented. The assumption that such policies should be replicated in the private sector in their entirety without such rigorous analysis is misguided. This is particularly true given 

the fact that nearly one-third (31.4 percent) of Federal Government workers are represented by unions and thus covered under collective bargaining agreements that 

provide them with additional protections against abuse. 

Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time increments be? 

Answer 3. Adopting a unilateral rule mandating that all sick leave be limited to 

full-day increments is inconsistent with other laws, such as the Family and Medical 

Leave Act, which allow for leave increments of less than a full day for medical purposes. Workers who need to make use of sick leave, for example to receive medical 

treatment or take a family member to a doctor’s appointment, should not be penalized because they do not need a full day off from work. FMLA leave may be taken 

in the smallest increment of leave that an employer allows for other forms of leave, 

as long as that increment is no longer than 1 hour. Determining the appropriate 

time increments for sick leave should be guided, in part, by factors such as legislative history, consistency with other rules, and reasonable employer practice, all of 

which can inform the regulatory process. 

Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today have varying 

levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these employers. What do you believe is an 

appropriate small business exemption threshold? 

Answer 4. Legislation promoting better work-life balance for workers should always begin with the goal of extending benefits as equitably and universally as possible. Exemptions for small businesses should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, 

as the costs and impacts of different proposals vary. Because the funding mechanisms work so differently, work-family policies that are controlled by the employer, 

such as sick leave, should be considered separately from social insurance programs, 

such as a Federal paid family and medical leave program. 

RESPONSE BY ELLEN BRAVO TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed to request 

compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-time schedules, i.e., 80- 

hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better balance work and family life? 

Answer 1. All employees need flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities. What people want is more time to spend with their families. Under the comp 

time bill, however, individuals get more time with family only after they have been 

forced to spend more time away from their family, working extra hours. Overtime 

pay was meant as a disincentive for employers to require overtime. By removing the 

pay penalty, this measure would lead to an increase in overtime and in burdens on 

families. 

In addition, flexibility requires control, but the control in this initiative rests with 

the employer. The employer choose whether to offer comp time, who gets to work 

overtime and when workers may take their comp time. 

Comp time could easily result in loss of pay for those who need extra money. In 

assigning overtime, the employer might well favor those who agree to take comp 

time rather than overtime pay. 

Finally, employers right now can offer, as many do, flexibility in schedules so that 

workers can take time to attend a school play and come in earlier or stay later to 

make up the time. Employers right now can ensure, as many do, that workers earn 

paid sick days to use when they or a loved one is ill. We do not need to open the 

floodgates for unscrupulous employers by weakening overtime protections. 

Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is working for Federal 

and other government workers, why shouldn’t private sector workers have the same 

option? 

Answer 2. Many government workers feel cheated by comp time. When that provision was added in 1985, it was framed as a cost-saving measure for cash-strapped 

government agencies, not as a form of flexibility for families. The U.S. Department 

of Labor had to sue to recover over $35 million in back wages—unpaid comp time— 

92 

from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico.

A similar lawsuit is pending in Mississippi. According to the Clarion Ledger, 

State prison guards have been forced to work more than 135 hours of overtime with 

a promise of time off. Myia Norwood has already banked the hours but she was denied the comp time. If the amount of overtime worked were paid as overtime, Norwood would have received $7,100 that year. Her family need this money. 

Importantly, many government workers participate in collective bargaining and 

have union representatives to negotiate fair use of comp time provisions. Most employees of private companies have no such protections. 

Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time increments be? 

Answer 3. Increments for paid sick time should match the need. If an employee 

needs to go to or take a child or parent to a doctor’s appointment or procedure and 

can come back to work, that helps the employee and their co-workers. Requiring a 

full day for such an event is not cost-effective or beneficial to employee or employer. 

Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today have varying 

levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these employers. What do you believe is an 

appropriate small business exemption threshold? 

Answer 4. The business partners in Family Values @ Work coalitions are often 

quite small. They feel strongly that these provisions are the smart as well as the 

right thing to do because they lower turnover, boost productivity and quality, and 

lead to greater sales by ensuring that workers can keep their pay and their jobs. 

Proposals can take into account smaller businesses in various ways, including the 

amount of time to implement, but all should be covered. 

RESPONSE BY FATIMA GOSS GRAVES TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed to request 

compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-time schedules, i.e., 80- 

hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better balance work and family life? 

Answer 1. Women make up the majority of workers in low-wage jobs, and hold 

these jobs while also shouldering most family caregiving responsibilities. And unfortunately too many of these women struggle with employment practices that shift the 

risk of doing business onto workers and make no accommodation for workers’ lives 

outside of their jobs. In many workplaces, all of the flexibility is in the hands of 

the employer—leaving employees in search of predictability and stability, not just 

flexibility. 

Enabling private sector workers to work flexible schedules can generally be beneficial to both employees and their employers, so long as the decision to request and 

accept a flexible schedule remains solely with the workers, and the worker cannot 

be forced to exchange other critical employment benefits for flexibility. The Flexibility for Working Families Act (H.R. 2559/S. 1248)—which would protect workers’ 

rights to request changes in their work schedules without fear of retaliation—is one 

example of a policy that would increase flexibility for workers who need it. 

The concept of compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay sounds like a good idea 

in the abstract, but the current legislative proposals would fail to meet the work 

and family needs of many low-wage workers and would undermine many of the existing critical protections guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing 

employees to work unwanted overtime without the financial benefit overtime work 

is supposed to provide. 

For example, the Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1406/S. 1623) could encourage employers to force their employees to take on unwanted overtime. Although 

the bill states that accepting compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay should 

be voluntary, private sector workers often lack basic workplace protections that public sector workers typically have—such as unionization and job security—and so a 

voluntary measure like this one could be perceived as a mandate. In addition, legislation like the Working Families Flexibility Act could discourage employers from 

providing paid time off. The bill would enable, and may even encourage, employers 

to force their employees to earn all of their time off by working extra hours instead 

of providing paid time off as part of a standard employee benefits package or paid 

sick, medical or family leave to meet the urgent needs of employees. Furthermore, 

the Working Families Flexibility Act does not allow employees to use their earned 

compensatory time at a time of their choosing. Instead, employers are allowed to 

deny employees’ request to use their compensatory time if the employer feels it 

would ‘‘unduly disrupt’’ the business. 

93 

Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is working for Federal 

and other government workers, why shouldn’t private sector workers have the same 

option? 

Answer 2. Unlike in the public sector, such a rule runs the risk of private sector 

employers forcing workers to accept compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay as 

a means of increasing profits. Employees who protest risk retaliation, and given the 

widespread wage theft in some industries, employees should not face yet another 

hurdle to being compensated for their time worked. Additionally, government employees are more likely to be unionized, enabling them to more effectively bargain 

for contracts that protect their interests in providing for pay or work schedule arrangements. Private employees as a whole are much less likely to belong to a union, 

making them more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. 

Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time increments be? 

Answer 3. Paid sick leave should not be limited to full-day increments. Many cities have successfully implemented paid sick leave policies that allow workers to accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. These cities have placed 

different caps on the maximum number of paid sick days employers are required 

to allow an employee to accrue in a year. For example, San Francisco allows employees to earn up to 72 hours, or 9 8-hour days, worth of paid sick leave, while Portland, OR allows employees to earn up to 40 hours, or 5 8-hour days, worth of paid 

sick leave. The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1286/S. 631) would implement a similar 

national policy, and allow employees working in businesses with 15 or more employees to accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours 

(7 8-hour days) each year. 

Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today have varying 

levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these employers. What do you believe is an 

appropriate small business exemption threshold? 

Answer 4. There is a longstanding tradition in our civil rights and labor laws to 

exclude some businesses from these protections, but studies have shown the many 

benefits to employers of all sizes when they do adopt measures that provide greater 

economic security and opportunity for their employees. As just one example, providing pregnant workers with reasonable accommodations can reduce workforce 

turnover, increase employee satisfaction and productivity, and save workers’ compensation and other insurance costs. Regardless of the size of a small business exemption in a particular law, businesses of all sizes can reap benefits by complying. 

The appropriate threshold for such a small business exemption will vary depending on the nature of the proposal at issue, the protections that it provides, and the 

existing laws that it amends (if any). Some States have extended protections against 

workplace discrimination and harassment in particular to all workers. Similarly, the 

Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act (H.R. 3712/S. 1810)—which provides a paid leave insurance fund—applies to all companies, regardless of size. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends its protections to employers with 

15 or more employees. Following that model, the proposed Healthy Families Act 

(H.R. 1286/S. 631), which provides for 7-earned paid sick days, and the Pregnant 

Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1975/S. 942), which clarifies that pregnant workers who 

need accommodations must receive the same sort of accommodations as workers 

with temporary disabilities, both exempt private employers with less than 15 employees. The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377/S. 84), meanwhile, references the same 

small business exemption as the Fair Labor Standards Act, applicable to businesses 

with an annual gross volume of sales under $500,000. 

RESPONSE BY AMY TRAUB TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed to request 

compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-time schedules, i.e., 80- 

hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better balance work and family life? 

Answer 1. Workers should be allowed to request time off in addition to any overtime pay they are legally owed, not in lieu of overtime. At a time when workers are 

struggling with both stagnant wages and work schedules that offer insufficient time 

to care for their families, pitting basic needs for time and income against each other 

would take U.S. workplaces in the wrong direction. Because most American employees lack bargaining power at work, legislation allowing compensatory time as a substitute for overtime pay would effectively enable employers—not their employees— 

to determine when compensatory time or overtime pay is granted, providing additional control and flexibility to employers without contributing to the work-family 

94 

balance of employees. In addition, permitting the replacement of overtime pay with 

compensatory time would further undermine the Fair Labor Standards Act’s guarantee of a fair work week by removing the financial incentive for employers to limit 

work weeks to 40 hours. As a result, employees’ efforts to achieve work-life balance 

would be impeded rather than advanced by legislation that enables employers to 

avoid paying overtime. Guaranteeing employees paid sick time, paid family leave, 

and a right to request flexible schedules without retaliation would be more effective 

ways to help workers balance work and family life. 

Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is working for Federal 

and other government workers, why shouldn’t private sector workers have the same 

option? 

Answer 2. De ̄mos has not had an opportunity to study the extent to which public 

sector workers feel that they genuinely benefit from receiving compensatory time off 

in lieu of overtime pay. However the origin of this policy is clear: in 1985 Congress 

amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to substitute compensatory time as part of 

an effort to enable Federal, State, and local government employers to save money 

on overtime compensation, not to improve work-life balance for employees. To the 

extent that government employees have found compensatory time off to be helpful, 

their greater workplace bargaining power is likely an important part of the reason. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 35.3 percent of public 

sector workers are union members, compared to just 6.7 percent of private sector 

workers. As a result, public sector employees have much greater power to negotiate 

contracts covering their use of compensatory time and overtime pay than the typical 

private sector employee, giving public workers greater ability to promote the implementation of comp time policies that work for themselves and their families. 

Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time increments be? 

Answer 3. Guaranteed sick leave should not be limited to full-day increments, as 

work days are of different lengths and employees may require only a brief leave to 

attend a medical appointment, take a sick child to the doctor, or cope with an illness 

that develops over the course of a work day. In San Francisco, the American jurisdiction with the longest-standing legislation on paid sick leave, workers earn 1 hour 

of paid leave for every 30 hours of paid work until they reach the maximum accrual. 

Leave may then be taken in increments of 1 hour, or in smaller increments if an 

employer permits this use. The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act also permits 

that leave be taken in shorter increments. 

Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today have varying 

levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these employers. What do you believe is an 

appropriate small business exemption threshold? 

Answer 4. Ideally, legislation should aim to create a level playing field for businesses, improving standards for all workers without exemption. Instances where 

legislation would impose a disproportionately high burden on smaller firms should 

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the scope of any exemptions or 

variance in standards. 

RESPONSE BY LORI PELLETIER TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Question 1. Do you believe private sector workers should be allowed to request 

compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay or work flex-time schedules, i.e., 80- 

hour bi-weekly schedules, as a means to better balance work and family life? 

Answer 1. No. The notion behind overtime pay is to encourage employers to hire 

more people to work instead of over-working their employees. ‘‘Comp time’’ legislation would allow management to require overtime work without paying time-anda-half up front, and that would make mandatory overtime cheaper for employers in 

several ways. If you make mandatory overtime cheaper for employers, you reduce 

their incentive to avoid overworking their employees, leading to more unpredictable 

work schedules and higher day care costs for workers. Employers who want to provide more flexible work schedules—like variable start times, or compressed schedules, or split shifts—can already do that. And they can give workers paid or unpaid 

leave whenever they want. Flexibility can be addressed best when workers can sit 

down with employers as equal partners at a negotiating table. Family life is better 

balanced when workplaces have collective bargaining agreements. 

95 

Question 2. If compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay is working for Federal 

and other government workers, why shouldn’t private sector workers have the same 

option? 

Answer 2. Really the question should be why don’t Federal Government workers 

get overtime? When they applied the overtime law to the public sector for the first 

time, they wanted to reduce the cost to public employers. That’s why you have comp 

time in the public sector. But the public sector is very different from the private 

sector. Public employers don’t operate on the profit motive, they don’t go bankrupt, 

you have a lot fewer overtime violations in the public sector, and public employees 

have more protections from abuse. 

Question 3. Do you believe mandated sick leave should be limited to full-day increments? If not, how small should the allowable time increments be? 

Answer 3. When I was in the shop we could get docked .1 hour (or 6 min) pay 

if we were late, or we had to leave early. In today’s computer environment, it should 

be as accommodating to the employee as possible. 

Question 4. Some of the legislative proposals presented here today have varying 

levels of applicability to small employers, presumably due to the high cost and compliance burden they would impose on these employers. What do you believe is an 

appropriate small business exemption threshold? 

Answer 4. In today’s computer age that number should be very small—like two 

or three, aside from the owner of the business. 

[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ