U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

27–662 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

WORKPLACE LEAVE POLICIES: OPPORTUNITIES 

AND CHALLENGES FOR EMPLOYERS AND 

WORKING FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 6, 2017 

Serial No. 115–31 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpoinfo.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Ron Estes, Kansas 

Karen Handel, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Brandon Renz, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Ron Estes, Kansas 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Ranking Member 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 6, 2017 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions ........................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions ..................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brickmeier, Ms. Barbara, Vice President for Human Resources and Business Development, IBM Corporation .......................................................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Lukas, Ms. Carrie, President, Independent Women’s Forum ....................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Riemer, Mr. Hans, President, Montgomery County Council ........................ 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Schaefer, Ms. Angela, Vice President of Human Resources, Safety National .............................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Additional Submissions: 

Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon: 

Letter dated December 5, 2017, from Patagonia .................................... 70 

Letter dated December 15, 2017, from The Human Rights Campaign 107 

Mr. Sablan: 

Letter dated December 5, 2017 ................................................................ 94 

Letter dated December 5, 2017 ................................................................ 99 

Letter dated December 5, 2017, from MomsRising.org .......................... 104 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: 

Letter dated December 6, 2017, from American Sustainable Business 

Council .................................................................................................... 52 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 111 

Shea-Porter, Hon. Carol, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Hampshire: 

Prepared statement of The National Treasury Employees Union ........ 79 

Prepared statement of NYC Consumer Affairs ....................................... 81 

Chairman Walberg: 

Letter dated December 5, 2017, from Progressive Policy Institute 

(PPI) ........................................................................................................ 91 

Letter dated May 18, 2017, from Save Our Savings Coalition .............. 25 

Prepared statement of Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ............................................................... 27 

Ms. Schaefer responses to question submitted for the record ...................... 115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

WORKPLACE LEAVE POLICIES: 

OPPORTUNITIES AND 

CHALLENGES FOR EMPLOYERS AND 

WORKING FAMILIES 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Health, 

Employment, Labor, and Pensions, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Wilson of South Carolina, 

Roe, Rokita, Allen, Lewis, Mitchell, Smucker, Estes, Foxx, Sablan, 

Norcross, Blunt Rochester, Shea-Porter, Espaillat, Courtney, 

Fudge, and Bonamici. 

Also Present: Representatives Scott, Handel, and DeLauro. 

Staff Present: Courtney Butcher, Director of Member Services 

and Coalitions; Michael Comer, Press Secretary; Rob Green, Director of Workforce Policy; Callie Harman, Professional Staff Member; 

Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Kelley McNabb, Communications Director; Rachel Mondl, Professional Staff Member and Counsel; James 

Mullen, Director of Information Technology; Alexis Murray, Professional Staff Member; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Benjamin 

Ridder, Legislative Assistant; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Olivia Voslow, Legislative Assistant; Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Michael Woeste, Press 

Secretary; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Kyle deCant, Minority Labor Policy Counsel; Christine 

Godinez, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Eunice Ikene, Minority 

Labor Policy Advisor; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Digital Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; 

Richard Miller, Minority Labor Policy Director; Udochi Onwubiko, 

Minority Labor Policy Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff 

Director; and Arika Trim, Minority Deputy Communications Director. 

Chairman WALBERG. Good morning, and welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. 

Today, we’ll discuss workplace leave policies, related opportunities and challenges facing employers and working families in ways 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

in which we can encourage employers to develop or expand successful paid leave options for their employees. 

This century has vastly -- has a vastly different business landscape than the last. From the advent of the gig economy to the demand for telework and other worklife policies that address employees’ needs, business as usual just doesn’t work for working families 

anymore. In response, many employers have implemented and continue to implement innovative paid leave policies. 

In fact, today’s workers are starting to consider these paid leave 

policies alongside other traditional tangible benefits, like pay 

raises. A 2015 study conducted by Harris Poll and Glassdoor found 

that nearly four in five employees would prefer new or additional 

benefits or perks over a pay increase. 

Additional studies have validated this employment trend even 

more in recent years. This year, the HR Policy Association released 

a study that noted, and I quote: nearly 70 percent of its members 

find the millennials expect greater flexibility with regards to scheduling and time off. 

Innovative paid leave policies are not only an important tool for 

businesses to attract and retain the best employees, but they also 

give workers across all business sectors the ability to create a better worklife balance. Time off is increasingly important to employees, whether it’s used to go back to school, care for a child or a 

loved one, or just spend more time with the family. 

Employers are responding to these changing expectations by offering employees a wider variety of benefits. In addition to providing traditional paid time off and sick leave, an increasing number of companies have added flexible work arrangement options to 

their employment leave policies. These arrangements may allow 

employees to take advantage of cutting-edge offerings like flexible 

hours, telecommuting, compressed workweeks, and job sharing. Importantly, these arrangements are tailored to the needs of employers’ workforce. 

And employers continue -- as employers continue to develop and 

deploy these leave policies, there has been a significant increase in 

new and oftentimes conflicting state and local paid leave mandates. 

These growing patchwork of mandates across multiple jurisdictions 

creates a real administrative and implementation burden, particularly on small businesses, while also increasing compliance costs 

for employers. For example, currently, there are eight states and 

over 30 localities with paid leave laws on the books. By contrast, 

20 states have bans against local paid leave -- or paid sick leave 

laws. 

As you might imagine, all these states and local laws are far 

from consistent. The current patchwork of leave -- paid leave laws 

at the state and local level can pose challenges to employers of all 

sizes trying to navigate them. And the mandatory nature of these 

laws deprives businesses of freedom to craft individualized policies 

to best address the needs of their employees. That doesn’t help employers and it doesn’t help their workers. 

Today’s hearing should give all of us valuable firsthand insight 

into the evolving topic of workplace leave policies, and I look forward to the discussion. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Sablan for his opening remarks. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

This century has a vastly different business landscape than the last. From the advent of the gig economy to the demand for telework and other work-life policies that 

address employees’ needs, ‘‘business as usual’’ just doesn’t work for working families 

anymore. In response, many employers have implemented and continue to implement innovative paid leave policies. 

In fact, today’s workers are starting to consider these paid leave policies alongside 

other traditional, tangible benefits like pay raises. A 2015 study conducted by Harris Poll and Glassdoor found that nearly four in five employees would prefer new 

or additional benefits or perks over a pay increase. 

Additional studies have validated this employment trend even more in recent 

years. This year, the HR Policy Association released a study that noted ‘‘nearly 70 

percent of [its] members find that millennials expect greater flexibility with regard 

to scheduling and time off.’’ 

Innovative paid leave policies are not only an important tool for businesses to attract and retain the best employees, but they also give workers across all business 

sectors the ability to create a better work-life balance. Time off is increasingly important to employees, whether it’s used to go back to school, care for a child or loved 

one, or just to spend more time with family. 

Employers are responding to these changing expectations by offering employees 

a wider variety of benefits. In addition to providing traditional paid time off and 

sick leave, an increasing number of companies have added flexible work arrangement options to their employment leave policies. These arrangements may allow employees to take advantage of cutting-edge offerings like flexible hours, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, and job sharing. Importantly, these arrangements 

are tailored to the needs of the employer’s workforce. 

As employers continue to develop and deploy these leave policies, there has been 

a significant increase in new and oftentimes conflicting state and local paid leave 

mandates. This growing patchwork of mandates across multiple jurisdictions creates 

a real 

administrative and implementation burden, particularly on small businesses, 

while also increasing compliance costs for employers. 

For example, currently there are eight states and over 30 localities with paid 

leave laws on the books. By contrast, 20 states have bans against local paid sick 

leave laws. 

As you might imagine, all these state and local laws are far from consistent. The 

current patchwork of paid leave laws at the state and local level can pose challenges 

to employers of all sizes trying to navigate them. And the mandatory nature of these 

laws deprives businesses of the freedom to craft individualized policies to best address the needs of their employees. That doesn’t help employers, and it doesn’t help 

their workers. Today’s hearing should give all of us valuable, firsthand insight into 

the evolving topic of workplace leave policies, and I look forward to the discussion. 

Mr. SABLAN. Good morning everyone. And, Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for holding this hearing to call attention to the problem facing 

millions of working people who have -- who lack access to paid sick 

leave, paid family and medical leave, and predictable scheduling. 

Here is the problem. An estimated 37 million workers, many employed in service industries and low-wage jobs, cannot earn a single 

paid sick day to care for themselves when they get sick or to go 

to the doctor. Nearly a quarter of adults have lost a job or have 

been threatened with job loss for taking time off because of personal illness or to care for a family -- to care for a family member 

or family members. 

In 2016, only 13 percent of private industry employees had access to paid family leave through their employers. Lack of paid 

family leave policy cost workers an estimated $20 billion in lost 

wages every year. Many working people lack predictable schedules 

as well. Approximately 41 percent of hourly workers receive their 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

work schedules only seven days in advance, making it difficult for 

workers to make a living and meet the responsibilities at home. 

Increasing workplace flexibility is clearly a core economic issue. 

Today, I hope we will explore solutions to improve the economics 

for workers and employers. 

There is also good news. Access to earned sick leave, sick days 

-- earned sick days has increased up from 61 percent of private sector workplace in 2015 to 68 percent. This favorable trend has been 

driven, in large part, by earned sick days, legislation recently enacted by eight states and 32 localities. 

In 2016, an Obama administration executive order provided over 

1 million federal contract workers with up to seven paid sick days. 

However, there are no federal laws providing for or requiring employers to provide employees with paid or unpaid sick days. The 

Healthy Family Act, H.R. 1516, introduced by Representative 

DeLauro, and which I am a cosponsor, establishes a worker’s right 

to earn paid sick leave by providing one hour of sick leave for every 

30 hours worked, up to 56 hours per year. 

Paid sick days can save employers, taxpayers, and families 

money, while promoting healthier workplaces and communities. 

Workers without paid sick days are more likely to report going to 

work with a contagious illness, like the flu, and risk infecting others. 

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. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, FMLA, provides 

up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job protected leave for key family 

caregiving responsibilities, such as the birth and care of a newborn 

or the care of a family member with a serious health condition. 

But the vast majority of the private sector workforce doesn’t have 

access to paid family leave. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 15 percent of workers have access to paid family 

leave through their employers. The FAMILY Act, H.R. 947, also introduced by Representative DeLauro, and which I also cosponsor, 

addresses this problem. It guarantees workers 12 weeks of paid 

family and medical leave financed through a social insurance program funded by both employees and employers, who each make a 

contribution of two-tenths of 1 percent of wages. In return, workers 

would receive two-thirds of their wages during eligible family leave. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m also concerned about two legislative proposals 

that merit careful scrutiny. One proposes a paid sick leave credit 

of 12 to 25 percent. This may sound like an attractive inducement, 

but there is little evidence that this would incentivize employers 

who do not already have a paid sick plan to create one. In a recent 

Ernst & Young survey, 35 percent of small businesses did not see 

a tax credit as a benefit to inspire them to offer paid leave. 

We also need to critically and carefully assess the Workflex in the 

21st Century Act. This bill would allow employers to create a new 

qualified flexible workplace arrangement plan under the Employer 

Retirement Income and Security Act. That’s ERISA. It is concerning 

that this plan could enable employers to avoid compliance with 

State and local paid leave, family leave, wage and hour, and predictable scheduling laws. We should not put downward pressure on 

workplace benefits that already exist or could be enacted. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

I hope we can have a robust discussion today about creating minimum standards for earned sick days, family and medical leave, 

and flexible and predictable schedules. 

I appreciate the witnesses taking their valuable time to discuss 

these issues with us today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Thank you, and I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Sablan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to call attention to the problem 

facing millions of working people who lack access to paid sick leave, paid family and 

medical leave, and predictable scheduling. Here is the problem: 

An estimated 37 million workers – many employed in service industries and low 

wage jobs – cannot earn a single paid sick day to care for themselves when they 

get sick or to go to the doctor. Nearly a quarter of adults have lost a job or have 

been threatened with job loss for taking time off because of personal illness or to 

care for a family members. 

In 2016, only 13 percent of private-industry employees had access to paid family 

leave through their employers. Lack of paid family leave policy costs workers an estimated $20 billion in lost wages each year. 

Many working people lack predictable schedules. Approximately 41 percent of 

hourly workers receive their work schedules only seven days in advance, making it 

difficult for workers to make a living and meet their responsibilities at home. 

Increasing workplace flexibility is clearly a core economic issue. Today, I hope we 

will explore solutions to improve the economics for workers and employers. 

There is also good news. Access to earned sick days has increased – up from 61 

percent of private sector workplaces in 2015 to 68 percent. This favorable trend has 

been driven in large part by earned sick days legislation recently enacted by eight 

states and thirty-two localities. In 2016, an Obama administration Executive Order 

provided over one million federal contract workers with up to seven paid sick days. 

However, there are no federal laws providing for or requiring employers to provide 

employees with paid or unpaid sick days. 

The Healthy Families Act, H.R. 1516, introduced by Representative DeLauro and 

which I am a cosponsor, establishes a worker’s right to earn paid sick leave by providing one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, up to 56 hours per year. 

Paid sick days can save employers, taxpayers, and families’ money while promoting healthier workplaces and communities. Workers without paid sick days are 

more likely to report going to work with a contagious illness, like the flu, and risk 

infecting others. 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. 

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) provides up to 12 weeks of 

unpaid job-protected leave for key family caregiving responsibilities, such as the 

birth and care of a newborn or the care of a family member with a serious health 

condition. 

But the vast majority of the private sector workforce doesn’t have access to paid 

family leave. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 15 percent of 

workers have access to paid family leave through their employers. 

The FAMILY Act, H.R. 947, also introduced by Representative DeLauro and 

which I cosponsored, addressees this problem. It guarantees workers twelve weeks 

of paid family and medical leave, financed through a social insurance program funded by both employees and employers who each make a contribution of two-tenths 

of one percent of wages. In return, workers would receive two-thirds of their wages 

during eligible family leave. 

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about two legislative proposals that merit 

careful scrutiny. One proposes a paid leave tax credit of 12 to 25 percent. This may 

sounds like an attractive inducement but there is little evidence that this will 

incentivize employers who do not already have a paid leave plan to create one. In 

a recent Ernst and Young survey, 35 percent of small businesses did not see a tax 

credit as a benefit to inspire them to offer paid leave. 

We also need to critically and carefully assess the Workflex in the 21st Century 

Act. This bill would allow employers to create a new ‘‘qualified flexible workplace 

arrangement plan’’ under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It is concerning that these plans could enable employers to avoid compliance with state and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

local paid leave, family leave, wage and hour, and predictable scheduling laws. We 

should not put downward pressure on workplace benefits that already exist or could 

be enacted. 

I hope we can have a robust discussion today about creating minimum standards 

for earned sick days, family and medical leave, and flexible and predictable schedules. 

I appreciate the witnesses taking their valuable time to discuss these issues with 

us today and I look forward to their testimony. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for 

the official hearing record. 

And now it’s my privilege to introduce the distinguished witnesses who are here, who will provide context to what we’re discussing today. And we appreciate you being willing to address our 

committee this morning. 

First, Ms. Angela Schaefer is vice president of human resources 

with Safety National of St. Louis, Missouri, and is testifying on behalf of the Society for Human Resources Management. Welcome. 

Ms. Barbara Brickmeier is vice president of benefits and H.R. development at IBM Corporation, and is testifying on behalf of the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Welcome. 

The Honorable Hans Riemer is president of the Montgomery 

County Council in Rockville, Maryland. Welcome. It’s good to have 

an elected official. Feel for us. 

Ms. Carrie Lukas is president of the Independent Women’s 

Forum here in Washington, D.C. Welcome. 

I’ll now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand and be sworn 

in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony of five minutes, 

let me briefly explain the lighting system. It’s a stoplight pattern. 

Green means go, yellow means start to wrap it up, you have one 

minute left, and red means it’s time to hit the brakes and finish 

your sentence or your thought. But you’ll have plenty of opportunity, I’m sure, to address the majority of your concerns and ideas 

by the questions of our committee, who will try to hold to five minutes as well for questioning. And of course, your written record is 

part of our record also. 

So having said that, let me now recognize Ms. Schaefer for your 

five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ANGELA SCHAEFER, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

HUMAN RESOURCES, SAFETY NATIONAL 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Good morning, Chairman Walberg and Ranking 

Member Sablan. It’s an honor to be with you to discuss opportunities and challenges for employers and employees with respect to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

workplace leave policies. I serve as the vice president of human resources for Safety National, an insurance carrier headquartered in 

St. Louis, Missouri, and I appear today on behalf of the Society of 

Human Resource Management, or SHRM. 

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that we are all incredibly 

busy these days at home and work. Considering that 42 percent of 

employees have childcare responsibilities and 31 percent expect to 

provide elder care in the next five years, it’s no surprise that more 

than 40 percent of men and women experience work-family conflict. 

Clearly, employees today are juggling even more responsibilities 

between home and work, which is why today’s discussion on workplace policies to support both employees and employers is so important. 

Helping our employees meet their worklife needs is a top priority 

for Safety National. That’s why we offer a generous paid time off 

policy that gives employees maximum flexibility over how to use 

their paid leave. Additionally, we provide employees with flexible 

schedules, daily schedule flexibility, and make-up time opportunities, all of which are outlined in my written testimony. 

In addition to my company, many other employers voluntarily 

offer generous workplace flexibility options to support their recruitment and retention strategies. These offerings often provide a competitive advantage in the search for talent. 

One of the challenges that employers, including Safety National, 

has encountered in offering these benefits is the fragmented set of 

state and local leave laws that continue to grow. This patchwork 

of rigid mandates, now at a total of 40, is difficult to navigate both 

for large multi-state employers, but also for small to mid-sized companies like mine. 

Because we have employees in San Francisco, for example, which 

has a sick leave requirement, as does the state of California, we 

must ensure we are complying with both, even though the laws are 

overlapping and different. These compliance efforts also come at a 

cost to my business. For example, we had to switch to an entirely 

new payroll system to meet the California requirement that PTO 

be listed on employees’ paychecks. And this was at a cost of 

$76,000. 

Additionally, we had to set up multiple rules in our payroll system to account for the accrual and rollover rules under the various 

state and local laws. Two members of my team spent almost 80 

hours implementing just the PTO portion of the new system and 

identifying technical issues, which is a significant undertaking, 

considering we only have 14 employees in the state. 

Multiple rules have also meant increased legal fees for my company in trying to implement and comply with these laws. This effort has been particularly time consuming and difficult, as many of 

these laws conflict with each other, use undefined and ambiguous 

terms, and require our outside legal counsel to interpret the various leave laws to ensure that our policies are in compliance. 

Mr. Chairman, to make the new workplace work for employers 

and today’s modern workforce, we can’t go by the old rules. Rather 

than more one-size-fits-all rigid government mandates describing 

how and when leave must be used, SHRM and its members believe 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

that the United States must have a 21st century workflex policy 

that works for employers and employees alike. 

That is why SHRM strongly supports H.R. 4219, the Workflex in 

the 21st Century Act, because it delivers on this goal. By amending 

ERISA, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, this bill 

provides employers the option to offer a new workflex plan that 

would include both guaranteed paid leave and access to flexible 

work arrangement to all of its employees, including part-time employees. 

Under H.R. 4219, employees benefit from paid leave, access to 

flexible work option, and strong employee protections that have 

been provided under ERISA for more than 40 years, while participating employers benefit from being able to follow a Federal framework rather than the current patchwork of State and local laws. 

This legislation would allow Safety National to treat employees 

consistently across all of our offices, and would ease the administrative burden we face within our payroll system. 

Mr. Chairman, work is more flexible than ever, so workplace 

rules need to be too. SHRM and its members believe public policy 

should facilitate greater employer adoption of these valuable workplace flexibility benefits, rather than curtail an employer’s ability 

to offer policies that meet employees’ needs. 

In closing, and on behalf of SHRM, we appreciate the committee’s focus on this critical issue, and thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Schaefer follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 27662.001

Statement of Angela Schaefer, SHRM-SCP, SPHR 

Vice President, Human Resources 

Safety National 

St. Louis, Missouri 

On Behalf of The 

Society for Human Resource Management 

Submitted to The 

U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee 

Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

Hearing On 

"Workplace Leave Policies: Opportunities and Challenges for 

Employers and Working Families" 

December 6, 2017 
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 27662.002

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Sablan and distinguished 

members of the Committee, My name is Angela Schaefer and I am Vice President of 

Human Resources at Safety National located in St. Louis, Missouri. I have nearly 20 

years of experience in human resources, having worked in the legal industry for many 

years, before joining the insurance industry in 2014. Thank you for this opportunity to 

testify before the Subcommittee on the challenges and opportunities for employers and 

families regarding workplace leave policies. 

I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Society for Human 

Resource Management (SHRM), of which I have been a member for 15 years. I am 

active in my local SHRM chapter, the Human Resource Management Association of 

Greater St. Louis. and I serve on the executive committee of the Missouri State Council 

ofSHRM. 

SHRM is the world's largest human resource (HR) professional society, 

representing 285,000 members in more than 165 countries. For nearly seven decades, the 

Society has been the leading provider of resources serving the needs of HR professionals 

and advancing the practice of human resource management. SHRM has more than 575 

affiliated chapters within the United States and subsidiary oftlces in China, India and 

United Arab Emirates. 

Safety National is a versatile alternative market insurance provider that offers a 

broad range of risk funding products through insurance agents and brokers. Founded in 

1942, Safety National is the leading provider of excess workers' compensation coverage 

to self-insured employers and groups nationwide, and has provided that type of coverage 

longer than any other company in the United States. Safety National is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc., a Tokyo-based global insurer that is ranked 

among the top I 0 insurance companies in the world with a presence in over 40 countries. 

SHRM appreciates the Subcommittee's examination of the opportunities and 

challenges facing employers and employees when it comes to workplace leave policies. 

SHRM and its members believe that workplace tlexibility--{)r worktlex-is a hallmark 

of the 21st century workplace. Shaped by shifting demographics, emerging technologies 

and employee needs, it is about rethinking how, when and where people do their best 

work. This new workplace cannot thrive with the same old, one-size-fits-all policy 

approach because work is more flexible than ever, so workplace rules need to be too, 

which is why today's discussion is so important. 

In my testimony, I will share more about my business, including our leave 

policies and workplace flexibility offerings; outline some of the challenges organizations 

encounter in offering these benefits; and offer SHRM's public policy recommendations 

for Congress, including support for H.R. 4219, the Work flex in the 21 ''Century Act. 

2 
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 27662.003

About Safety National 

Safety National is an insurance carrier that provides workers compensation and 

other insurance coverage to employers that retain risk. We insure some of the largest 

private employers in the nation and hundreds of public employers. While the majority of 

Safety National's 456 employees work at our headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, we also 

have employees working in 12 other states. Of our 456 employees, 331 are classified as 

exempt and 125 as non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and include 

underwriters, claims coordinators, client service representatives, and quality assurance 

analysts, to name a few. 

Our stability and financial strength enable us to offer competitive salaries and 

exceptional employee benefits. At Safety National, we foster an inclusive and supportive 

work environment where employee contributions are recognized and valued. As J like to 

say, employees have a voice at Safety National. We regularly survey our employees and 

ask for their confidential opinions on a variety of workplace matters, including business 

processes and policies that impact them directly, such as our paid time off policies. 

My company adheres to five core values: Relationships, Integrity, Teamwork, 

Balance and Stability. Our core values serve as the fundamental foundation of our 

corporate culture and drive our interactions, both internally and externally. For the last 

five years in which we have participated, Safety National has been recognized as a Best 

Place to Work by Business Insurance's employee engagement survey. Given that 75 

percent of the scoring is based directly on employee responses and 25 percent is based on 

employer policies and procedures, I can say with confidence that we are meeting the 

needs of our employees. 

Need for Paid Leave and Workplace Flexibility 

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that we are all incredibly busy these days, 

and not just at work. Consider some of the key findings from SHRM's National Study of 

the Changing Workforce (NSCW), which takes a comprehensive look at employees' lives 

on and off the job. The recent NSCW revealed that jobs are indeed demanding, with 38 

percent of employees feeling overwhelmed by their workload and 44 percent saying they 

have too many tasks to accomplish. It should come as no surprise that 46 percent of 

employees report experiencing three or more indicators of stress. 

Specifically, more and more employees are identifying an increase in caregiving 

responsibilities, with 42 percent of all employees providing care for children under 18 

and an additional 31 percent expecting to provide elder care in the next five years. The 

NSCW also confirmed that work-family conflict is high and not just a women's issue. In 

fact, men report higher levels ofwork-f~unily conflict than women 46 percent of men 

compared to 43 percent ofwomcn. 1 

1 National Study of the Changing Work!{Jrce (2016). Society for !Iuman Resource Management. 

3 
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 27662.004

Clearly, employees today arc juggling ever more responsibilities between work 

and home, which is why many employees are requesting more flexibility at work. In fact, 

a recent study found that adults who are employed or looking for work value flexibility as 

much as they value having paid leave. 2 Additionally, employees rate workplace 

flexibility among the top three benefits offered by an employer as "very important" to 

their job satisfaction3 

At Safety National, our employees have made it clear to us that paid leave and 

workplace flexibility are critical to their ability to meet work and family demands. As a 

result, we listened to our employees and implemented the policies they requested, while 

still being able to meet the needs of our business. Here are the core Safety National 

workplace flexibility offerings: 

Paid Time Off (PTO)- In 2016, Safety National transitioncd from vacation and sick 

time policies to a PTO benefit. Transitioning to one bank of time has increased workplace 

flexibility for our employees by allowing them to decide how they use their time. 

Employees can take time off to take care of themselves or a sick child, or use the time for 

vacation. The full allotment of paid time off is available January I of each year, which 

allows employees to be able to use their time when they need it versus waiting until they 

have earned it, which might not align with when they need to be out of the office. 

Flexible Schedule- Under this option, an exempt or non-exempt employee chooses the 

daily work schedule that works best for them. Workday start times begin as early as 6 

a.m. up through 9:30a.m. This flexible schedule enables employees to drop off children 

at daycarc or school, coordinate schedules with domestic partners or spouses in an effort 

to ensure personal needs are met or simply avoid commuting during heavy traffic times. 

Daily Workday Flexibility- This flexible work arrangement allows non-exempt hourly 

employees to clock in up to 15 minutes prior to or after their scheduled start time and 

modify the remainder of their workday to accommodate the modified start time, resulting 

in employees on a daily basis having flexibility as to the start of their workday. 

Employees no longer need to stress about arriving to work at an exact time, especially 

when a situation such as traffic is out of their control. Should an employee need to leave 

early for the day, they can start their day early and not have to use PTO. 

Make-Up Time- This option allows non-exempt, hourly employees to take time off and 

then make up the missed time later in that same week Monday through Friday, or an 

employee may work extra hours earlier in the workweek to make up for time that will be 

taken off later in the workweek. Employees value the flexibility to schedule doctor's 

appointments, run personal errands during business hours or come in late or take off early 

without taking PTO. 

'Americans Widely Support Paid Family and Medical Leave, but Differ Over Specific Policies (2017). 

Pew Research Center. 1 Employee Bcncllts research report (20 16). Society lor II uman Resource Management. 

4 
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 27662.005

Employers Offer Paid Leave and Workplace Flexibility 

Safety National is not the only employer stepping up to meet the work-life needs 

of its employees. According to national data, 99 percent of employers with 50 or more 

employees have some form of time off with pay for their full-time employees4• The 

National Study of Employers found an increase in the number of employers who offered 

telework on an occasional basis 66 percent in 20 16 compared to 50 percent of 

employers in 2008. 5 Additionally, 57 percent ofSHRM members report offering 

flextime, allowing employees to choose their work hours within limits established by the 

employer." 

HR professionals and their employers understand that paid leave and flexible 

work options are key to the overall job satisfaction of employees, especially as they 

compete for talent in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Consider, for example, 

that two out of five organizations cite offering more flexible work arrangements as one of 

the most etTcctive recruiting strategies. Additionally, 34 percent of employees report that 

flexibility to balance work and life issues is the reason they stay at their organization, 

second only to 44 percent of employees who cite compensation as the reason they stay at 

their organization. 7 

To support their talent management strategy, organizations must also focus on 

Millennia! employees who will represent 75 percent of the workforce by 20258

. Research 

shows that this generation, in particular, values flexibility over compensation, with 35 

percent willing to take a l 0 to 20 percent pay cut in exchange for more flexibility. 9 

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, employers who offer generous paid leave and workplace 

flexibility programs gain a competitive advantage as they seek to recruit and retain top 

talent. 

Paid Leave and Workplace Flexibility Challenges 

While many employers are already offering paid leave and flexible work options 

to help their employees navigate the demands of work and life, public policy lags behind 

and could do more to further incentivize employer adoption of these important benefits. 

Allow me to explain. 

One major problem is policy fragmentation at the state and local level. To date, 

eight states and more than 30 localities have adopted rigid, one-size-fits-all paid sick 

leave laws. As a result, employers must now navigate a fragmented and sometimes 

·'Paid Time OIT. Vacations. Sick Days and Short-term Caregiving in the United States (2015). 5 National Study of Employers (2016). Society tor !Iuman Resource Management. 6 Employee Benefits research report (20 17). Society l(ll' Human Resource Management. 7 Employee .lob Satisfaction and Engagement (20 !7). Society lor Human Resource Management. 8 https://www .brookings.edu/wp-eontcnt/uploads/20 I 6!06!13rookings __ Winogradfinal.pdf 9 FlcxJob Annual Super Survey (2016). https;//www.Oexjobs.com/blog/post!survey-workers-mostproductive-in-the-ol1icc/ 

5 
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 27662.006

conflicting system of state and local paid-leave mandates and flexible work requirements, 

causing numerous challenges for employers and employees. 

This is true for Safety National. Because we have employees in San Francisco, for 

example, which has a sick leave requirement, as does the state of California, we must 

ensure we are complying with both, even though the laws are overlapping and different. 

These compliance efforts also come at a cost to my business. 

For example, we had to switch to an entirely new Human Resource Information 

System (HRIS) payroll system to meet the California requirement that PTO be listed on 

the employee's paycheck. The cost to implement the new system was $76,000. 

Additionally, this process required us to set up multiple rules in our payroll system to 

account for the various state and municipal laws as it relates to accruing time off and/or 

rolling over time from year to year. This was a significant undertaking, especially since 

we only have 14 employees in the state. Due to the various state and municipal rules and 

requirements, two of our HR team members spent almost 80 hours setting up, identifying 

technical issues and implementing the system. The work done by the HR team, while 

necessary, represented lost productivity that those employees could have spent on their 

regular duties in support of employees and the business. Every new state or local mandate 

could prompt similar needs. 

Multiple rules have also meant increased legal fees for my company in trying to 

implement and comply with these laws. This effort has been particularly time consuming 

and difficult as many of these laws conflict with each other, use undefined and 

ambiguous terms and require our outside legal counsel to interpret the various leave laws 

to ensure that our policies are in compliance. Legal review must be done each time a new 

rule is enacted- and then annually- to make sure any changes in laws already in place 

have not made our policies non-compliant. 

Additionally, SHRM members with worksites in some of the other states and 

localities with leave requirements have had to ''designate" a specific number of days 

away from their PTO offering as ·'sick days" to comply with the various requirements. 

Employees have viewed this designation as a "take-away" from their PTO allotment as 

they could no longer use the leave unless the employee or their dependent was sick. 

SHRM's Policy Recommendation 

HR professionals like me are on the front lines of devising workplace strategies to 

create effective and flexible organizations. As such, SHRM and its members have given 

careful consideration to the role public policy can play in advancing the adoption of paid 

leave and workplace flexibility. 

Rather than a one-size-fits-all, rigid government mandate that prescribes how and 

when leave must be used, SHRM and its members believe that the United States must 

have a 21st century work flex policy that works tor employers and employees alike, 

helping them meet both work-life and organizational needs. A 21" century work flex 

6 
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 27662.007

policy must facilitate the expansion of paid leave and workflex options regarding when, 

where and how work is done, while accounting for differences in work environments, 

employer size and industry. 

That is why SHRM strongly supports H.R. 4219, the Workflex in the 21 51 Century 

Act, because it delivers on this goal. This legislation would amend the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to create a qualified flexible work arrangement 

plan as an employee welfare benefit plan under the statute. 

Under this legislation, employers could voluntarily offer a plan that provides their 

employees a federal standard of paid leave and options for flexible work arrangements, 

such as telecommuting or compressed work schedules. This plan, in turn, would preempt 

all state and local paid leave requirements, providing employers much-needed relief from 

the compliance conundrum employers currently encounter. 

Under H.R. 4219. both full- and part-time employees of employers who offer an 

ERISA workflex plan would receive guaranteed paid leave that exceeds all state and 

nearly all local mandates, while employees of nonparticipating employers would continue 

to be covered by state and local paid leave requirements, where applicable. Employees of 

participating employers would also receive guaranteed access· to flexible workplace 

options- not currently required under these state laws- which will give many employees 

access to worktlex for the first time. Employers who opt in would benefit from improved 

predictability by being able to follow the federal framework for paid leave, alleviating the 

complexity of the various state and local laws. 

Importantly, H.R. 4219 also includes strong employee protections provided by 

ERISA for more than 40 years. The bill has strong anti-retaliation protections for 

employees seeking to exercise their rights under ERISA. If an employer were to offer a 

qualified flexible work arrangement plan, the employer would be prohibited from taking 

adverse action against any employee based on the employee's request for leave or any 

other benefits provided in that plan. In addition, employees would choose to participate in 

the flexible work options and could not be forced, coerced or made to participate as a 

condition of employment. Remedies available for employees are those provided by 

ERISA, which include equitable relief. These plans may also lose qualified plan status 

under ERISA, triggering potential applicable state law coverage requirements and 

penalties for noncompliant employers. 

Mr. Chairman, this legislation would allow Safety National to treat employees 

consistently across all of our offlces, and would ease the administrative burden we face 

within our HRIS/payroll system. Under this legislation, Safety National would be able to 

consider our employees' request for bi-weekly work schedules, which would allow 

employees to address their work-life needs across two weeks versus the current one week 

restriction. As it stands now, if an employee has a busy work week and works over 40 

hours in that week, they are paid overtime. We have had employees ask if instead of 

earning overtime they could apply those work hours to the following week and work a 

7 
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 27662.008

shorter schedule that second week. Current labor laws do not allow for that flexibility, so 

we have no option but to deny the employees' requests. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for holding this hearing to discuss workplace leave policy options to 

benefit both employers and employees. As I stated earlier in my testimony, to make the 

new workplace work, we can't go by the old rules. Rigid government mandates only limit 

an employer's flexibility to tailor workplace flexibility policies to an organization's 

unique workforce and business needs. Public policy should facilitate greater employer 

adoption of these valuable workplace flexibility benefits, rather than curtail an 

employer's ability to offer policies that meet employees' needs. 

SHRM commends Representative Mimi Walters (R-CA) for introducing the 

Workflex in the 21'1 Century Act, and encourages members of the committee to support 

this important legislation. SHRM looks forward to working with members of this 

committee to advance H.R. 4219, which will expand paid leave and workplace flexibility 

options for all employees. 

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

8 
17 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

I recognize Ms. Brickmeier for your five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF BARBARA BRICKMEIER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

HUMAN RESOURCES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, IBM 

CORPORATION 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sablan, and other members of the committee. I’m Barbara 

Brickmeier, VP for human resources and business development 

with IBM. I’m responsible for overseeing global benefits design and 

execution across IBM. I’m here today on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to discuss the challenges facing large, multijurisdiction companies that must navigate the maze of increasingly 

complex, conflicting, and overlapping paid leave mandates across 

the country. 

IBM has always supported the provision of paid leave so employees can tend to their personal needs, whether they be health related or for other reasons. Providing time off to our regular fulltime and part-time employees is not only consistent with our policy, but also an important tool to use for the well-being of our employees, while attracting the most highly-talented professionals. We 

provide a generous paid leave policy that includes a minimum of 

15 paid vacation days, up to 26 weeks of full or partially paid 

short-term disability, 12 weeks of paid childcare bonding leave for 

new parents, in addition to sick leave. 

As a 50-state employer, a formidable challenge is the administrative and compliance burden created by a myriad inconsistencies in 

the various state and local leave laws, the speed at which new laws 

and amendments arise, and the sheer number and range of requirements applicable to IBM’s diverse employee base around the 

country. 

So let me be very specific. In the area of paid sick leave, by my 

last count, there were six states, two counties, and roughly 30 local 

jurisdictions with paid sick leave laws. In addition, there is a federal executive order establishing paid leave for federal contractors. 

Nearly all of these apply to IBM. And what frustrates us is that 

these federal, state, and local paid sick leave laws are all different. 

They specify different levels of leave and include varying eligibility rules for employees in addition to defining covered family 

members in different ways. Implementation requirements such as 

frontloading, carryover, documentation, notification, and accrual 

rates may also vary. Furthermore, the laws are amended at different times, obliging us to change our leave offerings, postings, 

and notifications. I provided several examples of these in my written testimony. And to say the least, they present a complex obstacle course for employers, particularly multi-state employers like 

IBM whose populations vary from single digits in some locales to 

many thousands in others. I can only speculate how companies 

may be discouraged from voluntarily providing paid sick leave and 

are paid family leave to their employees because of this confusion. 

So I’m going to give a terrific example which, again, follows on 

the San Francisco example, so a San Francisco-based IBM. We are 

working on a Federal contract, would be covered by up to four different paid leave laws for personal illness or that of a covered famCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

ily member, not to mention the Federal FMLA, which covers unpaid leave in similar circumstances. Specifically, an employee could 

be covered by Executive Order 13706, the California Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, the San Francisco Paid Leave 

Ordinance, and the California Paid Family Leave Law, and they all 

may apply. Each law varies with respect to one or more factors, 

such as time off amounts, covered family members, notification, reporting, and recordkeeping. While the most generous provisions 

would apply, identifying them and ensuring compliance necessitates significant time and resources, and might actually vary with 

each employee’s personal circumstance. 

Of course, IBM is not alone in this predicament, and we would 

speculate that, given our own challenges, and despite our significant resources and fairly sophisticated HR system, it must be far 

more burdensome and costly for smaller companies with fewer resources, leading to noncompliance or other strategies to avoid the 

mandates all together. 

Given the proliferation of different and complex paid leave mandates at the federal, state, and local levels, IBM strongly supports 

a federal preemptive legislative solution, like that in H.R. 4219, the 

Workflex in the 21st Century Act. And this is an example of the way 

employers could opt in to a single, national paid leave police that 

would satisfy compliance requirements in multiple jurisdictions. 

Such a simplified approach would greatly reduce costs and mitigate 

the staggering and growing administrative complexity, while allowing us to continue offering and designing generous leave benefits 

for our employees that would not vary based on where they work. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Brickmeier follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 27662.009

Statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

ON: 

TO: 

BY: 

DATE: 

Workplace Leave Policies: Opportunities and Challenges 

for Employers and Working Families 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education 

and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor and Pensions 

Barbara Brickmeier, Vice President for Human Resources 

and Business Development with IBM 

December 6, 2017 

1615 H Street NW I Washington, DC I 20062 

The Chamber's mission is to advance human progress through an economic, 

political and social system based on individual freedom, 

incentive, initiative, opportunity and responsihility. 
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 27662.010

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business 

federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all 

sizes, sectors. and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry 

associations. The Chamber is dedicated to promoting, protecting, and 

defending America's free enterprise system. 

More than 96% of Chamber member companies have fewer than 100 

employees, and many of the nation's largest companies are also active 

members. We are therefore cognizant not only of the challenges facing 

smaller businesses, but also those facing the business community at large. 

Besides representing a cross-section of the American business 

community with respect to the number of employees, major classifications 

of American business-e.g., manufacturing, retailing, services, construction, 

wholesalers, and finance-are represented. The Chamber has membership in 

all 50 states. 

The Chamber's international reach is substantial as well. We believe 

that global interdependence provides opportunities, not threats. In addition to 

the American Chambers of Commerce abroad, an increasing number of our 

members engage in the export and import of both goods and services and 

have ongoing investment activities. The Chamber favors strengthened 

international competitiveness and opposes artificial U.S. and foreign barriers 

to international business. 
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 27662.011

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sablan and other Members of the 

Committee. I'm Barbara Brickmeier. Vice President for Human Resources and Business 

Development with IBM. I am responsible for overseeing global benefits design and 

execution across the IBM Corporation. I'm here at today's hearing, "Workplace Leave 

Policies: Opportunities and Challenges for Employers and Working Families," on behalf 

of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to discuss the challenges facing large, multijurisdiction companies that must navigate the maze of increasingly complex, conflicting 

and overlapping paid leave mandates across the country. 

At the outset, let me clearly state that IBM has always supported the provision of 

paid leave so employees can tend to their personal needs, whether they be health-related 

or for other reasons. We provide a generous paid leave policy that includes a minimum 

of 15 days of paid vacation; up to 26 weeks of full or partially paid short term disability; 

12 weeks of paid child bonding leave for new parents, in addition to paid sick leave. Our 

paid leave policy extends to all full and part-time regular employees. In today's hearing, 

I >viii focus my comments not on whether employers should provide paid leave, but the 

problems employers arc facing in trying to provide it nationwide. 

IBM fully supports providing paid time off to employees who need it for healthrelated or other reasons. Providing time off to employees is consistent with IBM policy 

and practice and is easily manageable. However, an overwhelming challenge has 

resulted from the burden created by myriad inconsistencies in the various state and local 

laws, the speed at which new laws and amendments arise, and the sheer number and 

range of requirements applicable to IBM's operations around the country. 

Let me be very specific: In the area of paid sick leave, by my last count, there 

were 6 states, 2 counties and roughly 29 local ordinances covering paid sick leave. In 

addition, there is a federal Executive Order establishing paid sick leave for federal 

contractors. IBM's situation with respect to this crowded backdrop of paid sick leave 

laws is instructive and typical of the challenge faced by large employers with multiple 

sites around the country that also are federal contractors, like us. In our case, with 

employees in all 50 states. IBM must comply with the federal Executive Order, as well as 

all applicable state and local laws (20 out of29) on paid sick time and paid family leave. 

2 
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 27662.012

It is important to be aware that these various state and local paid sick leave laws 

are all different. They specify different levels of leave and include varying employee 

eligibility rules and the minimum amount of compensation to be paid. The permissible 

reasons for taking leave also vary. The laws define covered family members in different 

ways. Significantly, the implementation requirements of the laws also can be quite 

different. Typically, each law has different rules regarding frontloading, carryover, 

documentation and notification requirements. There also are different accrual rates. 

Combined, it is- to say the least- a complex obstacle course for employers, particularly 

multistate employers like IBM. 

Instead of facilitating the formulation of paid leave policies, these inconsistencies 

and competing requirements actually discourage companies from voluntarily providing 

paid sick leave and/or paid family leave to their employees. For example, it would be 

difficult from a compliance and administrative standpoint for IBM to implement a single, 

uniform paid family leave program for all U.S. employees, given varying and onerous 

mandates by jurisdiction. As a result of the uncoordinated patchwork of requirements 

that exists today, IBM and similarly situated companies are left with no choice but to 

provide different paid sick time and family leave benefits based on where an employee 

works. This is far from ideal, from an employee relations and fairness perspective and 

for ensuring consistent and cost-effective provision of a vital benefit. 

To articulate this further, an IBM employee may be covered simultaneously by as 

many as four different laws addressing the amount of paid leave available for an 

employee illness or the illness of a covered family member (not to mention the federal 

FMLA, which covers unpaid leave in similar circumstances). For example, an employee 

working on a federal contract in San Francisco would be covered by Executive Order 

13706; the California Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of20!4; the San 

Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance; and the California Paid Family Leave Law, which 

have different time off, covered family members, notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. While all of the laws dictate that the most generous provisions 

apply, identifying the most generous entitlement and ensuring compliance with all 

3 
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 27662.013

applicable requirements necessitates significant time and resources to accomplish and 

might vary with each employee's circumstance. 

In addition to new laws being passed every few months, several of the existing 

paid sick leave laws also have been recently amended. For example, the State of 

California's Paid Sick Leave law was passed on July I, 2015 and was amended on 

January I, 2017. San Francisco's Paid Sick Leave Ordinance was passed in 2007 but was 

amended on January I, 2017. Washington, D.C.'s Accrued Sick Leave and Safe Leave 

Act was passed in 2008 and amended in 2014. Seattle's Paid Sick and Safe Time 

Ordinance was passed in 20 II and amended in 2016. Needless to say, each time a law is 

passed or amended, employers must review the new requirements to determine what 

steps must be taken to ensure compliance. 

Many of the laws require employee notification, posting a notice, or creation of a 

policy. Consequently, every time a law is amended, the policy may need revising, the 

postings may need to be changed, and the employee notification must be revised. When 

an employer has employees in so many jurisdictions around the country- whether tens of 

thousands in some or single digits in others- the resources required to ensure continued 

compliance with ever changing requirements arc staggering. Further, and most 

important, the challenge posed here is not the provision of paid time off to employees; 

rather, the challenge to employers like ours is the overlapping. inconsistent requirements 

-procedural and substantive -- of these mandates. 

Of course, IBM is not alone in this predicament. We are aware that there are 

many companies and firms with offices throughout the country struggling to navigate 

these myriad requirements. Like IBM, many U.S. companies are subject to one or more 

state, local or federal contractor paid leave laws, all of which impose divergent 

requirements. and none of which exempts employers who already are providing 

substantially more generous paid leaves. 

We would speculate that, given our experience with the challenge presented by 

these complex and conflicting paid sick and other leave mandates for a company with 

IBM's resources and sophisticated HR system, it must be far more burdensome and 

costly for smaller companies with less resources. This labyrinth of leave requirements 

4 
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 27662.014

can literally overwhelm employers, thus leading to non-compliance or other strategies to 

avoid the mandates altogether. 

While today's hearing is focused on describing the overall picture of paid leave 

mandates proliferating around the country, we are encouraged that attention is focused on 

the difficulties this poses for diligent employers with comprehensive benefits programs 

and generous paid time off packages. For the reasons explained above, IBM strongly 

supports a federal preemptive legislative solution, like that in H.R. 4219, the Workflex in 

the 21st Century Act, which would enable employers to opt in to a single, national paid 

leave policy that would satisfy compliance requirements in multiple jurisdictions of the 

country at the same time. Such a simplified approach would greatly reduce costs and 

mitigate the staggering and growing administrative complexity, while allowing us to 

continue offering and designing generous leave benefits for our employees that would not 

vary based on where they work. 

Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to testify before you today. l look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

5 
25 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

I now recognize the Honorable Hans Riemer for your five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF HANS RIEMER, PRESIDENT, MONTGOMERY 

COUNTY COUNCIL 

Mr. RIEMER. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the committee. My name is Hans 

Riemer, and I’m the president of the Montgomery County Council 

here in Maryland. Montgomery County is an inclusive metropolitan 

community that is home to more than 1 million people, all of whom 

I represent as an at-large council member. 

I’m here today on behalf of our county council and county executive to speak to you about the importance of local and State workplace laws through the lens of Montgomery County’s experience 

adopting a local paid sick days law. 

As you know, local elected officials are always on the ground in 

their communities and know the needs and the values of the people 

that they represent. I meet my constituents every day. I talk to 

them at the grocery store and community events. 

In Montgomery County, we know that working families need real 

policy solutions to provide paid leave. We listen to the people in our 

community, and in response, the Council adopted an Earned Sick 

and Safe Leave Law that guarantees workers can earn up to seven 

days of paid time off. 

In Montgomery County, our law guarantees that employees can 

use the sick leave they have earned to care for or treat an illness 

or injury. I can tell you that I have met so many people who have 

needed to use leave after an injury or sudden illness, such as a car 

crash or the flu or taking care of a child who broke an arm. Our 

law also guarantees employees can use leave to care for an ailing 

relative or to deal with medical or legal issues related to domestic 

violence or sexual assault. We all know families where a child has 

special needs or a parent or grandparent is sick, and their caregivers need a right to take at least some time to care for them. 

As you can imagine, these are not events that employees can predict or schedule in advance. Without paid sick time, employees are 

often forced to go to work and spread the flu to their coworkers or 

customers, or to send their kids to school sick and infect their 

classmates and teachers. We all pay the price. 

When the Maryland legislature passed a statewide paid sick 

leave law last year, we worked with legislators to ensure that our 

county is free to keep the stronger policy that works for us. We 

have also been working with our state legislators to find a way to 

adopt a longer-term paid family and medical leave program. 

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to workplace leave policies, 

but there is a baseline protection that every worker in America deserves. Congress should adopt common sense policies, like the 

Healthy Families Act, the FAMILY Act, and the Schedules That 

Work Act, that set a standard, while allowing states and local governments to determine what additional protections make sense for 

them. 

We strongly oppose H.R. 4219, which would undermine our paid 

sick days law and turn back the clock for more than 13 million 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

26 

working people who have gained access to paid sick days through 

laws passed in eight states and 32 local jurisdictions. 

H.R. 4219 does not provide paid sick days; it takes them away. 

H.R. 4219 takes away important rights to sick leave that local and 

state governments have granted to their residents, rights that were 

granted using sovereignty that belongs to us. The federal law 

would create an off-ramp for employers to evade state and local 

laws presently covering millions of people. The law goes against the 

basic tenet that if a decision can be made closer to the people without violating important principles, then that is where the decisionmaking power should fall. 

By creating an escape hatch from state and local law, H.R. 4219 

eviscerates the hard-won right to earn paid sick time that my constituents have, and puts decision -making back in the hands of 

their employers, who could unilaterally deny their urgent leave request. Many states have health, safety, and environmental requirements that may differ from federal law. Businesses that are large 

enough to operate in multiple jurisdictions have advance system to 

address these differences. Instead of working to undermine state 

and local law, let’s work together to improve people’s lives through 

a national minimum paid sick day standard and a national paid 

family and medical leave plan. 

State and local governments have long been the laboratories of 

democracy, helping forge workable national standards. Congress 

should safeguard, not undermine, our ability to do what we think 

is right for our constituents. 

H.R. 4219 will create confusion in the workforce, overburden and 

undermine local and state governments, and jeopardize the family 

life and public safety of millions of people. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Riemer follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 27662.015

HANS RIEMER 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL 

ROCKV!UF. MARYLAND 

Statement of the 

Honorable Hans Riemer 

President, Montgomery County Council 

Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

December 6, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Sablan and members of the Committee. 

My name is Hans Riemer and I am the president of the Montgomery County Council in 

Maryland. Montgomery County is home to more than one million people. We are a diverse, 

growing and vibrant community with large and small companies in a wide variety of industries. 

I'm here today on behalf of our County Council and Executive to speak to you about 

Montgomery County's experience adopting a local paid sick days law and to share the benefits 

of paid sick days for my constituents and our community. 

Like I know all of you do, I meet with my constituents every day. I live and work next door to the 

people I was elected to represent, and I talk to them at the grocery store and the gas station and 

at community events. Local elected officials are always on the ground in their communities and 

know the needs and the values of the people they represent. 

In Montgomery County we are well aware of working families' need for real policy solutions to 

provide paid leave and workplace flexibility. I have met working mothers who couldn't take time 

off from work to take care of their sick child, solidly middle class families that couldn't care for an 

aging parent that fell, and I met many, many hard working people who told me about going to 

work sick or hurt because they were afraid to lose their job. That is not healthy for anyone! We 

also heard from parents who could not attend a school meeting for a child with special needs, or 

get time off for an annual physical, or attend a court hearing to get a restraining order against a 

perpetrator of domestic violence. 

We listened to the people in our community, and in response the Council adopted an Earned 

Sick and Safe Leave Law that guarantees workers can earn up to 7 days (56 hours) of paid time 

off. For employers with fewer than 5 employees, workers accrue at least 4 days (32 hours) of 

paid time off and another 3 days of unpaid sick leave. Montgomery County is one of 8 states 

240/7:'?·796~- TTY 240//71-7914 -(.OliNCILMfM&f~.PifMfR:o,'I.'ONTGOMfR!CQIJ>ITYMD GOV- MOWGOiv'thCOUNTYMD GOV/RID .. ~ER 
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 27662.016

and 32 localities that have passed similar laws as of today. After working through the bill and 

listening to workers and employers large and small, we passed the bill unanimously, and our 

County Executive signed it and led a smooth implementation process. 

In the wealthiest nation in the world, it's unconscionable that an unexpected medical problem--

cancer, or a car accident-- can trigger a downward spiral of lost wages, job loss, 

unemployment, foreclosure, bankruptcy, and worse. As Baby Boomers age, more and more 

workers are finding themselves caring not only for their children and themselves, but also for 

their aging parents as well. Hard working people shouldn't have to choose between caring for 

the parents who once cared for them and paying the bills. 

Paid sick leave laws like ours are critical for the workforce, and workers, businesses and our 

health department are finding it works well in our County. But Maryland is a diverse state, and 

our County has a very high cost-of-living compared to others. When the Maryland legislature 

passed a statewide paid sick leave law last year, we worked with them to ensure that, while 

there is a new statewide floor that works across the state - our County is free to keep the 

stronger policy that works for us. 

We have also been working with our state legislators to find a way to adopt a longer-term paid 

family and medical leave program- a Social Security-style program that would provide relief for 

employees who need extended leave, whether for a new baby, an illness, or an ailing family 

member. Our goal is to find a way to adopt a statewide floor that provides relief for all workers, 

while leaving the flexibility to address differences in workforce needs that exist in different 

Counties around the state. Our County, for example, may want to have a stronger family leave 

policy in order to more effectively compete for younger workers. 

2 

America is huge and diverse, and federal policies should work the same way. Let those of us in 

local and state government work with you to ensure a healthy and productive workforce while 

managing through concerns from employers. We are the closest to the ground. Every day, we 

are fielding complaints from small business owners, marketing ourselves to bigger businesses, 

hearing from workers and residents, helping to answer questions and fix problems. When the 

store on the corner closes, we find out why. We know what works for our communities. 

At the same time, every worker in America deserves basic protections that ensure dignity and 

respect. There is no "one size fits all" solution to workplace leave policies, but there is a basic 

floor of protection that every worker in America deserves. Congress should adopt common 

sense policies like the Healthy Families Act, FAMILY Act, and Schedules that Work Act to 

provide a floor for workers across the country, while allowing states and local governments to 

determine what additional protections make sense for them. 

We strongly oppose H.R. 4219, the misnamed Workflex in the 21st Century Act, which would 

undermine our paid sick days law and turn back the clock for more than 13 million working 

!W\1\1\YJ,\1-.ll;\VI\1'1.(, 'HOli<.RtxKVII!I.M·\Il\'t.\'\!l20S50 

I· ~11 \11\'·R 11!1 \!1 >< t1 \1\ >'J ICilMI ~\\ 1 1! >.Ji Y\l'J' .()\'- '1.1\l'-Ji< •Ol\!l i<Y(\l! ''JI V:\{1) ,,,lViRIH.-'1 !< 
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 27662.017

people who have gained access to paid sick days through laws passed in eight states and 32 

local jurisdictions across the country. 

3 

H.R. 4219 does not provide paid sick days, it takes them away. The federal law would 

create an off-ramp for employers to evade state and local laws presently covering millions of 

people. Without justification, the law goes against the basic tenet that if a decision can be made 

closer to the people without violating important principles, then that is where the decision 

making power should fall. And I am here to explain that there is absolutely no reason to enable 

employers to evade our state and local workplace laws. Our decisions are sound and they work 

just fine for our community and our employers. 

By creating an escape hatch from state and local law, H.R. 4219 eviscerates the hard-won right 

to earn paid sick time that my constituents have and puts sole decision-making in the hands of 

their employers, who could unilaterally decide to offer their employees - my constituents -less 

certainty and predictability and deny their urgent leave requests. 

H.R. 4219 would also cause confusion for local enforcement agencies, which would have to 

jump through hoops with the U.S. Department of Labor to determine whether the local 

government or DOL has jurisdiction over complaints for a particular employer. I know that would 

burden our enforcement agency and I would imagine it would burden DOL too. 

As we were developing our sick days policy, we heard from people who- like two-thirds of 

people in the United States and 70 percent of low-wage workers - did not have a single paid 

sick day. We heard from others who were unable to take time off from work when their child or a 

beloved parent needed them. Some of the stories I heard echo the Society for Human 

Resources Management I Families and Work Institute's own research, which shows that nearly 

four in 10 employers say a worker's ability to take requested leave is determined in part by how 

and for whom they will use the time. Our paid sick days law limits that discretion for illness, 

health needs and domestic violence situations. 

We also heard from business owners who said, "I already offer paid sick days because it's the 

smart as well as the right thing to do - and I think everyone should have it, too." 

Our law and the other state and local laws have the same basic structure, the same basic 

guarantees and the same basic requirements that employers must follow. There is local 

variation to reflect local needs but the key elements and structures are very similar. This, by the 

way, is not any different than other state and international law variations that employers are 

quite used to dealing with. Many states have different minimum wages, along with other health, 

safety and environmental requirements that may differ from federal law. Businesses operate in 

areas where they believe they will be successful - and communities support business that 

comply with local laws. Businesses that are large enough to operate in multiple jurisdictions 

readily have the capacity to establish different business processes according to those 

jurisdictions. 
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 27662.018

4 

Paid sick time is just one of the needs that my community - and, indeed, the nation has. That's 

why it is outrageous to me that were are debating moving backward instead of forward. Instead 

of debating how to improve people's lives through a national paid sick days standard, or a 

standard for fair work schedules or a national paid family and medical leave plan -we're 

debating a proposal like H.R. 4219, which would erode the basic standards we have worked for 

at the local level. 

I urge you to spend time considering true worker leave and flexibility policies: 

• A national paid sick days law like the Healthy Families Act, to guarantee workers the 

right to earn up to seven paid sick and safe days, very similar to the law we passed in 

my county; 

• A national paid leave fund like the Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Actwhich 70 percent of small businesses and more than 75 percent of voters support and 

which would create a national paid family and medical leave fund to help ensure that a 

working parent can care for a new child and all working people can take paid time to 

address their own or a family member's serious health issue. I had one of those issues 

myself a couple of years ago, and I felt lucky to have paid leave. But luck should not 

have had anything to do with it. 

• And the Schedules That Work Act, which would create incentives for employers to offer 

predictability and notice in scheduling and make it easier for working people to request 

flexibility that will better enable them to continue their education, find safe and affordable 

child care, hold a second job to support their families and plan their lives. 

Cities, counties, and states have long been the laboratories for democracy and help create 

workable national standards. Congress should safeguard, not undermine, our ability to do what 

is right for our constituents. That's why I am so alarmed at H.R. 4219. Federal policies should 

provide a baseline for the country and an opportunity for the states and local governments to 

layer additional programs and policies based on the needs of their communities. 

H.R. 4219 will create confusion in the workforce, overburden and undermine local and state 

governments, and jeopardize the public safety of millions of people. It will very likely also create 

more regulation for employers and disadvantage the small businesses that give our county and 

so many others across the country true character. H.R. 4219 does not rnake sense for 

employers. employees, or local governments like Montgomery County. 

Thank you. 
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 27662.019

HANS RIEMER 

COUNCIL PRESIDENT 

Date: December 21, 2017 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL 

ROCKVH LL MARYLAND 

To: U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

Re: Corrected Testimony- December 6, 2017 

Please see the attached corrected testimony for the Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor 

and Pensions. The testimony has been updated to correct an error in one sentence to reflect the 

intended statement that both one third of the private sector workers and 70% of the lowest wage 

workers do not have a sick day. 

Thank you, 

Hans Riemer 
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 27662.020

HANS RIEMER 

COUNCIL PRESIDEeiT 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL 

ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 

CORRECTED 

Statement of the 

Honorable Hans Riemer 

President, Montgomery County Council 

Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

December 6, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Sablan and members of the Committee. 

My name is Hans Riemer and I am the president of the Montgomery County Council in 

Maryland. Montgomery County is home to more than one million people. We are a diverse, 

growing and vibrant community with large and small companies in a wide variety of industries. 

I'm here today on behalf of our County Council and Executive to speak to you about 

Montgomery County's experience adopting a local paid sick days law and to share the benefits 

of paid sick days for my constituents and our community. 

Like I know all of you do, I meet with my constituents every day. I live and work next door to the 

people I was elected to represent, and I talk to them at the grocery store and the gas station and 

at community events. Local elected officials are always on the ground in their communities and 

know the needs and the values of the people they represent. 

In Montgomery County we are well aware of working families' need for real policy solutions to 

provide paid leave and workplace flexibility. I have met working mothers who couldn't take time 

off from work to take care of their sick child, solidly middle class families that couldn't care for an 

aging parent that fell, and I met many, many hard working people who told me about going to 

work sick or hurt because they were afraid to lose their job. That is not healthy for anyone! We 

also heard from parents who could not attend a school meeting for a child with special needs, or 

get time off for an annual physical, or attend a court hearing to get a restraining order against a 

perpetrator of domestic violence. 

We listened to the people in our community, and in response the Council adopted an Earned 

Sick and Safe Leave Law that guarantees workers can earn up to 7 days (56 hours) of paid time 

off. For employers with fewer than 5 employees, workers accrue at least 4 days (32 hours) of 
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 27662.021

paid time off and another 3 days of unpaid sick leave. Montgomery County is one of 8 states 

and 32 localities that have passed similar laws as of today. After working through the bill and 

listening to workers and employers large and small, we passed the bill unanimously, and our 

County Executive signed it and led a smooth implementation process. 

In the wealthiest nation in the world, it's unconscionable that an unexpected medical problem--

cancer, or a car accident -- can trigger a downward spiral of lost wages, job loss, 

unemployment, foreclosure, bankruptcy, and worse. As Baby Boomers age, more and more 

workers are finding themselves caring not only for their children and themselves, but also for 

their aging parents as well. Hard working people shouldn't have to choose between caring for 

the parents who once cared for them and paying the bills. 

Paid sick leave laws like ours are critical for the workforce, and workers, businesses and our 

health department are finding it works well in our County. But Maryland is a diverse state, and 

our County has a very high cost-of-living compared to others. When the Maryland legislature 

passed a statewide paid sick leave law last year, we worked with them to ensure that, while 

there is a new statewide floor that works across the state- our County is free to keep the 

stronger policy that works for us. 

We have also been working with our state legislators to find a way to adopt a longer-term paid 

family and medical leave program - a Social Security-style program that would provide relief for 

employees who need extended leave, whether for a new baby, an illness, or an ailing family 

member. Our goal is to find a way to adopt a statewide floor that provides relief for all workers, 

while leaving the flexibility to address differences in workforce needs that exist in different 

Counties around the state. Our County, for example, may want to have a stronger family leave 

policy in order to more effectively compete for younger workers. 

America is huge and diverse, and federal policies should work the same way. Let those of us in 

local and state government work with you to ensure a healthy and productive workforce while 

managing through concerns from employers. We are the closest to the ground. Every day, we 

are fielding complaints from small business owners, marketing ourselves to bigger businesses, 

hearing from workers and residents, helping to answer questions and fix problems. When the 

store on the corner closes, we find out why. We know what works for our communities. 

At the same time, every worker in America deserves basic protections that ensure dignity and 

respect. There is no "one size fits all" solution to workplace leave policies, but there is a basic 

floor of protection that every worker in America deserves. Congress should adopt common 

sense policies like the Healthy Families Act, FAMILY Act, and Schedules that Work Act to 

provide a floor for workers across the country, while allowing states and local governments to 

determine what additional protections make sense for them. 

We strongly oppose H.R. 4219, the misnamed Workflex in the 21st Century Act, which would 

undermine our paid sick days law and turn back the clock for more than 13 million working 

idll~l\!<Yi \O.':JA\1'-'\'' I."'' FlouR t{p('l~\': II· ~l\R\"1 \Hl~~l:\'>1• 

,\!r 1~ ,,,0,\111\\'Coi:N i '! \ID <·C>'.' Ril ~<I;, 
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 27662.022

people who have gained access to paid sick days through laws passed in eight states and 32 

local jurisdictions across the country. 

H.R. 4219 does not provide paid sick days, it takes them away. The federal law would 

create an off-ramp for employers to evade state and local laws presently covering millions of 

people. Without justification, the law goes against the basic tenet that if a decision can be made 

closer to the people without violating important principles, then that is where the decision 

making power should fall. And I am here to explain that there is absolutely no reason to enable 

employers to evade our state and local workplace laws. Our decisions are sound and they work 

just fine for our community and our employers. 

By creating an escape hatch from state and local law, H.R. 4219 eviscerates the hard-won right 

to earn paid sick time that my constituents have and puts sole decision-making in the hands of 

their employers, who could unilaterally decide to offer their employees - my constituents - less 

certainty and predictability and deny their urgent leave requests. 

H.R. 4219 would also cause confusion for local enforcement agencies, which would have to 

jump through hoops with the U.S. Department of Labor to determine whether the local 

government or DOL has jurisdiction over complaints for a particular employer. I know that would 

burden our enforcement agency and I would imagine it would burden DOL too. 

As we were developing our sick days policy, we heard from people who- like nearly one-third of 

private sector workers in the United States and 70 percent of the lowest wage workers - did not 

have a single paid sick day. We heard from others who were unable to take time off from work 

when their child or a beloved parent needed them. Some of the stories I heard echo the Society 

for Human Resources Management I Families and Work Institute's own research, which shows 

that nearly four in 10 employers say a worker's ability to take requested leave is determined in 

part by how and for whom they will use the time. Our paid sick days law limits that discretion for 

illness, health needs and domestic violence situations. 

We also heard from business owners who said, "I already offer paid sick days because it's the 

smart as well as the right thing to do- and I think everyone should have it, too." 

Our law and the other state and local laws have the same basic structure, the same basic 

guarantees and the same basic requirements that employers must follow. There is local 

variation to reflect local needs but the key elements and structures are very similar. This, by the 

way, is not any different than other state and international law variations that employers are 

quite used to dealing with. Many states have different minimum wages, along with other health, 

safety and environmental requirements that may differ from federal law. Businesses operate in 

areas where they believe they will be successful- and communities support business that 

comply with local laws. Businesses that are large enough to operate in multiple jurisdictions 

readily have the capacity to establish different business processes according to those 

jurisdictions. 
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 27662.023

Paid sick time is just one of the needs that my community- and, indeed, the nation has. That's 

why it is outrageous to me that were are debating moving backward instead of forward. Instead 

of debating how to improve people's lives through a national paid sick days standard, or a 

standard for fair work schedules or a national paid family and medical leave plan- we're 

debating a proposal like H.R. 4219, which would erode the basic standards we have worked for 

at the local level. 

I urge you to spend time considering true worker leave and flexibility policies: 

• A national paid sick days law like the Healthy Families Act, to guarantee workers the 

right to earn up to seven paid sick and safe days, very similar to the law we passed in 

my county; 

• A national paid leave fund like the Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Actwhich 70 percent of small businesses and more than 75 percent of voters support- and 

which would create a national paid family and medical leave fund to help ensure that a 

working parent can care for a new child and all working people can take paid time to 

address their own or a family member's serious health issue. I had one of those issues 

myself a couple of years ago, and I felt lucky to have paid leave. But luck should not 

have had anything to do with it. 

• And the Schedules That Work Act, which would create incentives for employers to offer 

predictability and notice in scheduling and make it easier for working people to request 

flexibility that will better enable them to continue their education, find safe and affordable 

child care, hold a second job to support their families and plan their lives. 

Cities, counties, and states have long been the laboratories for democracy and help create 

workable national standards. Congress should safeguard, not undermine, our ability to do what 

is right for our constituents. That's why I am so alarmed at H.R. 4219. Federal policies should 

provide a baseline for the country and an opportunity for the states and local governments to 

layer additional programs and policies based on the needs of their communities. 

H.R. 4219 will create confusion in the workforce, overburden and undermine local and state 

governments, and jeopardize the public safety of millions of people. It will very likely also create 

more regulation for employers and disadvantage the small businesses that give our county and 

so many others across the country true character. H.R. 4219 does not make sense for 

employers, employees, or local governments like Montgomery County. 

Thank you. 

II H) !\1-\RYI ~'i:l A\' 'IT:I. r,'" F; (l(JI\ RU\'k\'!1)' \1\l<rl M<:l ~n~'>q 

r..t< 1:-; 1\;< ~11 RY{'<JI ~~ \ \!D •iP\'•Rl! MHt 
36 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

And now, Ms. Lukas, we recognize you for your five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF CARRIE LUKAS, PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT 

WOMEN’S FORUM 

Ms. LUKAS. Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Sablan, 

thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning and talk 

about this important issue. I’m representing the Independent Women’s Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to developing and advancing policies that enhance people’s freedom, choices, and opportunities. 

IWF employs nearly 20 workers, almost all of whom are women. 

And as the person responsible for overseeing the budget, I know 

firsthand the impact that leave benefits have on a small business 

or an organization like ours. 

Like most employers, IWF works hard to support our employees 

who need time off for personal reasons, like the birth of a child or 

another family issue. We also try to be fair to those employees who 

don’t need time for extended leave. I’m also the mother of five children, so I appreciate the importance of being able to take time off 

from work firsthand. 

I encourage you, as you consider potential reform and action in 

regards to paid leave, I’d encourage you to keep the following in 

mind: Our workplaces and our workforce are increasingly diverse. 

Growing numbers of workers are participating in the gig economy, 

which means that they are working for themselves as a contractor 

rather than for a traditional employer. A growing number of workers are also telecommuting. Families are changing too, as more 

women become sole or primary breadwinners, and more people are 

remaining childless. 

These trends should caution us against creating a one-size-fitsall leave policy that ignores that a worker without children working in a traditional business is likely to have very different preferences for leave benefits than a self-employed single parent. We 

also need to consider that businesses able to offer telecommuting 

options can provide different leave benefits than a restaurant or 

hospital that needs sufficient in-person staff. 

Ignoring these difference and creating a mandate or a government-entitlement program will impose real costs on workers in the 

form of reduced workplace flexibility, less hiring, and in particular, 

less opportunities for women of child-bearing age. This isn’t just a 

theoretical risk. I got to live in Europe for seven years, and while 

these countries offer extensive paid leave benefits for families with 

children, women pay a considerable price in terms of workplace opportunities. 

The National Bureau of Economic Research found that EU countries have boosted their female labor force participation rate, but 

the women there were mostly working part time and in lower paid 

positions. While 14 percent of American female workers are managers compared to 15 percent of American men, just 5.9 percent of 

European female workers are managers compared to 22 percent of 

European men. So clearly, there is a disconnect there. 

Advocates for sweeping government action often painted a very 

grim picture of working in the United States, claiming that 12 percent of workers, something like that, have only -- that only that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

share has paid leave benefits. But fortunately, that’s an inaccurate 

picture of how businesses here function. Just because employers 

seldom offer specific family leave benefits doesn’t mean that workers generally don’t have access to paid time off for family needs. 

The Census Bureau studied women having their first child and 

found that 56 percent of full-time working mothers used paid leave 

following the birth of that child, 42 percent use unpaid leave, 10 

percent had disability leave. And this all adds up to more than 100 

percent since some use more than one bucket of leave. 

These numbers suggest that there certainly are many workers 

who would appreciate more time off and could use more paid leave 

benefits, but it also tells us that most businesses and employers do 

voluntarily offer leave, and which is a reason to avoid upending the 

employment contracts of all 160 million working Americans, many 

of whom are happy with their current compensation arrangements. 

I would encourage that policymakers’ goals should be to help 

make it easier for workers to prepare for time away from work and 

for businesses to provide leave benefits, but without discouraging 

hiring and innovative work relationships. For example, the government could consider creating savings account system, much like a 

401(k) or an ESA, that would enable workers to save tax free for 

time off from work. Employers and charities could also contribute 

to these accounts, and the government could consider augmenting 

saving to encourage participation and particularly to help those 

with lower incomes. 

However, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the best 

way to ensure that workers have the benefits they need is for there 

to be a growing economy with plentiful job opportunities and rising 

compensation so that they can find positions that make the most 

sense for themselves. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Lukas follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 27662.024

Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Carrie Lukas 

President, Independent Women's Forum 

December 6, 2017 

Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Sablan, thank you for the opportunity 

to be here and talk about this important issue. 

Today, I'm representing Independent Women's Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to 

developing and advancing policies that enhance people's freedom, choices, and 

opportunities. 

IWF employs nearly 20 workers, almost all of whom are women. As the person 

responsible for overseeing the budget, I know first-hand the impact that leave 

benefits have on a small business or organization like ours. Like most 

employers, IWF works hard to support our employees who need time off for 

personal reasons like, the birth of a child or another family issue, as well as 

those employees who don't need extended leave. 

I am also the mother of five children, so I know the importance of being able to 

take time away from work for outside obligations. 

As you consider potential reforms related to paid leave, I would encourage you 

to keep the following in mind. 

The Needs of Women and Businesses Are Diverse 

Our workplaces and our workforce are increasingly diverse. Growing numbers 

of workers are participating in the "gig economy," which means they are working 

for themselves or as a contractor rather than for a traditional employer. A 

growing number of workers are also telecommuting. Families are changing, too, 

as more women become sole or primary breadwinners, and more people are 

remaining childless. 

These trends should caution us against creating a one-size-fits-all leave policy 

that ignores that a worker without children working in a traditional business is 

likely to have very different preferences for leave benefits than a self-employed 
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 27662.025

single parent. We also need to consider that businesses able to offer 

telecommuting options can provide different benefits than a restaurant or 

hospital that needs sufficient in-person staff. 

The Cost of One-Size-Fits-All Government Solutions 

Ignoring these differences and creating a mandate or government entitlement 

program will impose real costs on workers in the form of reduced workplace 

flexibility, less hiring, and in particular, less opportunities for women of 

childbearing age. 

These are not just theoretical risks. As I saw first-hand while living in Europe for 

seven years, while these countries offer extensive paid-leave, women pay a 

considerable price in terms of workplace opportunities. The National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER) found that EU countries have boosted their female 

labor force participation rate, but women there were mostly working in part time 

and lower paid positions. While 14 percent of American female workers are 

managers (compared to 15 percent of men), just 5.9 percent of European 

female workers are managers (compared to 12.2 percent of European men). 

Most Employers Voluntarily Provide Leave and Want to Help 

Advocates for sweeping government action often paint a very grim picture of 

working in the United States, citing a 2015 Department of Labor study that 

claims only 12 percent of workers have paid family leave benefits. 

Unsurprisingly, that's an inaccurate picture of how businesses here function. 

Just because employers seldom offer specific family leave benefits does not 

mean that workers generally don't have access to paid time off for family needs. 

The Census Bureau studied women having their first child and found that 56 

percent of full-time working mothers used paid leave, 42 percent used unpaid 

leave, 10 percent used disability leave (this adds up to more than 100 percent 

since some used more than one form of leave). The 2016 National Study of 

Employers found that 99% of businesses with more than 50 workers offered 

some form of paid time off to employees. 

These numbers suggest that while there are many workers who would 

appreciate more paid time off, most businesses do voluntarily offer leave 

benefits, which is a reason to avoid upending the employment contracts of 160 
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 27662.026

million working Americans. 

Consider Policies To Help Workers and Businesses Provide for Leave, 

Without Sacrificing Flexibility 

Policymakers' goal should be to help make it easier for workers to prepare for 

time away from work and for businesses to provide leave benefits, but without 

discouraging hiring and innovative work relationships. 

For example, the government should consider creating a savings account 

system, much like 401 ks or ESAs, that enable workers to save tax-free for time 

off from work. Employers and charities could also contribute to these accounts, 

and the government could consider augmenting savings to encourage 

participation and particularly to help those with lower incomes. 

However, the best way to ensure that workers have the benefits they need is for 

there to be a growing economy, which offers plentiful job opportunities and rising 

compensation. 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions. 
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 27662.027

Family Leave Policies 

from Independent Women's Forum's 

Working for Women Report 

VJe want women to have work opportunities 

that provide compensation packages that meet 

their individual needs. We want people to be 

able to take time off when they need to-for 

their own health concerns or to care for family 

members. We want people to be able to save 

Americans want workers to have the leave time 

that they need when they are sick, have a family 

member who needs care, or are welcoming a 

child into the family. When they hear about 

people who lose their jobs because of an illness, 

or a new mother having to return to work just 

weeks after giving birth, they are justifiably 

concerned, 

Yet before crafting one-size-fits-all policy 

solutions, it is important to define the actual 

problem to be addressed. Alarming headlines 

often suggest that our country is akin to 

Zimbabwe in its failure to support female 

workers. Unsurprisingly, these alarmist claims 

paint an inaccurate picture of the American 

worl<place. Most fundamentally, just because 

for their own needs, while also providing a 

safety net for those who simply do not have 

the resources to plan ahead and save for 

themselves. We need to modernize policy to 

bring this vision to life. 

the United States does not statutorily mandate 

that companies must provide paid sick leave 

or maternity leave does not mean that most 

companies fail to offer such benefits, or that 

most workers lack paid leave time. 

In. fact, reality is far more encouraging. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National 

Compensation Survey shows that 75 percent 

of civilian full-time workers have paid sick 

leave, 74 percent have paid personal leave, 65 

percent have paid vacation, 13 percent have 

paid family leave, and 88 percent have unpaid 

family leave. Not surprisingly, full-time workers 

are more likely to have more paid benefits 

than those working part-time, and those with 

higher incomes are also more likely to have paid 
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 27662.028

benefits. Still, the BLS finds that roughly one· 

third of part-time workers also have access to 

paid leave. 

Those working for larger companies are also 

more likely to have benefits than those working 

for smaller establishments. For example, the 

2014 National Study of Employers (a survey of 

1,051 employers, all with so employees or more) 

found that most employers offer parental leave, 

and a majority offer at least some paid leave. 

Larger employers surveyed (those with more 

than 1,000 employees) were most likely to offer 

some paid parental leave, with 70 percent of 

such companies providing this benefit. Even 

among the smallest companies in the survey 

(those with between 50-99 employees), a 

majority (56 percent) provided paid leave 

following the birth of a child. 

Focusing on one category of leave, such as 

1naternity or family leave, overlooks how 

companies attempt to provide employees with 

flexibility for using paid leave benefits. Even 

when businesses do not offer a specific family 

leave benefit, they often allow workers to use 

sick leave, personal leave, or vacation time to 

attend to family matters, such as following the 

birth of a child. 

For instance, the Census Bureau studied the 

experience of women having their first child and 

found that roughly 70 percent of these women 

worked during pregnancy (a percentage which 

fell to slightly under 6o percent in the month 

preceding the birth), and that three months 

after the birth, 59 percent of the women who 

worked during pregnancy had returned to work, 

and 79 percent were working by their child's 

first birthday. 

These working mothers reported using a variety 

19 percent quit their job, while nearly 5 percent 

reported being let go (the number totals more 

than 100 percent because women often used 

more than one type ofleave). Part-time workers 

were more likely to quit (37 percent reported 

quitting their jobs) and had fewer benefits: 20 

percent used paid leave, 46 percent used unpaid 

leave, and just 2 percent had disability leave. 

Policymakers should not conclude from these 

data that all American women enjoy sufficient 

leave time or have adequate payreplacement 

following the birth of a child. Certainly some 

women face real pressures and could use 

additional support. However, policymakers 

should recognize that most employers value 

their employees and want to retain them (rather 

than face the cost of replacing them), so provide 

leave as part of their compensation package, 

especially for full-time workers. 

Policymakers should also consider how 

a government mandate or governmentadministered paid leave program would disrupt 

current employment contracts and benefit 

packages and would result in lower cash 

wages, potentially leaving many workers worse 

off than before. For example, one legislative 

proposal, the "Family and Medical Insurance 

Leave 1\ct," or FAMILY Act, would, in effect, do 

to benefit packages what the Affordable Care 

Act (or ObamaCare) did to health insurance. 

The FAMILY Act, sponsored by Senator Kristin 

Gillibrand (D·NY), would create a new federal 

entitlement program under wl1ich qualified 

workers would be guaranteed 60 days of 

family and medical leave per year. When on 

leave, workers wonld receive twothirds of their 

average pay from the federal government. 

This new entitlement would be funded with a 

dedicated payroll tax and administered through 

the Social Security Administration. 

of leave options: 56 percent of fulltime working Proponents claim this program would solve the 

mothers used paid leave, 42 percent used problem of those who lack sufficient paid leave. 

unpaid leave, 10 percent used disability leave, Some women with less-generous leave packages 
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 27662.029

may benefit from this arrangement; however, it 

would also disrupt the employment contracts of 

the majority of working Americans who already 

have leave benefits, As was the case with 

ObamaCare, this proposed federal entitlement 

would encourage businesses currently 

providing paid leave programs-including more 

generous leave packages-to cease doing so. 

Companies and employees would also be less 

likely to seek mutually beneficial arrangements, 

such as part-time and workfrom-home options 1 

during periods of leave. 

The costs of this proposal would go far 

beyond the new payroll tax. Women would 

also face lower wages and fewer employment 

opportunities as businesses seck to comply with 

the new mandate. Knowing that any worker 

could take up to three months of paid leave 

creates a significant new risk for employers. 

While the federal government (i.e .. taxpayers) 

would pick up the direct costs of workers' 

wages during their absence, businesses would 

still have to identify and train replacement 

workers, or shift work to other existing 

employees, which can be particularly difficult 

for small businesses. 

Women would shoulder most of the unintended 

consequences of the new leave regime. Women, 

particularly of childbearing age, are more likely 

to take extended medical leave. As a result, 

employers may be reluctant to hire these women. 

This is particularly unfair to women who do 

not want or are unable to have children: The 

expectation that they may use this leave benefit 

may unfairly hamper their career prospects. 

These are not just theoretical risks. European 

countries offer women extensive paid-leave 

time, but European women pay a considerable 

price in terms of workplace opportunities. 

Professors at Cornell University, Francine D. 

Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn, writing for the 

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), 

3 

found that European countries have been able 

to boost their female labor force participation 

rate by enacting family leave mandates and 

other benefits, but that women were mostly 

working in part-time and lower paid positions. 

Data show that European women are far less 

likely than their American counterparts to be 

in managerial positions. In fact, 14 percent 

of American women workers are managers 

(compared to 15 percent of American men), 

while just 5·9 percent of European women 

workers are (compared to 12.2 percent of 

European men). 

NBER also published a study by Maria F. Prada 

and Graciana Rucci of the InterAmerican 

Development Bank, and Sergio S. Urzua of 

Cornell Univeristy, on the effect of a law in 

Chile that required employers with twenty or 

more female workers to provide childcare. They 

concluded that the starting wages of women 

hired by affected employers was between 9 

and 20 percent less than female workers hired 

before the mandate went into effect. 

Spain's provision requiring that companies must 

provide all workers with children under age 7 

the option of reduced hours was meant to help 

women balance work and family, yet a study 

published by IZA, an international research 

institute, and written by Daniel Fernandez Kranz 

of IE Business School and Nuria RodriguezPlanas of IZA, IAE-CSIC, found that it harmed 

women's economic prospects. Won1en were more 

likely than their male colleagues to lose their 

jobs, less likely to be promoted. and had reduced 

wages. Women with lower incomes and in less 

skilled positions were most likely to suffer from 

these unintended consequences. 

These examples illustrate an important, 

though often overlooked, point. Government 

mandates not only disrupt existing employment 

arrangements and impede women's professional 

advancement generally, but they especially harm 
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 27662.030

the economic prospects of women who are most 

vulnerable: those with lower incomes and who 

are not currently working. This concept applies 

to mandates for paid leave) childcare, hours and 

other arrangements. 

Advocates of paid leave man dares often suggest 

that benefit mandates will help alleviate 

poverty. However this overlooks that most 

people living in poverty are there not because of 

low wages or a lack of paid benefits, but (in part 

due to harmful regulations and poor educational 

systems) because they do not have jobsparticularly full-time, year round positions. 

In fact, in 2012, 74 percent of households with 

children under the poverty line were home to no 

full-time worker. Government benefit mandates 

would not only fail to help this population, but 

by raising the cost of employment, would make 

it more difficult for them to find the jobs that 

are the key to real economic progress. 

Americans understand and are concerned 

about how a paid leave entitlement program or 

mandate could unintentionally harm vulnerable 

Americans. In fact, according to research by 

the Independent Women's Forum, when women 

learn that the poor may be hurt the most, their 

support for proposed government mandates 

drops precipitously. 

A one-size-fits-all paid leave program may seem 

like a boon for parents, but it would backfire 

on many by failing to recognize the divergent 

circumstances of different families and by 

reducing economic opportunity. Policymakers can 

find better ways to make it easier for businesses 

to offer paid leave benefits and to help people 

prepare financially for periods of leave. 

POLICY SOLUTIONS 

Create Savings for Leave Time in 

Personal Care Accounts: Americans 

are encouraged to save pre-tax dollars in a 

variety of different accounts, for purposes that 

policymakers recognize are critical needs, such 

as healthcare costs (health savings accounts), 

education (such as 529 education savings 

accounts) and flexible spending accounts (to 

defray certain healthcare and childcare costs). 

Personal leave from work is also a critical need, 

and people ought to be able to save tax-free so 

that they can accrue resources that will sustain 

them during such absences from work. 

Policymakers should allow people to place 

pre-tax dollars into a Personal Care Account 

(PCA), which could then be drawn upon to 

replace or supplement income during periods 

of leave eligible under the Family and Medical 

Leave Act. Workers could be allowed to save 

tax-free up to the equivalent of 12 weeks of 

4 

pay, capped at a maximum of Ss,ooo each year, 

which would then be available for periods of 

leave. If unused before reaching retirement 

age (as defined under the Social Security Act), 

the PCA would then be treated as an IRA. 

Policymakers also ought to allow individuals 

to make up contributions for years that they 

were unable to set money aside, in order to 

help workers who have inconsistent earnings 

or face unemployment. To avoid this savings 

mechanism becoming a utax shelter'' for the 

more affluent, policymakers can cap the total 

arnount that a worker can accumulate in their 

savings account to no more than S3o,ooo. 

Washington ought to allow employers also to 

contribute to employees' PCAs the way they 

can contribute to 401K plans or Health Savings 

Accounts. This would help smaller companies 

that are unable to afford and administer fully 

paid family leave benefits to have a way to help 
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 27662.031

their employees. Additionally, non-profits could paid leave benefit offered, and can preserve the 

be established by generous individuals as well money in their accounts for their retirement. 

as larger corporations as part of their social 

corporate responsibility efforts to help set up Provide Tax Credits for Businesses 

and fund PCAs for lowcrincome workers, in order Offering Leave: Another approach-that 

to help provide leave benefits for those facing some states like Virginia are exploring-is to 

the biggest financial challenges. Many generous make it easier for small businesses to provide 

individuals and foundations are interested in paid leave time through tax law. Smaller 

helping people during times of childbirth or businesses are, understandably, less likely to 

illness and would support such a cause. currently provide leave time, since they have 

Unlil<e other top-down paid leave proposals, 

the existence of such savings options would 

be less of a financial strain on businesses and 

less likely to affect employers' expectations 

for their employees and therefore to reduce 

won1en's economic opportunities. It also would 

not discourage employers from offering paid 

leave) since workers could still fully enjoy any 

fewer resources and face a greater challenge 

in shifting work to other employees during a 

period of absence. Lawmakers could help defray 

these costs and challenges by creating tax 

credits for these businesses (which could phase 

out at different employment levels) to help 

offset the financial burden these benefits create. 

For references, visit 

www.workingforwomenreport.com 

5 
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 27662.032

\IVASHINGTON POST 

I Live In A Country With Paid Family Leave. 

It's No Magic Bullet. 

by Carrie 1. Lukas 

May 11, 2016 

Americans often hear about Europe's superior benefits syste1ns. Where I live in Germany, women 

receive 14 weeks of fully paid maternity leave and an additional 12 months of partially paid support. 

The upsides of such a policy are clear: Women have ample time to recover from birth and bond with 

their babies. Yet there are also real drawbacks, which include and go far beyond the expense for 

taxpayers and businesses. 

Women in the European Union are more likely to work part-time and in lower-paid positions 

and are less likely to be managers than American women. Women hold 43 percent of managerial 

positions in the United States, but less than 30 percent in Germany. Research confirms that other 

European employment mandates and family-friendly programs-such as the right to work parttime and the mandatory provision of child care-make women more expensive to employ and result 

in lower take-home pay and fewer job opportunities. 

I've seen up close what this means for women living here. While many certainly enjoy their time 

off from work, I've also heard complaints about how these policies affect careers. A married friend 

without children worries that her boss hesitates to give her more responsibility because he thinks 

she'll inevitably disappear for a lengthy leave. Another friend-the head of her department-is 

frustrated with having to hold a position for an employee taking a second year-long leave. She 

works extra hours to train a temp while the woman on leave posts pictures from the park on 

Face book and shares plans for another child. 

America has been wise to avoid creating a one-size-fits-all paid leave system for our diverse 

workforce of about 150 million people. While we want all workers to be able to take off when it's 

needed, people have different preferences for how to handle absences and different priorities 

for compensation. Many employees value paid leave benefits (which is why most American 

business voluntarily offer son1e paid leave benefits). But some workers would rather have larger 

paychecks and fewer benefits. That should be their right. Moreover, some businesses can't afford to 

offer paid leave benefits to all workers, and forcing them to do so would require job cuts or closures. 

Companies need and deserve flexibility too. 

This flexibility made it possible for the Independent Women's Forum, the small nonprofit 

organization that I help manage, to hire a woman just three months before her due date. We offered 

some paid time off so she could adjust to motherhood, but asked that she be available by phone and 

email to help us function while she was on leave. Such negotiations and the development of flexible, 

win-win relationships wouldn't take place if a one-size-fits-all law were enforced. 
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 27662.033

This doesn't mean that nothing can be done to help more workers prepare for leave or to help 

those who struggle financially when they need to take time off. Policymakers can start by making 

it easier for people to save on their own for periods of leave and encourage Americans to assist 

those with lower incomes who lack paid leave benefits through tax incentives or private charity. 

The Independent Women's Forum recently released a report calling for the creation of"personal 

care accounts" (PCAs), which would allow workers to save pretax income to be used when they take 

time off for situations eligible under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Saving in advance could help 

workers who lack paid leave benefits replace income when they need to take time off from work. 

Of course, workers living paycheck-to-paycheck can't save on their own. Policymakers can help 

them by using tax breaks to encourage businesses to open and contribute to PCAs for these workers 

and to offset the costs of other leave benefits. For example, Virginia considered legislation that 

would have given small businesses that provided paid leave benefits for workers taking leave 

after the birth of a child a tax credit to help offset these costs. This could make it easier for more 

businesses to offer such benefits. Private charities could also help by setting up and funding PCAs 

for workers with lower incmnes. 

Undoubtedly, PC As won't ensure that everyone has the time off that they need. Yet in discussions 

about paid leave policy, it's important to recognize that there is no magical solution that will help 

everyone without also harming others by eroding job opportunities and reducing take-home pay. 

Sweeping mandates and government paid leave entitlement programs are sometimes presented as 

magic solutions, but only because they ignore those women who would miss out on higher pay or 

better jobs, or would be priced out of the job market entirely. Policymakers can best help people by 

giving both workers and companies flexibility. 
48 

Mr. ROE. [Presiding.] I think there’s been a change in the chair, 

you might have noticed. Mr. Walberg had to go and vote. He had 

a markup. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the chairman of the full 

committee, Dr. Foxx, for five minutes. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Chairman Roe. 

And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

This is an important issue that I think will get increasing attention 

across our country. 

Ms. Schaefer, employers have many reasons for offering various 

types of benefits packages, including health retirement, paid leave 

to employees. Would you briefly explain why employers offer paid 

leave policies to their employees and how this practice aids in attracting and retaining the best workers? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Thank you for your question. Yes. It’s important 

overall to employee engagement, just the fundamental employee 

engagement. It leads to reduced absenteeism and tardiness. It reduces turnover. It increases our ability to recruit and retain, as you 

mentioned. 

For example, I recently hired someone in my department, and 

one of the reasons she came to us was because of our flexible work 

policies. And for the employees, it’s important so that they be able 

to make the decisions about how they are taking their time off. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you. 

Ms. Lukas, when confronted with government mandates, how do 

employers typically respond? And how do small businesses compensate for the additional costs of complying with mandates? What 

impact do these mandates have on job creation? 

Ms. LUKAS. Well, certainly, I think we all know kind of the basic 

economic lesson that when costs go up, you’re able to buy less of 

something. And that’s what’s happens when you increase mandates 

and increase the cost of employing someone, increase the risks associated with employing someone. Employers are more likely to 

look for ways to hire fewer workers and then to pay workers less. 

And we’ve seen, over the recent decades, that the cost of compensation largely or one of the reasons why they’ve stalled or our 

wages have stalled is because there’s so much of -- our compensation is now in the form of benefits. So another mandate would increase that trend or further that trend. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Brickmeier, historically, much of the paid leave discussion 

has focused on women. Why is this paid leave issue not just a women’s issue? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Well, I don’t believe it is just a women’s issue. 

Men need to take off time as well. The nature of the family is defined very differently for different individuals, something that IBM 

holds very dear, that people have personal lives, which is defined 

by them. And we need to respect and encourage them to pursue 

those personal goals and obligations, because that makes them a 

more healthy and productive employee. 

I can give you an example. We recently increased our child bonding leave for all new parents. And our male and our female employees, as well as adoptive parents, now get 12 weeks off with pay. 

And we find that more and more of our new dads are taking that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

time off, because they realize that child rearing, having responsibility for their families is as important to them as it is to their 

wives or their partners. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. It certainly sounds as though 

IBM has a very generous paid leave program. It would be a great 

place to work. 

As you mentioned, in September 2015, President Obama issued 

an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide their 

employees up to seven days of pay sick leave per year. How has 

this requirement in particular affected IBM’s paid leave program? 

Do you have an idea -- you alluded to it before, but do you have 

an idea how much time IBM spent to ensure it was in compliance 

with this particular requirement? And even though IBM was already offering more than required under the executive order, could 

you talk a little bit about the cost of reporting that occurred as a 

result of the mandate? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Certainly. So we decided to apply the mandate 

to 100 percent of our employees, because the way that it is written, 

it’s very difficult to distinguish who’s covered. Because I think the 

threshold is 20 percent or something of your time. It’s very hard 

for us to determine who those are. So we’re applying it to 100 percent of our population. We literally spent about nine months of my 

time, my team’s time, inside counsel, outside counsel, and our HR 

system in making those modifications for tracking, because we 

didn’t have a sufficient tracking system, and communicating it to 

employees. 

And again, the confusion about what they do, how they track it, 

why do they have to track it, it can go into actual hours of tracking, which our employees are not used to, because the majority of 

our employees are professional. They don’t track their time down 

to the hour, nor do they expect to have to track it. So that’s somewhat of a burden to them as well as to their managers. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

The ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Scott, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Riemer, are you aware of any tax -- whether or not the tax 

credit in the bill is sufficient to entice businesses to actually provide this kind of leave if they are not doing it already? Have you 

seen any, around the country, any program where that would be 

sufficient? 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you, Congressman. Again, it’s really an 

honor to be here. 

You know, the incentive for employers, in my view, in H.R. 4219 

is to get out of state and local requirements that establish rights 

for their employees to provide leave. And if you are, you know, an 

employer that wants to provide leave, then -- and not every employer is necessarily a high-road employer, but if you are an employer that does, then, you know, you would not have a challenge. 

You would not be typically required to provide more leave, according to these state and local laws. You may have to adjust your 

business processes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

But in my view, the real incentive is to opt out of state and local 

law. I don’t know that the tax provision will necessarily provide 

much additional encouragement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. In your local bill, have you had complaints 

about the legislation? 

Mr. RIEMER. It’s been operating now for almost a year, and we 

believe it’s a success. You know, we worked very closely with our 

employers, and we heard from many employers, like IBM, as -- not 

IBM itself, but employers that offered real leave packages. And we 

made sure that our law would not, you know, cause an employer 

to want to diminish its benefits. And if they offer better benefits, 

then they are really -- you know, our law wouldn’t be a conflict. So 

-- 

Mr. SCOTT. Have any businesses moved out of the county because 

of this law? 

Mr. RIEMER. We are continuing to attract new employers. Our 

economy is strong, our unemployment is a historic low. New companies are moving out of other jurisdictions and locating in Montgomery County. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if there were a Federal exemption, what would 

happen to your law? 

Mr. RIEMER. Our law would be essentially, you know, hollowed 

out. You know, any employer could just simply evade the requirements of our law, which are really just a baseline. You know, our 

law is not a very generous policy. It’s just a baseline policy of 7 

paid sick days for the employee. And any employer could just simply avoid it by opting into this provision. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Schaefer, if there’s no local or state law in a particular area, 

does this bill require a business to do anything? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Thank you for your question. So to make sure I 

understand the question, if there’s not currently a leave law, does 

H.R. 4219 require the employer to do something? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Okay. It’s voluntary. And so if the employer opts 

in -- 

Mr. SCOTT. The answer is no, it does not require the business to 

do anything? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, if there is a local law and, say, as I understand it, you have to have up to 249 -- 50 to 249 employees, you 

have to have 15 days off, and that would include paid holidays. So 

if you have nine vacation days and six holidays, do I understand 

this that you would not have to require any sick leave at all? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. I don’t have the answer to those specifics. 

Mr. SCOTT. It appears that if there is no state law, you don’t 

have to do anything. If there is a state law, you can have worse 

benefits and exempt yourself from the better benefits on the local 

law. Is there any employee, under 4219, who would actually be better off? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. They would not receive less than what they are 

already receiving. 

Mr. SCOTT. Excuse me? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

Ms. SCHAEFER. The employees would not receive less than the 

leave they’re -- 

Mr. SCOTT. No, no. That’s the whole point of exemption. If you 

have a plan and the local law requires more generous benefits, you 

would be exempted from the local law and you would be able to get 

away with worse benefits. That’s what the exemption means. Is 

that right? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. That’s not my understanding. 

Mr. SCOTT. Hans, can you talk about what exemption means? 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you. Well, the Montgomery County law establishes a right. So you might accrue a certain benefit, but you 

have a right to use that benefit under certain circumstances, like 

your illness, the illness of a family member. 

Mr. SCOTT. But if it’s exempted under federal law, the only thing 

you would have to do would be to comply with the Federal law, you 

wouldn’t have to comply with the more generous benefits. That’s 

the whole point of the exemption. 

Mr. RIEMER. That’s right. The employee does not have a right to 

use that benefit. 

Mr. SCOTT. Because it got exempted. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 

American Sustainable Business Council in opposition to H.R. 4219 

be entered into the record. 

Chairman WALBERG. [Presiding.] Hearing no objection, it will be 

entered. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 27662.034

The Honorable Virginia Foxx 

Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

AMERICAN 

SUSTAINABLE 

BUSINESS 

COUNCIL 

The Honorable Robert "Bobby" Scott 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

December 6, 2017 

Dear Chairperson Foxx and Ranking Members Scott; 

The American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) urges you to oppose H.R. 4219, misleadingly named 

the "Workflex in the 21st Century Act." This misguided, complicated and confusing proposal would 

eviscerate state and local progress for high-road businesses and working families, erode existing legal 

protections, and threaten local democracy. It would allow low-road corporations to evade state and 

local laws, creating a giant loophole that would mean uncertainty for workers and an uneven playing 

field for responsible companies. 

ASBC is a growing national coalition of businesses and business organizations committed to advancing 

policies that support a vibrant and sustainable economy. ASBC represents over 250,000 businesses and 

more than 300,000 business professionals, including industry trade associations, local and state 

chambers of commerce, microenterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable business, local and 

community-rooted business, women and minority business leaders, and investors. 

H.R. 4219 would undermine state and local progress and preempt the effectiveness of state and local 

innovation- undermining democracy and local control. Forty locations in the United States, including 

eight states, have or will soon have paid sick days laws in place. Earned sick days keep employees 

healthier, because they will come to work ill if they can't afford to lose the day's pay. Employees who 

work while sick are less productive, more likely to have accidents and make mistakes; all of which cost 

businesses money. If they have an infectious illness, they are also likely to infect coworkers, and 

customers, which further hurts productivity and could potentially trigger an epidemic. It just makes 

sense to have ill employees stay away from the workplace until they are no longer contagious. 

By giving employees the ability to stay home and recover without losing needed pay, companies ensure 

that their workers can come back ready to be productive. And the value employees place on earned sick 

days make companies that provide them less prone to costly turnover, and far more competitive. 

Largely as a result of these laws, more than 13 million working people have gained new access to paid 
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 27662.035

AMERICAN 

SUSTAINABLE 

BUSINESS 

COUNCIL 

sick days, dramatically improving private sector access with especially large gains for lower-wage 

workers. 

H.R. 4219 may take away paid sick days guarantees for these 13 million people and impede progress in 

other locations. Nationally, nearly one-third of the private sector workforce- at least 37 million workers 

-do not currently have the right to earn paid sick days. H.R. 4219 is an attack on democracy, local 

governance and innovation. Neither state governments nor the federal government should undermine 

the ability of voters or their elected representatives to pass public health and safety laws, including laws 

that establish workplace protections. States and localities have a long history of serving as laboratories, 

spearheading public policies that lead to national standards. H.R. 4219 would thwart such state and local 

innovation and undo local election outcomes. 

High-road employers can, do, and should comply with state and local laws. State and local paid sick days 

and fair scheduling laws are structured similarly to one another and largely have the same key 

components. Multi-city and multi-state employers are already accustomed to complying with differing 

state and local laws in various areas, including zoning, wage and hour, business licenses and taxes, and 

keeping paperwork for local authorities. The answer for corporations seeking to simplify compliance is 

to create company-wide policies that match the strongest standards in effect, not to undermine those 

standards altogether. 

H.R. 4219 would disadvantage responsible and especially small businesses. This is a proposal written at 

the behest of and for the benefit of low-road corporations, allowing them to buy their way out of 

compliance with state and local laws. It would hurt the communities and customers that responsible, 

high-road businesses serve and give low-road, race-to-the-bottom businesses further advantages in the 

marketplace. 

We urge you to reject H.R. 4219. High-road businesses know that businesses succeed when working 

families have paid time to care for themselves and their loved ones and flexibility in their job. But this 

proposal is unworkable, unfair and inequitable. It would not guarantee either paid time off or flexibility. 

Better solutions, such as a real national paid sick days guarantee and real fair scheduling proposals, exist. 

Providing employees with paid time off isn't just the right thing to do; it's a smart business decision. 

ASBC strongly encourages you to help pass real legislation in support of earned sick days, reject the H.R. 

4219 sham, and help our business sector be healthier, too. 

Sincerely, 

David Levine 

CEO & Co-founder 

American Sustainable Business Council 
54 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. My time’s up. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. His time has expired. 

I apologize for having to leave occasionally here to vote in Energy 

and Commerce, but I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. 

We’ve heard a great deal about the piecemeal State and local 

paid leave mandates that, while well-meaning, affect these laws on 

America’s businesses in somewhat negative way. I’d like to make 

one point about this. It’s certainly not the human resources professionals that are not capable of keeping up with all these mandates. 

You’re entirely capable of keeping up with these mandates. The 

point is that you should not have to navigate this patchwork of 

mandates because they’re counterproductive. 

And to that point, Ms. Schaefer and Ms. Brickmeier, would your 

companies’ commendable paid leave policies look different if they 

didn’t need to be structured in such a way to ensure compliance 

with a multitude of mandates? And I guess I’d add would they be 

more or less generous? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. I’d like to start. So I think the answer to that 

is it depends on what the individual State mandates are. And our 

intent would always be to design a paid leave policy covering a lot 

of different employee situations that meets the needs of our employees by listening to our employees and doing something that’s 

consistent across the country. 

So if you’re an IBMer in New York, you’re an IBMer in California, Texas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, you’re all entitled to the same 

thing, and our workforce is mobile. So it’s also important for them 

to have the same thing, regardless of where they work. So our policy is generous, and I would agree that in some cases it would go 

beyond the mandates, and we would continue to do that. In other 

cases, it might be below, and we might need to particularly tweak 

it for that locale. But I’m not sure if we would have the most generous provision apply to all of our employees. 

And I think the most difficult part of this is the compliance. So 

not really the intent of the policies, which are admirable; it’s the 

compliance, and it’s really getting down to the recording, notification, the constant change, and the confusion that this causes. 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Schaefer. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Most of our employees, 456 of them -- I’m sorry. 

Most of our employees are based in St. Louis, Missouri, where 

there aren’t any of these extra leave laws. And so I would not expect that we would reduce our benefits right now. We are just trying to make sure that we are in compliance with the other State 

and local laws. 

Chairman WALBERG. So compliance is the issue, just trying to 

keep up, make sure that you don’t run amok at some point in time? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Exactly. 

Chairman WALBERG. Unintentionally, but nonetheless. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Correct. 

Chairman WALBERG. Listening to your testimonies, it’s clear that 

you all have a lot of information, and know what will work and, 

not just for your companies, but your employees. It’s been sugCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

gested that local officials are better suited to establish paid leave 

or sick leave requirements because they live and work next door to 

the people. 

However, rather than working next door, so to speak, there’s a 

key entity that works directly with the people who are impacted, 

and that’s employers, who are closer and better able to listen and 

respond to the needs of their employees when it comes to paid 

leave. They can provide innovation and flexibility that the government, even a local government, cannot. 

Ms. Schaefer and Ms. Brickmeier, why are you, as H.R. professionals, better attuned to the paid leave request of your employees 

than the local, State, or even Federal Government? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. I’ll start. 

Chairman WALBERG. Ms. Schaefer. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Thank you for the question. We are listening to 

our employees. Our employees are explaining to us what they need 

in their leave policies. We do regular employee engagement surveys 

where there are two questions. One asks what the company is 

doing well, the other is what we can improve on. And those are 

narrative responses, and we get a lot of great feedback there. And 

then over the last three years, we’ve done regular touch-base surveys with our employees so they can give us the specific feedback. 

An example is when we implemented our make-up time policy, 

we were hearing that there were some hiccups, things weren’t 

going as smoothly as we intended. And so we reached back out to 

our managers and supervisors and the employees to find out what 

it was that was causing issues, and then we were able to act on 

that and make changes. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

Briefly, Ms. Brickmeier. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Yes. So very similar to what Ms. Schaefer has 

said, we listen to our employees, we try -- we react. We’ve been 

quite generous, as I’ve indicated. It’s also important to know that 

our employees live in every state, and so it’s important for us to 

understand what’s going on in that state to what’s prevalent. And 

also in our industry, it’s highly competitive. Our talent base is 

highly competitive, and we want to make sure we that offer them 

what they intend to use, what they need. 

And in devising new types of leaves, for example, now we are 

looking at something that’s more specific to family illness leave, in 

addition to our parental bonding leave. And it’s been very confusing, because we can listen to what our employees want, but then 

we have to think about these 30 other ordinances that might conflict with that. 

Chairman WALBERG. What that means. Okay. Thank you. My 

time has expired. 

I now recognize my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with Council Member Riemer. Well, first, let me 

congratulate you on becoming president of the Montgomery County, Maryland Council yesterday. Congratulations. And thank you 

very much for joining -- 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you. 

Mr. SABLAN. -- and testifying today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

Can you tell us the importance of having a federal standard? 

Mr. RIEMER. Yeah. Thank you. 

Mr. SABLAN. Please. 

Mr. RIEMER. Well, first of all, I think that many state and local 

governments are compelled to act because there is no federal standard for sick leave. If Congress were to create a right for employees 

to have seven days of paid sick leave that could be used at the 

right of the employee for care of themselves or their family member, then you may not have a need for state and local governments 

to act where Congress is not acting. The challenge is the legislation 

that we are discussing does not establish that right to sick leave. 

But if Congress were to create a federal strong sick leave policy 

and a federal family leave policy and so on, it would have fewer 

state and local governments feeling the need to enhance upon that 

federal protection. 

Mr. SABLAN. And this is for an employee, it doesn’t matter on the 

gender. 

Mr. RIEMER. Correct. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. In your testimony, you stated that after 

passage of legislation, you continue to see economic growth in your 

county. And Ranking Member Scott has alluded to this earlier, but 

can you tell us more about that, that growth? 

Mr. RIEMER. Yes. Well, Montgomery County is a very -- has a 

very strong economy. We are fortunate to have many large companies and many small companies. And since we have passed sick 

leave legislation, we’ve been delighted to see Marriott, a global 

headquartered company, move into Bethesda downtown, when they 

could have moved to Virginia or Washington. We’ve seen companies 

moving out of Washington into Montgomery County, so we have a 

very strong environment. Our unemployment rate is, you know, in 

the low single digits. 

So this has not caused any restriction of our economic growth, 

and to the contrary, we’re seeing tremendous progress in Montgomery County. 

Mr. SABLAN. I ask you for that and I’ll ask you another question, 

because earlier, Ms. Lukas justified calling, you know, this -- any 

effort to provide some kind of federal standard calling it actually 

in her testimony, and I quote, ‘‘government-entitlement program,’’ 

and when actually one of the proposals is to be funded responsibly 

by small employee and employer payroll contributions of 2 cents 

per $10 in wages, or less than $1.50 per week for a typical worker. 

So it is not an entitlement program. It is where the employee and 

the employer should contribute to. 

Walk us through the impacts of what would happen in Montgomery County if the federal bill were to pass preempting your 

paid sick days leave laws. 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you. Well, I believe that if this H.R. 4219 

were to pass, that any employer that really wanted to offer a less 

generous benefit package, provided it still met the minimal standard of the law, which is vague as far as what the worker is entitled 

to, in my view, would be able to opt in to the federal standard and 

opt out of the state and -- of the local standard. 

And so when I look at the federal legislation, there is no clear 

right that the employee has to take leave. They must get employer 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

approval, and that may or may not be granted. So I think it would 

be a strong incentive for employers to opt out of our stronger law, 

and the residents of our community would essentially lose the right 

that we had granted to them through our democratic process. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yeah. Because I’ve looked all over, and let me ask 

you if you’ve ever seen a proposal in any state, local, county, federal -- in the federal governments here where, you know, comparing what is being discussed today or at any time, the experienced of paid leave, and comparing what we’re discussing today 

with Europe and saying like, you know, where in France, you get 

156 weeks, 26 paid for the first child; in Germany, 156 weeks, 52 

paid for either parent; Finland, 158 working days for either parent. 

You can’t compare that and insist that’s the reason women of childbearing age are a lower number of, you know, just one brush 

stroke, a lower number of management. 

I think I’m out of time. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

Now I recognize Dr. Roe for his five minutes of questioning. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And first of all, Mr. Riemer, thank you. I think the best government is local government. That’s the way I started as a city commissioner and local Mayor, dealt with these things, also was in 

small business. So there are very different needs of a large multiState business than there are small businesses and individual localities. I completely see that. 

And I guess, Ms. Lukas, I’m going to start with you. Do you believe that these paid leave mandates discourage job creation, and 

how so, if they do? 

Ms. LUKAS. Well, certainly, anything that raises the cost of employing a worker will discourage someone from hiring another 

worker. I am concerned, especially as I’m sure this committee has 

been focused on, the future of work and how we’re moving increasingly towards looking for automation. A lot of jobs are going to be 

able to be displaced to take that human element out of it entirely. 

And I do think that’s a reason to pause and to want to make sure 

that before we encourage more outsourcing or try to push people 

outside of a normal employer-employee relationship if it isn’t worth 

giving people more freedom and flexibility. 

Mr. ROE. You made -- Ms. Lukas, you wrote an article in The 

Washington Post comparing mandated paid leave in Europe to the 

United States. You wrote about hiring a pregnant woman -- very 

near and dear to my heart, I’m an obstetrician -- prior to her due 

date. And would you please share the story with the committee and 

explain why this would not be possible under a federally mandated 

paid leave system? 

Ms. LUKAS. Well, you know, it’s interesting; in my opening remarks, I mentioned that I employ 20 women right now, and three 

of them are pregnant. So this is an issue that at IWF comes up 

quite a lot. We seem to have a lot of babies. The reason that we 

have -- I’ve been very comfortable hiring people who are pregnant 

or likely to become pregnant, is we have paid leave, we don’t have 

nearly as generous -- we’re a small organization with a small budget, so we don’t have nearly as generous policies as the big companies here. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

But we also have a conversation with this understanding, that, 

yes, some workers are going to take time off for a couple of weeks 

after following the birth of a child, but then I hope that they -- we 

kind of work out that they can be available on the phone or to answer quick questions. And there’s this back and forth where, you 

know, there’s -- we try to provide a lot of support and flexibility, 

but then our employees are also very willing to provide support and 

to make those efforts to support us. 

And I do worry that when we move towards something where 

there’s a certain regulation, you get this many days off, you’re not 

allowed to talk to an employee during those times, that it moves 

towards -- you’re cutting off conversations between two humans, 

two individuals, many of whom sympathize with each other. So 

that’s my concern. And I do think Europe is an extreme example, 

but we may inch in that direction. Certainly, people, this is -- it has 

implications for women in particular. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. 

Ms. Brickmeier, sometimes the burdens that legislation will impose on businesses are not fully understood. Obviously, when 

they’re played out, they do show themselves. This in turn leads up 

to hurting workers. Can you give more detail about what burdens 

the emerging State and local paid leave mandates impose on businesses and their workers? For example, what are the costs of a law 

like California’s both in the short and the long-term? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. So I think that the cost to the employee is really not understanding what they might be entitled to or what their 

options are. It’s very difficult to communicate with employees, particularly about H.R. matters. They don’t often read what we give 

them to -- you know, what we give them to read. We post things. 

They don’t read those. 

And so it becomes very difficult for any one individual to determine what it is that they’re eligible for and how to plan their life 

around it, as it’s very difficult for us and our H.R. team to understand that, because in the example of San Francisco, it may vary 

based on the employee circumstance because of different covered 

family members, for example, for which you could take paid time 

off to help them with an illness might vary. So that’s a difficulty 

from the employee standpoint. 

I also think the tracking that’s required, we needed to modify our 

system. That detracted money and time that we might have spent 

on other things that could aid our business and our employees. I’d 

much rather be spending time designing and executing on benefit 

programs and paid leave that can enhance our employee engagement than on compliance, on things that I’m not sure add a great 

deal of value. 

Mr. ROE. One quick question for all -- and you may not have time 

to answer it -- is what would it matter if you just had days off? 

You didn’t have to be -- have a cold one day, or some day you needed to do something in your life, and you have to say, well, I’m sick 

that day when you’re really not. Not a vacation day. If you want 

to just take a day off. And hold that thought because my time is 

out. 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Espaillat, you’re recognized for five 

minutes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you so much. 

My question goes to Council Member Riemer. Setting a national 

standard for workplace leave policy, like you have in Montgomery 

County, and in New York state, seems like a good idea to many, 

but none of the Republican plans that are out there seem to have 

this as their goal. 

Specifically, I would like to ask you two things, Mr. Riemer. As 

I mentioned, New York has a strong sick leave policy on the books 

that are making an incredible positive impact for families and the 

economy, I think. As someone who is on the ground working on this 

issue, can you talk about the rights that Montgomery County sick 

leave law provides to workers? And what can they use leave for? 

And do you provide any rights that this particular legislation, H.R. 

42, the Workflex bill, will deny to your constituencies? 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you, Congressman. I really appreciate the 

question. Montgomery County’s law grants workers the right, in 

Montgomery County, to use the leave that they accrue to care for 

or treat their own illness or illness of a family member, to use that 

time as well if they have an instance of domestic violence or sexual 

assault where they need to take time off. That is a right that they 

have. It’s at their discretion. 

Now, if it’s an extended illness, they may need medical certification, but it’s at their discretion. As I read H.R. 4219, what I see 

is that it’s more of a loophole for the employer than a right for the 

employee. And the employer really can refuse the request for leave 

if, you know, that employer determines that they would like to do 

that. And, of course, the employer can deduct from that total leave 

allowed for holidays and other things like that. So the worker could 

easily end up, really, with very little paid sick days, without even 

the right to claim it when they really need it. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. My other questions are, why will providing a tax 

credit to businesses, such as proposed by H.R. 3595, be ineffective 

in creating -- or encouraging businesses to create new workplace 

leave policies? 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you, Congressman. You know, first of all, I’m 

pleased that we’re talking about leave as a good business policy, 

right? It’s nice to hear companies talking about why they must 

offer strong leave programs in order to compete for the best workers. Communities have the same need as well. States, local governments wants to have benefit policies to strengthen their workforce. 

My feeling is that the tax incentive is sort of a touch of a feather, 

as far as the incentive that it creates for a company that is in real 

need of attracting a strong workforce. The company has its own 

economic imperative to offer leave in order to attract great workers. 

The tax benefit is just kind of icing on the cake. I don’t know that 

it will compel additional companies to offer leave programs. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. And currently, hourly minimum wage for tip 

workers is $2.13 per hour. How could we make sure tip workers receive benefits closer to their actual wages? 

Mr. RIEMER. Well, that’s a great question. Certainly, allowing 

workers -- tip workers to accrue leave based on hours worked rather than the wages paid, as the sick leave law, you know, would do, 

is important. We’ve grappled with the rights of tip workers around 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

minimum wage policy. That’s an important reason why you want 

to allow States and local governments to set their own law. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. And finally, how will creating a national standard for workplace leave policy help businesses who operate in your 

county? You said that you have small businesses there, large businesses, the economy that’s pretty strong, and others organize their 

benefits they provide for their employees. How will it help create 

a workplace leave policy that will help businesses? What has been 

your experience in the county? 

Mr. RIEMER. We’ve heard from many employers who said to us, 

we want to provide these benefits for our workers. You know, we’re 

a restaurant, we’re a cafe, we’re a small business. We want to provide these. Unfortunately, we’re competing with employers who do 

not want to provide them. And so we’re carrying a cost that they 

don’t have to carry. And that is not a level playing field. 

So a federal standard will protect businesses that want to do the 

right thing from low-road employers. I think that is a real benefit. 

It will also just establish the rules of the road, and then business 

processes will adjust. Software companies, payroll companies, will 

make changes to their system so no particular employer is going 

to have to pay for it in the first place. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you so much, Mr. Riemer. 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Allen, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having 

this important hearing. 

I guess my first question would go to Ms. Lukas. Obviously -- 

well, you take healthcare, for example. Healthcare was created during World War II, and because there was tremendous competition 

for employees and companies needed a way to attract those employees, so they gave them healthcare benefits. Now the government 

mandates healthcare, and it is a royal mess. 

In my experience in the business world, when hiring people, they 

want to look at workplace flexibility, they want to look at paid 

leave, they want to look at all these things. And if a company is 

going to compete for those employees, obviously they want to offer 

the right kind of package with the right kind of compensation to 

attract that employee to come to work for them. That’s the way it 

should work. 

With the government mandating benefits, what is that going to 

do, as far as trying to attract the best, brightest employees out 

there? I mean, it kind of takes one equation out, does it not? 

Ms. LUKAS. Absolutely. And I do think that this idea that there 

is a minimum standard that everyone must have, that rather than 

having an extra $10 in your paycheck, that you’d rather have an 

extra hour of leave, is really us making a decision for free people 

that I don’t think we need to make. I think that there are people 

who would prefer to have benefits and have leave time, and that’s 

why a growing number of companies are offering, voluntarily offering different leave packages and additional flexibility. But moving 

to that one-size-fits-all standard is going to erode wages, take-home 

pay, and really take away freedom and flexibility from workers. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Brickmeier, this one-size-fits-all, could you address that in your competition for the top, the brightest talent out 

there? I mean, obviously you’re looking at those types of things 

that would attract that kind of talent. What are some things that 

you’re doing? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Exactly. And that is the issue with mandates, 

is they forget that one size does not fit all. Well, we like to have 

national policies, and we do, for our employees so that they know, 

regardless of where they work, they’ll be entitled to the same types 

of protections and enjoy the same types of programs and benefits 

that we provide to everyone. They won’t have to consider taking a 

new opportunity for advancement by moving across the country or 

even across the state or jurisdictional line because their benefits or 

their leave programs may be different. 

So being able to assess the needs of our workforce, which are primarily professional, exempt employees, we give a lot of flexibility 

and recognition of the fact that they are professional, they do work 

when needed, and they can take time off when needed. So we’ve 

designed an approach that really meets our workforce needs, we 

listen to our workforce, we respond as appropriately. And you can 

see in my testimony that we’re always changing our programs and, 

in fact, mostly adding to them. And we also have to keep in mind 

what’s happening in our business and the technology space. 

For example, for our maternity and paid leave for women, we 

want to give families the time off that they need, but we also want 

them to come back to work. 

Mr. ALLEN. Right. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. And that’s a strong motivator for us to design 

programs that accomplish those two goals. 

Mr. ALLEN. Right. Well, you know, as a Member of Congress, I 

had no idea so many people had so many problems with the federal 

government. Our office spends enormous amounts of time dealing 

with all these mandates out there and, frankly, the people are sick 

of them. In fact, they would like more flexibility to work out these 

agreements with their employers and to provide the kind of freedom and flexibility they need versus some government-mandated 

policy. 

To give you an example, I had someone that needed to donate a 

kidney to his sister. He’s an hourly employee, and he had to be out 

for six weeks. And he got six weeks of paid leave. And that decision 

was made by our executive group. So, you know, we have that kind 

of flexibility in the workplace. 

I believe that, obviously, you know, we need to address this, and 

we need to come up with a solution, because there are bad actors 

out there, no question about it, but I think the workforce will take 

care of that. 

My time is up, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Fudge, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you all so much for being here today. 

I think we all realize that we live in a time where corporate profits and income and equality are higher than they have ever been. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

We are about to pass a tax bill that’s going to continue to make 

the rich richer and the poor poorer. 

Council President, let me just ask this question to you. As you 

were talking with people about your Earned Sick and Safe Leave 

Law, was there anyone -- let me ask it this way. How many people 

ask you to reduce their pay so they could have a day off? 

Mr. RIEMER. I don’t recall anyone saying that. 

Ms. FUDGE. Not one? 

Mr. RIEMER. No. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. Were they really looking for something that 

would allow them to live decent, to have a decent wage, and to be 

able to take care of their families? 

Mr. RIEMER. We heard from so many of our community members 

who experienced injury, whose children have special needs, who 

have an aging parent, and they need to take some time off, and 

they need the right to do that. And that’s what we established for 

them. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Schaefer, I want to be clear, is it your argument that workers should make a choice between pay and the ability to take a sick 

day? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. No, it is not. 

Ms. FUDGE. So what is it that you were saying? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. We are offering employees the flexibility. And 

H.R. 4219 -- 

Ms. FUDGE. But that flexibility depends upon whether they get 

paid for a day off? Explain to me. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. No, it’s compensable leave. And so the employee 

is able to decide when they take the time. 

Ms. FUDGE. So the employer cannot say to them, no, you can’t 

take this day because I need you to do this. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. No. And that is current right now. 

Ms. FUDGE. You’re saying no? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Right now, employers and employees have the 

discussion. 

Ms. FUDGE. So the answer is yes, not no? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Can you repeat your question? 

Ms. FUDGE. You said no when I asked you that. So are you saying it is? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Can you repeat your question, please? 

Ms. FUDGE. I got your answer. Thank you very much. 

Council President, what can Congress do to help you and other 

States and municipalities make the work situation better? 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you for that question. Again, I’ll say I think 

a strong Federal policy establishing a real right for workers to paid 

sick days, to family leave, a Social Security-type program, so that 

workers can have access to a benefit in the event of the birth of 

a child in the family or, you know, an extended illness. That would 

be enormously helpful for local communities and state communities 

all across the country. 

And then those local communities that feel that they need to enhance upon that, to build upon that strong federal floor may yet 

seek to do so. But establishing the basic protection would be the 

appropriate role for Congress. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

Ms. FUDGE. You know, it’s interesting to me. I understand clearly that they are different standards and different industries or in 

different sectors, but what I have found is that the people who are 

hurt the most by not having paid sick leave are the poorest people. 

Most people who work in industries that are well paid either have 

it or can afford it. It is only those who cannot afford it that we are 

punishing by this. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Mr. Rokita, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

their testimony this morning. 

Ms. Schaefer, I’d like to pick up with you in the discussion that 

we’re having. How many state and local paid leave mandates must 

Safety National continue to monitor and comply with? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. I’m counting. It is at least five. 

Mr. ROKITA. At least five. Are there different mandates for paid 

sick leave versus paid family leave? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Can you walk through a few of those differences? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Well, there’s one getting ready to be enacted in 

January, actually, in New York. So, for example, we’re working 

through that with our legal counsel to really understand what our 

obligations are there. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Any others or -- what are some of the differences between paid sick leave and paid family leave? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. So the sick leave would be specific to certain situations for the employee. And then paid family leave, it would go 

to -- it’d be extended to other individuals within the family. 

Mr. ROKITA. But what’s the difference in the mandates? I mean, 

how wide does it swing from the -- 

Ms. SCHAEFER. In H.R. 4219? 

Mr. ROKITA. The different mandates for paid sick leave versus 

paid family leave across the country. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. I would have to have SHRM respond to you for 

that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah, okay. I appreciate it. I’ll get in some more detail about how complicated this is really going to be, or what your 

current situation is. 

Ms. Brickmeier, thank you. I know companies like IBM who are 

operating in multiple jurisdictions face significant challenges in 

complying with all different state and local paid leave laws. So 

same kind of question. But one response I’ve heard to that problem 

is that the company can simply comply to the most stringent one, 

the most stringent mandate, and therefore be covered. You kind of 

touched on this in your testimony, but go into more detail about 

why you think this isn’t the best idea. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Well, I think I was referencing perhaps to San 

Francisco -- 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. -- where most of the laws, although I can’t 

speak with specificity, would say that if there’s multiple laws that 

apply or mandates apply, the most generous might apply to an employee. And my point there was that because these mandates have 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

so many different layers of responsibilities and obligations, even 

down to the number of days and what family members might be 

covered, a sibling might be covered in California but not in some 

other state, for example, a grandparent and maybe not, you would 

actually have to look at the employee’s personal situation, which to 

me is a little bit intrusive to ask about those details. In many 

cases, the employer has no right to ask those questions, but you 

might have to in order to determine what would apply for that individual. 

The other thing I mentioned, which was the executive federal 

order, that we decided to apply it to all United States because we 

could not in any one day distinguish who was working on a Federal 

contract. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. You’re welcome. 

Mr. ROKITA. Ms. Lukas, going to you now. 

You know, as a committee, we have focused, Mr. Chairman, our 

efforts on the need to bring many antiquated labor laws, like the 

Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, and the National Labor Relations 

Act, the NLRA, and other laws into the 21st century. 

How can Congress empower and encourage employers to continue offering these generous policies without mandating policies? 

Am I asking for the moon or is -- 

Ms. LUKAS. Sure. No. I mean, I think there’s ways that we’ve discussed -- or the Independent Women’s Forum has written about 

ways that you can use the Tax Code to encourage additional savings programs to help people who don’t have leave laws. But also 

I think you’re on to something in trying to focus on moving beyond 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has a pretty antiquated definition of worker and employee, which is becoming really out of 

touch as we move towards this world where so many people are 

telecommuters and gig employees, and we no longer have this, you 

know, 9 to 5 working in a factory or an office space with one boss. 

So I think the kind of taking a fresh look at those laws could be 

useful. 

And if I can just say one quick thing. There’s been some discussion about this, the real importance of what we’re talking about 

here is really where, I think, many people are concerned about people with low income. And we’re talking about the -- I think that’s 

really, when you look at who’s lacking paid leave benefits, I think 

that’s who everybody recognizes that that is a problem. But I would 

just caution that I think -- when I worry about, when I think about 

the problems created by paid leave laws and mandates, that’s who 

I’m worrying about. It’s because I do think that it’s the person we 

don’t see. You went to see somebody who’s an employee who’s getting the benefit, you don’t see the person who’s then going to be 

priced out of a job. And that’s a real problem and a real possibility, 

particularly for those with lower incomes. And anybody who’s 

looked at a budget before knows that there is a tradeoff in benefits. 

When somebody goes away for six weeks for maternity leave, a 

small organization like mine, I can’t just wipe my hands and keep 

paying them. I’ve got to pay somebody else. That’s money I have 

to come up with. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. I can see my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Blunt-Rochester, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. And I’d like to thank the panel for this discussion. 

I had the opportunity to serve as State personnel director in the 

state of Delaware. I’m a former SHRM member. I lived in China, 

was a SHRM member there as well, and so I understand the complexities of trying to balance recruitment, retention, productivity of 

your employees with the cost of your ERP and trying to maintain 

that and -- so I understand that. 

And I guess one of the first questions I have is really trying to 

get from your perspective, Ms. Schaefer and Ms. Brickmeier. We 

talked about one size fits all, but I guess my question is, to have 

a national standard, to me, doesn’t mean one size fits all. It means 

you’ve got a baseline, and then as an employer, depending on 

where I live in the country or where, what my budget is, that I can 

give more benefits than that. 

So can you just confirm for me -- because that’s my understanding -- that by us having a standard, that doesn’t mean we 

necessarily have to have one size fits all? Would you say that’s correct? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. So the H.R. 4219 bill doesn’t discriminate employers based on industry. Rather, we are identifying them based 

on size. So that’s -- 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. But do you understand my question? If we 

have a standard across the country similar to what has been done 

in Montgomery County, that doesn’t mean that as an employer I 

can’t give more? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. That’s correct. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Okay. Thank you. 

And then my other question is really, I noted, Ms. Lukas, that 

you said in your testimony that, ‘‘99 percent of businesses with 

more than 50 workers offer some form of paid time off to employees,’’ end quote. And that that’s from SHRM’s own Families and 

Work Institute’s 2016 National Study of Employers. 

I couldn’t find that number, but I found some other interesting 

ones. Only 39 percent of employers with 50 or more employees give 

employees at least five days to care for a mildly-ill child. Only 58 

percent of women receive some pay during maternity leave. Fifteen 

percent of spouses or partners receive any paid time off following 

the birth of their child. 

So given all of that, Council Member Riemer, can you talk a little 

bit about, until Congress does act with a proposal that can provide 

this kind of workplace leave policies, how are workers coping with 

the current policies? 

Mr. RIEMER. Well, those employees that are fortunate enough to 

work at a company that wants to offer generous benefits, they’re 

probably doing okay. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Right. 

Mr. RIEMER. The rest of the employees are making impossible 

choices. They’re showing up at work sick. They’re infecting their coworkers and their customers. They’re sending their children to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

work sick. They are leaving their family members alone and unattended when they would like to be with them. And they’re not coping well. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. Can you talk about the process that you 

went through in your community as you drafted the legislation and 

how it took into account the needs of your constituents, just what 

the process was? 

Mr. RIEMER. We had legislation introduced at the Council and we 

had a public hearing with dozens of community members participating. Then we had a legislative process of nearly a year, multiple 

committee meetings, and then full council deliberations in action. 

It was a very thorough process. And then we gave up to 15 months 

after enactment of the law to work out the operational implementation issues. So it was a very deep engagement. 

Ms. Blunt Rochester. I also want to just say that I’m glad that 

we’re having this conversation. It’s probably, you know, again, next 

to pensions, probably one of the most important things that we 

need to look at. I focus a lot on the future of work, and particularly 

we talked about people who are middle income and lower income 

and just all of the changes that are going to be happening. 

When I look at the future of work, because of that, that’s one of 

the concerns that I have about not having baselines. And I also 

lived in China, so I know when you don’t have baselines, even for 

things like OSHA, it impacts us. There are best practices out there. 

And as a matter of fact, you know, we know that there are some 

great, great programs out there. So I just want to thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I recognize, initially, now my friend from 

the Marianas, Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to permit Representative Rosa DeLauro to be recognized and participate in today’s hearing. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, the gentlelady, who does 

not serve on the committee but has legislation dealing with our 

concerns, is allowed to sit on the committee. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. And will be allowed to ask questions at the 

end of questioning. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman WALBERG. Now I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. Handel. 

Mrs. HANDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

And to the witnesses today, I apologize for missing your oral testimony, but I did have an opportunity to read through the written 

testimony yesterday. So thank you very much for sharing that with 

us. 

I wanted to start with Ms. Lukas, if I might, given the exchange 

that we just had about the percentage of companies that are or are 

not offering these types of benefits. It strikes me that just because 

something is not mandated, it does not mean that a company is not 

willing to or already voluntarily offering a lot of these different 

paid sick and paid family leave. 

I was wondering, given that we have a scenario in the European 

Union where this type of thing is mandated, here in the United 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

States, what do you see as the impact, potential negative effect on 

workers in this country if we were to do a blanket mandate of this 

nature, and especially on working women? 

Ms. LUKAS. Yeah. You know, and it’s interesting, because I do 

think that we’ve got such an exciting time for women in having so 

many workplace opportunities, we’re encouraging women to lean 

in. And I do think that we, you know, we hear a lot about the benefits of what happens in Europe, with, you know, obviously, there’s 

something wonderful about taking months off after the birth of a 

child. But there are some negative aspects of it that I think are 

often overlooked. 

And that includes that there’s a lot of women who do feel pigeonholed. Not everybody wants to take off six months after work to 

spend that much time at home with their newborn, but these expectations for women certainly do create kind of a lean-out mentality. And then there are many fewer women in Europe who are 

serving in leadership positions. Their labor force participation rate 

is relatively high, but a lot of that is part-time work or lower-paid 

work. So there are real consequences to this. 

And I would say that, also, I think that it’s important to recognize that not everybody is a mom. And especially there’s not a lot 

of folks who aren’t parents who don’t want this, and, of course, 

they may have other aspects. But we all know that there is something, and we need to be respectable of this idea, of what happens 

when somebody takes off work that somebody else has to pick up 

that work. And there are some full-time workers who end up resenting the extra burdens that they face when these generous, especially in Europe, these generous leave packages. 

Mrs. HANDEL. Okay. Thank you. 

Moving to Ms. Schaefer, in your testimony, you noted some research that millennials, in particular, value flexibility over compensation, with 35 percent of millennials being willing to take a 10 

to 20 percent pay cut in exchange for flexibility and these broader 

leave policies. Have you personally seen this trend throughout your 

20 years of experience? And can you tell us a little bit about that? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Yes. Thank you for your question. I have. And 

currently, at Safety National, 27 percent of our workforce falls into 

the category of millennials, and that’s exactly what they’re asking 

for, is that flexibility. And because we are listening and working 

with them, we’re able to meet the needs of the business as well as 

the needs of the employees. 

Mrs. HANDEL. Okay. Great. So it strikes me that what we need 

to be focused on is ensuring that we have a robust, free market 

flexibility approach to all of this. 

My second question, also for you, Ms. Schaefer, as we discuss 

paid leave today, I have heard it referred to, frankly, as both a policy and a benefit. So how would you see it? Is it a benefit? Do most 

people come in to the workforce assuming that there’s some sort of 

benefit in that area or do they see it more as a policy or as a part 

of their package, if you will? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Right. In my experience, it’s a benefit, so very 

much so. 

Mrs. HANDEL. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you so much. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

And now I recognize my friend from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

apologize for leaving. I have a Science Committee at the same time. 

So thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses, 

all for being here. 

You know, it’s pretty clear that our workplace policies have not 

really kept pace with the changing workforce, and I think we all 

agree with that. Everyone who is here today testifying and all the 

members recognize it in different ways. And because we know that 

paid leave is good for families and businesses, policymakers will 

continue to address this issue. 

I thank you, Mr. Riemer, for explaining that from your perspective. 

My state of Oregon has been a national leader in passing legislation to provide workers with paid sick days and predictable schedules. And Oregonians have been able to earn and use job-protected 

sick time to care for themselves or for a family member. For nearly 

two years, our paid sick days law allows workers to earn 40 hours 

of sick time a year that can be used for their own immediate family 

member or for preventive care. The law also allows paid sick time 

to be used for domestic violence survivors to obtain services, a really important aspect there, and almost half a million workers benefit from this law. And that makes Oregon a better place for families to live and work. 

And importantly, these policies, as Mr. Riemer explained, help 

businesses recruit and retain good, loyal employees. And that decreases turnover and costs associated with hiring and retraining. 

Simply put, a healthy, happy workforce is good for business. 

And Susan is a woman in Portland who experienced great hardship before the law passed, taking care of herself in an illness. She 

had worked in a grocery store for 15 years, and she did not have 

sick time until the third day of an illness, and only then with a 

note from her doctor. She explained that she had to go to work sick 

all the time because she couldn’t afford to take unpaid days, even 

to go to the doctor. When she absolutely had to stay home, she had 

to decide which bill she could pay. She’s a mother who also needed 

sick time to be home with her kids when they were sick. In fact, 

her employer of 15 years wrote her up for taking too many unpaid 

sick days, and she was terrified about losing her job. So these are 

the harsh realities of life without paid or protected sick time for 

low-wage workers, especially around the country. 

So we’ve heard from members on the other side of the aisle about 

H.R. 4219, which does not solve the problem, because that’s voluntary. We know that states and local jurisdictions will continue 

to address their needs of their constituents, like Susan. And that’s 

what Oregon did. 

Unfortunately, this 4219 will eliminate and undermine sick leave 

policies for workers in Oregon and around the country who are 

lucky enough to live in a state or a jurisdiction that has implemented paid sick time, and it will stifle innovation and state legislatures and local governments. The reason states and local governments are acting is because the federal government has not. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

So if we really want to help workers and families, we should be 

talking about the Healthy Families Act, which I know our colleague, Congresswoman DeLauro, will talk about. And also the 

FAMILY Act, for paid family leave. That’s what we should be discussing today. And until we set that federal standard, State and 

local governments need to be able to act. 

So I know, President Riemer, you talked about your law being in 

place since October of 2016. And can you talk a little bit about how 

your businesses have responded? How is the community affected? 

And what are some of the -- have you seen negative effects? And 

what are some of the positive effects? 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you, Congressman. I really enjoyed your 

comment there. We think our law’s been a big success. We are not 

hearing from employers that it has been an undue burden for them 

to make the minor adjustments in their payroll system that it 

takes to track. And we certainly are hearing from employees that 

they appreciate the rights that have been granted to them by our 

local government’s law. 

And we know that we had to work closely with our major employers to help establish that nothing that we did in our law would, 

you know, require them to change their policy. And that was important to us because we really appreciate our large employers, and 

we want them to thrive and prosper in our community. And if 

they’re offering better than the requirement, we don’t want to disrupt that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And when I’m in Oregon, I participated several years in a wonderful event called When Work Works. 

And we have many small businesses come forward. Because oftentimes, you hear that these policies are a burden on small businesses, and they talk about how it actually helps them with recruitment, with retention. 

And, Mr. Chairman, before I close, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from Patagonia’s vice president of Human Resources and Shared Services. The letter explains 

the outdoor retailer’s investments in their employees and how they 

have seen it help both their employees and their bottom line. 

Chairman WALBERG. Hearing no objection, it will be entered. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 27662.036

Committee on Education Workforce 

Hayburn House Office Building 

Washington, 

W;dbt~rg and Hanking 
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 27662.037

Our 
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 27662.038

among a growing number of paid leave and paid si.ck days policies that are passing nationwide 

and we support and honor that state and local innovation. 

Paid leave helps families tremendously, and does not harm employers. Under California's paid 

family leave program, the average length of leave has doubled, with the greatest benefit 

accruing to women of color and in lower-wage jobs. Studies also show that employees who feel 

supported by their companies tend to be more en~aged in their work, and engaged workers are 

more productive. In California, nearly 90% of businesses surveyed about the effects of the 

California p<Jid leave program reported either a positive effect or no noticeable effect on 

productivity. Studies of paid family leave laws in New Jersey and Rhode Island and paid sick 

days laws in a growing number of states and cities show similar results. 

We fully support California and other states and localities that gu;~rantee all workers paid family 

and medical leave and paid sick time and are hopeful that even more will soon adopt similar 

policies. Our successful business model demonstrates that employers do not need "safe 

harbor" from state and local laws in order to be highly profitable. We live with complex laws in 

a number of other contexts and can do so in this one as well. ' 

We also support strong national policies and strongly urge Congress and other U.S. employers 

to do the same. For example, here are three things U.S. employers and federal legislators can 

do to encourage strong families, healthier kids and a competitive skilled workforce: 

1. Support the FAMilY Act (H.R. 947), which creates a national standard for paid family 

and medical leave to help reduce costs and level our competitive playing field while 

allowing workers to meet their health needs and caregiving responsibilities. The FAMILY 

Act was first introduced in the House by Congresswoman Delaura and in the Senate by 

Senator Gillibrand nearly four years ago and .each year it has gained new support in 

Congress and in the private sector - yet it hasn't been voted on by legislators. We 

strongly urge Members of this Committee and all federal elected officials to act soon to 

pass the FAMILY Act and make paid family leave a law in our country. We firmly believe 

workers in the United States should be able to take the time they need when serious 

family or medical nee?s arise- no matter where they live or where they work. 

2. Every company with 200 employees in one place or more should seriously consider 

the introduction of high-quality, on-site child care. This allays the anxiety for all new 

parents and is the next best thing to havi~g them within eyesight or earshot. Good child 

care is expensive, but at Patagonia we estimate that we earn back over 90% of our paid 

subsidy for our on-site child care program (a big reason we recently expanded the 

program from our California headquarters to our 600-employee distrillution center in 

Nevada as well). Independent studies show similar returns on this kind of investment for 

other companies. 

3. Consider a diverse but holistic pacl<age of family-affirming policies, including a national 

paid sick days law like the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1516), fair scheduling protections, 
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 27662.039

like the Schedules That Work Act (H.R. 2.942.), flex time, private space for lactation, 

adoption assistance, travel support programs for nursing mothers, and childcare 

subsidies for companies that don't provide on-site care. 

Yes, there are financial costs inherent in building a family-affirming workplace, but the benefits, 

financial and otherwise, pay off this investment year after year. At Patagonia, we've seen firsthand the power of a workplace that prioritizes families. We believe it's time for real action by 

Congress and American businesses to help our families successfully meet their challenges. 

Sincerely, 

Dean Cart:~/{_ Vice President of Human Resources and Shared Services 
74 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

And now I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 

Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Tim Walberg, for your leadership. And your service means so much 

to the people of Michigan and South Carolina and all of the United 

States. Thank you. 

Ms. Schaefer, how have workplace leave policies changed over 

the last 10 years? Do you think the economy, over the last eight 

years, has affected the employers’ ability to provide leave policies 

and flexibility to employees? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Yes, I do think the economy has had an impact. 

I can only speak from my experience with my current employer and 

that it is a business decision when it comes to the leave offerings 

that we’re able to make. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. And with a growing economy, as 

we’re seeing and can anticipate, particularly with the tax cuts that 

will enable businesses to create jobs, that should have a very positive impact. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. I’m not able to speak to that specifically. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Well, hey, I see it in the State 

I represent, and just to see the consumer confidence at record levels, to see, as I have actually had the opportunity to have a discussion with President Trump, about the increase in the stock market 

from the day that he was elected to where we are today; 5,000 

points, 23 percent. I’m just so enthusiastic for the growth of our 

economy and job opportunities for the American people. 

Ms. Lukas, can you talk about the tradeoffs that come with government mandates? How do these mandates impact job opportunities and overall employee compensation? 

Ms. LUKAS. Yes. You know, I think that everybody knows who’s 

had a budget, when you look at the cost of somebody that you’re 

hiring, you have to look not just only at the dollars that they’re 

going to get in their take-home pay, but you have to look at how 

much you have to spend in taxes, payroll taxes, and benefits. And 

so as we increase benefits, that’s an additional cost that employers 

have to factor in. It means lower compensation or fewer jobs that 

you’re going to be able to offer. 

You know, when we have, at my small organization, when somebody goes off for leave for six weeks, I can’t just push that off onto 

somebody, all the responsibilities off to somebody else, so I have to 

hire another person. And that’s money that I won’t have to give 

other raises or for other uses. 

So there’s a real economic tradeoff with that. It doesn’t mean 

that benefits are a mistake, but you do have to factor them in when 

you are doing a budget, especially if you’re a small organization. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. And thank you very much of your 

presidency of the Independent Women’s Forum. 

Ms. LUKAS. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Making a difference on behalf of 

the people of our country. 

Ms. LUKAS. Thank you. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Ms. Brickmeier, some have suggested that businesses that are large enough to operate in multiple 

jurisdictions readily have the capacity to establish different business processes according to their jurisdictions. You’ve noted that 

IBM spends a great deal of time complying with ever-changing 

state and local mandates. Do you agree with the statement that if 

a business is large enough to operate in more than one state or locality, they should accept this patchwork of paid leave mandates as 

a result? Why not? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Well, no, I don’t accept that. As a premise, we 

might have to accept it if the mandates are there, and they certainly are there now. But what we’re really advocating for is, just 

like we have in healthcare with ERISA preemption, which has 

worked remarkably well since the 1970s, since it’s been enacted, 

we’re advocating for something very similar to that where local 

mandates would apply, unless a company opts in to a national 

standard. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you very much. And in 

your testimony, you note that IBM provides a generous paid leave 

policy that includes a minimum of 15 days paid vacation, up to 26 

weeks of full or partially paid short-term disability, 12 weeks of 

paid child bonding leave for new parents, in addition to paid sick 

leave. Does IBM provide this leave to keep up with any particular 

state or local mandate? And how is this mandate administered 

across the country? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. So all of the things that you referenced were 

independent of any mandates, right? We’ve had these policies for 

many, many years. They are developed based on our workforce and 

our industry. And as I said, we just added the 12-weeks parental 

leave, and that was purely on our own volition, based on the needs 

of our workforce and wanting to keep parents in the workforce once 

they take time off with their kids. 

But as we think about expanding that, our employees have asked 

for different types of paid leave, which we’re considering. But we 

actually might have to consider something different, maybe say no, 

or think about different designs, because we have to figure out how 

they fit in with certain mandates. And particularly in New York 

state, which we have a lot of people in, and it was mentioned that 

there’s a mandate coming in on January 1, and as was also stated, 

we only have so much budget, so many compensation dollars to 

manage our workforce and to be able to meet our business commitments, and so there would have to be tradeoffs. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you all for being here 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman for your kind words. 

I gotta figure out what I owe you. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Just do a good job. That’s it. 

Chairman WALBERG. I now recognize my friend and a proud Harley rider from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

for putting this committee hearing together, focusing on something 

that every one of us experience -- sick time, family time -- and just 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

76 

to have a discussion on today’s environment and how tough it is 

to balance what we do every day. 

I was a single dad. It was tough. I had help from my parents and 

was able to do it, but it’s trying to make things work. So for each 

of you coming and sharing your experience, we appreciate it. 

Obviously, there’s a huge difference. There’s large corporations like IBM who have a very generous policy. An $80 billion a year 

company has resources to do this. But we also understand that the 

businesses have to take into account both sides of the equation. 

And that’s one of the things I’m trying to look at when we start 

looking at the 4219. We’re all talking about helping those workers 

successfully raise a family and manage life, yet it becomes voluntary. 

Thirty-seven million workers today have no sick time. Thirteen 

percent of private industry, you cannot earn sick time. So if we’re 

trying to create a foundation and that employers will do the right 

thing, I’m confused on how you try to put these numbers together. 

If employers are going to do the right thing in balance, why only 

13 percent make this available? And that’s the tough part that 

we’re trying to reconcile here. 

Ms. Lukas, you said that you don’t think -- or I’m paraphrasing 

-- for workers, it’s a good idea for them to have these benefits. 

They’d rather have an extra $10 in their pocket. I think they’d 

rather have both, quite frankly, but we understand that balance. 

Ms. LUKAS. An ideal world, certainly. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Yeah. Show me where that world is. I think we’ll 

all move there. 

Ms. LUKAS. Of course. 

Mr. NORCROSS. One of the trends that has been happening, particularly in healthcare, is paid time off, which, in concept, doesn’t 

go into why you’re taking the day off. You’re just out. 

So when we’re looking at these, Ms. Schaefer, how do you balance PTO versus sick time and family leave, particularly with regards to the tax credit piece that we’re looking here? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. So the paid time off, as you know, can be used 

for any reason. And so if an employee is, in fact, sick or needs to 

take care of a sick child, they don’t have to report that to us; 

they’re just saying that they need to take time off. 

Mr. NORCROSS. So how are you going to address that to get the 

tax credit? You’re now going to have to set in a new policy and 

mandates that say, if you’re taking a sick day off, we need to verify 

that versus a vacation day or mental health day. How are you 

going to do that? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. The employees would be able to take the time. 

We wouldn’t be requiring them -- 

Mr. NORCROSS. So then you can’t get the tax credit. You would 

forego the tax credit rather than answer that question? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. I would have to have SHRM follow up with you 

on that. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Okay. How would IBM handle this? Do you have 

PTO? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. I know what you’re referring to, and we’ve been 

looking at that as well. And it’s absolutely correct. Right now, we 

don’t ask any questions for incidental sick time, paid time off, vacaCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

77 

tion. It’s yours. You can take it as you wish. And I think it’s very 

intrusive to have to ask these questions. These are very personal 

questions. 

But you’re absolutely right. If there were a tax credit for certain 

days off, we would then have to add another compliance burden to 

ourselves and ask very difficult questions of our employees. But 

that’s correct. 

Mr. NORCROSS. I would assume you expect, if you’re going to get 

tax credit, which means taxpayers’ money, they have a right to understand what this is being used for. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. I understand that, yes. 

Mr. NORCROSS. So Ms. Lukas, do you have any thoughts on this? 

This creates another mandate if you want the tax credit. 

Ms. LUKAS. Yeah. I mean, I think there is a concern. Sorry. I 

think there is a concern. I do think that we need to try to allow 

businesses and employees to work out the different benefit packages that make sense for them, and I worry about creating some 

favored pools of leave over others. I prefer it to be more broad. 

Mr. NORCROSS. If that’s going on and employers want to do the 

right thing, how do you explain only 13 percent? 

Ms. LUKAS. Well, you know, I think your 13 percent -- I think 

it’s hard to -- often there’s a lot of different statistics out there. And 

I like looking at the Census Bureau to see people, how they report 

their experiences with employers, because a lot of employers have 

one bucket of leave that they can use for something like family 

leave. 

Mr. NORCROSS. This is what we were talking about, right, the 

different pockets. 

Ms. LUKAS. Yes. And so it does show that the -- 

Mr. NORCROSS. So let’s say 25 percent. 

Ms. LUKAS. Yes. 

Mr. NORCROSS. That means 75 percent aren’t doing it. 

Ms. LUKAS. No. But I think when it comes to full-time workers, 

that it’s well over 50 percent of first-time mom’s report having 

some paid time off from work. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Some paid time off. 

Ms. LUKAS. Yeah. I mean -- 

Mr. NORCROSS. So if they gave them an hour, that would qualify? 

Ms. LUKAS. Sure. You know, and I do think, you know, when I 

heard the story of the -- 

Mr. NORCROSS. We’re out of time. 

Ms. LUKAS. Sorry. 

Mr. NORCROSS. I’m sorry. So I appreciate your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

I recognize the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record a statement from the National Treasury Employers Union in support of 

paid parental leave legislation for federal workers. And I add my 

voice in support of this and other legislation to establish robust and 

common sense paid leave policies for all workers, public and private sector. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

Chairman WALBERG. Hearing no objection, it will be entered. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 27662.040
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 27662.041

Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Sablan: Thank you for allowing me to offer a 

statement for your hearing today on Workplace Leave Policies. As National President of the 

National Treasury Employees Union, I represent over 150,000 federal employees in 31 agencies 

across the government. 128 countries currently provide paid and job-protected parental leave to 

employees, with 16 weeks being the average length of provided leave. 75% of the Fortune 100 

companies offer a paid parental leave program to new mothers. Sadly, the tederal government 

has no paid parental leave policy for its workers. 

It's not for lack of effort or advocacy. NTEU has worked with Representative Carolyn 

Maloney. a long-time champion of this movement, since 2003 to provide paid parental leave for 

federal employees. Legislation twice passed the House. but received no action in the Senate 

fr1llowing bill introduction. When we started this movement, we wanted the federal government 

to be a leader in providing this benefit. Now, we are lagging behind the private sector, and 

federal agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to attract younger workers, who see this 

benefit as a crucial and standard part of their compensation. 

In general, it takes female federal workers over 3 years to save enough sick leave to 

cover the period of incapacitation after pregnancy (6-8 weeks on average)- and that's without 

taking a single day of sick leave during those three years. Pregnancies also generally require at 

least 14 doctor's appointments, so not taking sick leave is almost impossible. Some of my 

members report that they have worked while being sick themselves because all of their leave was 

used up on the birth of their child. And, if an employee has a sick family member and uses up 

sick leave for that situation, then she has nothing left to use upon the birth of a child. 

While the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows 12 weeks of leave for the birth 

or adoption of a child, it is unpaid leave. Few federal employees can am1rd to take weeks of 

unpaid leave. The FMLA has been a terrific first step, but we believe that no federal employee 

should be forced to choose between a paycheck and caring for the newest member of the family. 

We hope you agree. 

Research has shown that the federal government could significantly reduce the departures 

of young female employees by offering paid parental leave. We could save millions in turnover 

costs through such a program, and human resource professionals know that all employers, public 

or private, experience significant costs through turnover. In addition, paid parental leave can 

lead to increased productivity, better morale and reduced absenteeism. We encourage you to 

work with Rep. Maloney to achieve passage of this legislation, allowing the federal government 

to establish common-sense paid parental leave . 
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 27662.063

Consumer 

Affairs 

Lorelei Salas 

Commissioner 

liz Vladeck 

Deputy Commissioner, 

Office of Labor Policy and 

Standards 

Jill Maxwell 

Legal Director, Office of 

Labor Policy and Standards 

Steven M. Ettannani 

Senior Advisor, Policy and 

Public Affairs 

42 Broadway 

8th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

Dial311 

(212-NEW-YORK) 

nyc.gov/consumers 

Statement of Lorelei Salas, Commissioner of the New York City Department 

of Consumer Affairs 

Submitted to the House Education and Workforce Committee Subcommittee 

on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

Hearing on "Workplace Policies: Opportunities and Challenges for 

Employers and Working Families" 

The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs ("DCA") strongly 

urges Congress to work with local and state governments and heed grassroots 

efforts that have led to enhanced labor standards, like local paid sick leave laws. 

Federal labor standards should operate, as many already do, by creating baseline 

rights that may be supplemented by greater protections provided by state and 

local governments. 

New York City has demonstrated that local government's role in labor law 

enforcement is essential to promoting individual financial security and improving 

family and public health without sacrificing a vigorous and growing economy.' 

DCA, particularly its Office of Labor Policy and Standards ("OLPS"), has first-hand 

knowledge of this as it is charged with implementing and enforcing New York 

City's workplace laws, developing innovative policies to raise job standards, and 

providing a central resource to help working New Yorkers assert their rights under 

local, state, and federal law. 

Since the New York City Paid Sick Leave Law took effect in April 2014, 

OLPS has received more than 1,350 complaints, closed more than 1,150 cases, 

secured nearly $4.7 million in relief for more than 20,000 workers, and assessed 

close to $2 million in fines through settlements with businesses. Despite robust 

enforcement, 85 percent of employers surveyed in 2015 and 2016 reported that 

compliance with the law did not increase costs,' and more than 94 percent 

reported that the law had no effect on productivity. 3 Some even reported that 

productivity increased4 Similarly, 96 percent of employers reported no change in 

customer service as a result of the new law, and more than three percent saw an 

1 NEW YORK CtTY, OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, "TWO YEARS AFTER MAYOR DEBLASIO EXPANDS PAID StCK 

LEAVE TO ONE MILUON NEW YORKERS, CnY'S ECONOMY STRONGER THAN EVER," April1, 2016, available at http://www1.nyc.gov/office~of-the* 

mayor/news/318~16/two-yean:;-after-mayor-de-b!asio-expands-paid*sick*!eave-one-mi!Uon-new*yorkers-city-s*economy. 

2 EILEEN APPELBAUM & RUTH MILKMAN, NO 8tG DEAL: THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK CITY'S PAID SICK DAYS lAW ON EMPLOYERS 3, 21 (2016), available 

at http ;//cepr. net/im ages/stori<:~s/reports/nyc-paid-sick -days-20 16-09. pdf. 3 EILEEN APPELBAUM & RUTH MILKMAN, No 8tG DEAL: THE IMPACT Of NEW YORK CITY'S PAID SICK DAYS lAW ON 4, 23, and 24 (Table 138) (2016), 

available at http://cepr.net/imaqes/stories/reports/nyc-paid-sick-days-2016-09.pdf. 4 EILEEN APPELBAUM & RUTH MILKMAN, NO BlG DEAL: THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK CITY'S PAID SICK DAYS lAW ON EMPLOYERS (2016), available at 

h!to://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/nyc-paid*sick-days-2016-09.pdf. 
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 27662.064

increase; less than one percent reported a decrease in customer service-' Employee retention was 

steady6 

Notwithstanding New York City's success in strengthening workers' rights in tandem with a 

growing local economy, there is plenty of work left to do. Even in localities where there is already a right 

to paid sick leave, employers of the most vulnerable workers are still falling short of what the law 

requires.' The Community Service Society's (CSS) research shows, for example, that New York City's 

Paid Sick Leave Law has significantly increased low-income workers' access to paid sick leave, but that a 

sizable percentage of vulnerable low-income workers still cannot use this benefit and many do not even 

know that they are entitled to it. The percentage of low-income workers in New York City without paid 

time off has dropped from 53 percent of eligible low-income workers surveyed by CSS in 2013, to 38 

percent of eligible low-income workers in 2016. And yet, many vulnerable low-income workers still lack 

access to this critical right: 43 percent of eligible low-income Latino workers, 48 percent of immigrant lowwage workers, 65 percent of low-income part-time workers, and 61 percent of low-income restaurant and 

retail workers report that they still do not have paid sick leave. 8 Even with this progress, there is still a 

need for increased and targeted enforcement of this important right. 

CSS' research underscores the complexities of serving our nation's most vulnerable individuals, 

particularly when it implicates their livelihood. As Congress, and this Committee in particular, continues 

to study workplace policies it should recognize that the federal government has an important role to play 

in supporting local enforcement needs and should not consider policies that would dilute or repeal 

progressive local labor laws, or exacerbate the power imbalance between employers and employees 

such as by shifting away from employees their ability to control their work schedules and time off. 

One piece of legislation being debated in Congress that is particularly troubling is H.R. 4219, the 

"Workflex in the 21" Century Act" (''H.R. 4219" or the "bill"). H.R. 4219 undermines local labor standards 

that are tailored to maintain robust local economies by removing local control that benefits workers and 

businesses. The bill purports to require paid time off comparable to state and local paid sick leave laws, 

but in fact replaces meaningful rights to paid time off, which are the product of grassroots democratic 

processes, with individual employers' own parameters for when and how employees can use time and 

what employees will be paid when they use the time. Accordingly, we urge Congress to reject the bill. 

1. H.R. 4219 Creates Merely an Illusion of Required Paid Time Off 

H.R. 4219 would allow employers to opt-in to provide a minimum number of paid days off to 

employees per year, setting no parameters for how such paid days off are requested, used, or paid. 

Employers who opt-in to this model can easily dilute the paid time off they provide in whatever ways they 

may conceive that discourage employees from requesting or using the paid time off, except in the most 

narrow circumstances. For example, an employer may discipline employees for using the time off, 

5 EILEEN APPELBAUM & RUTH MILKMAN, NO BIG DEAL: THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK CiTY'S PAID SICK DAYS LAW ON EMPLOYERS {2016), available at 

http·ffcepr.netlimages/stories/reports/nyc-paid-sick-days-2016-09.pdf. 

6 EILEEN APPELBAUM & RUTH MILKMAN, NO BIG DEAL: THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK CITY'S PAID S!CK DAYS LAW ON EMPLOYERS (2016), available at 

http:t/cepr.net!imaqes/storiestreports/nyc-paid-sick-days-2016-09.pdf. 

I U.S BUREAU OF lABOR STATISTICS. NEWS REIJ:ASf: EMPLOYEE 8F.Nf.FITS IN THE". UNITED STATES MARCH 2017 from 

https://www.bls.gov/news releaselpdf/ebs2.pdf 

a NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF WORKERS' RIGHTS !N NEW YORK CITY (2017), p. 28. 

2 
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 27662.065

impose unlimited advance notice requirements which prevent employees from any unforeseeable use, 

such as for sudden illness, or impose a requirement that the employees only use their time in increments 

of one full day. Additionally, the bill is silent about how much an employee must be paid for the time offemployers could decide to pay significantly less than what the employee would make if she was working, 

effectively discouraging any use of her time off but doing so in compliance with H.R.4219. 

By contrast, paid sick leave laws in local and state jurisdictions are the product of thoughtful 

analysis of the standards needed to make the right meaningful in our own jurisdictions. In New York City, 

employers must pay employees who use sick leave what they would have earned had they worked. They 

are prohibited from disciplining employees for valid uses of paid sick days and can only require advance 

notice of the need to use sick time that is practicable under the circumstances. This reflects the reality of 

sick time: workers cannot plan when they or their family member will be sick. And when they get sick, 

they can focus on getting well without fear that they will lose their job or pay. 

2. H.R. 4219 Supplants Strong Local Standards with a Weak National Standard 

Employer plans that comply with H.R. 4219 would preempt local laws. As such, the bill threatens 

to strip workers in New York City and over 40 other jurisdictions of the protections provided by local paid 

sick leave and fair scheduling laws and substitute them with time and leave policies unilaterally chosen 

by the employer. Employers' policies that may comply with H.R. 4219 are almost certain to be less 

favorable to workers than the rights provided by local and state laws. Replacing state and local laws 

under the guise of easing business operations ignores the positive impact state and local laws have had 

on individual financial security and public health. This approach also overlooks that businesses that are 

large-enough to operate in multiple jurisdictions are usually sophisticated enough and have sufficient 

resources to understand and comply with the different laws in those jurisdictions. For example, multijurisdictional companies already account for differing local payroll taxes depending on where they 

operate and employ individuals. 

By supplanting local jurisdiction over paid sick leave and scheduling laws, H.R. 4219 threatens to 

weaken all labor standards. State and local labor law enforcement can create a culture of compliance 

with even those labor laws that the locality might not have jurisdiction to enforce. For example, OLPS is 

conducting directed paid sick leave investigations of home health care agencies. OLPS chose this 

industry because of the predominately immigrant woman and woman of color workforce and the 

prevalence of labor law violations in the industry. While these investigations are in their early stages, we 

anticipate that they will demonstrate OLPS' ability, in collaboration with other government agencies, to 

achieve compliance with labor laws that is broader than the paid sick leave law. 

3. H.R. 4219 Takes Away Local Control that Benefits Workers and Employers 

New York City strikes an important balance between making sure labor laws help workers and the 

businesses they work for by tailoring laws and enforcement to the unique needs and characteristics of 

the local economy. We can respond quickly to problems on the local level that can take decades to 

remedy through national consensus. 9 The access that diverse stakeholders have to local lawmakers is 

9 See, e.g., 79 FR 18737 (Apr_ 3, 2014). 

3 
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 27662.066

greater than at the state or federal level and facilitates a rich, transparent democratic process where the 

ultimate result accounts for a variety of viewpoints. 

New York City's Paid Sick Leave Law is the product of this process. During the bill's drafting, key 

stakeholders-businesses, large and small, and workers-had and took advantage of their access to 

lawmakers to shape the final legislation. Later, during the rulemaking process, stakeholders' comments 

were carefully but promptly considered and incorporated into the final rules. During the initial 

implementation of the law, we prioritized educating businesses about the Law's requirements through 

trainings and an extensive public education campaign-a direct response to businesses that thought the 

Law was complex. OLPS also created a variety of tools to help employers comply, including sick leave 

tracking forms and employee authorizations that time used was for sick purposes. OLPS's current 

enforcement of the Paid Sick Leave Law responds to the specific circumstances of a particular worker or 

business. OLPS can quickly address a retaliatory termination due to a worker's use of sick time and have 

succeeded in getting workers their jobs back almost immediately. OLPS can also directly target 

investigations at industries and employers in NYC that have an established track-record of labor law 

violations through directed investigations. 

4. Enforcing H.R. 4219 is Confusing and Leaves Workers and Employers without Clear 

Standards 

Enforcement of H.R. 4219 will be confusing, and the confusion will be compounded in jurisdictions 

that have paid sick leave and scheduling laws. Unlike plans currently regulated by ERISA (and that 

trigger preemption for federal law), H.R. 4219 envisions certain minimum standards with which a time and 

leave plan must "substantially comply." Workers will not know what they are entitled to-their employer's 

plan or rights under local law-until a determination is made as to whether the employer's plan 

"substantially complies" with H.R. 4219. Lawyers, enforcement agencies, and courts, let alone workers, 

will have difficulty answering this threshold question. 

In jurisdictions that have paid sick and scheduling laws, localities will need to assess the 

applicability of their own laws by determining whether the employer's policy "substantially complies" with 

H.R. 4219. If the policy meets the minimum standards under H.R. 4219, the policy would be enforced 

under ERISA for covered employees and the locality would not have jurisdiction. But if the policy does 

not meet the minimum standards, or certain employees at a workplace were not covered by it, the local 

law is not preempted and would apply. The chaos created by H.R. 4219 means that workers do not know 

what they are entitled to, and employers cannot be sure about what their obligations are. It makes 

virtually inevitable inconsistent application across different employers and increased litigation as parties 

dispute the applicability of local law. Again, this scheme operates to put state and municipal enforcement 

at odds with federal enforcement of labor laws. Federal laws should -and generally do- provide the 

opposite incentives: for all levels of government to work in partnership with each other to combat chronic 

non-compliance with labor laws. 

5. H.R. 4219 Ignores Local Business to the Advantage of Large Corporations 

Paid sick days are good for business because they increase worker productivity and retention. But 

many small businesses-those who operate on the thinnest margins--can only afford to offer paid sick 

4 
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 27662.067

days if their competition does as well. 10 When jurisdictions like New York City require that all employers 

within the jurisdiction provide time off for employees' most basic needs -to heal after illness or to care for 

a loved one - it helps to level the playing field between small and large business. 

In sum, rather than make workplaces more inclusive, and provide recognition of the realities faced 

by both workers and employers in today's economy, H.R. 4219 erodes gains in ensuring that the most 

vulnerable workers, and those who are often most financially insecure, have access to employment. New 

York City is committed to supporting these workers by ensuring fair, safe workplaces for all. Federal 

legislation should set strong national baselines while allowing cities and states to do better, like H.R. 

1516, the "Healthy Families Act", which would establish a federal paid sick days standard, and H.R. 2942, 

the "Schedules that Work Act", which provides fair scheduling protections. These laws would 

meaningfully ensure that working people can count on the pay-and paid time off-they need to support 

themselves and their families. 

10 

BALLANTYNE, AMANDA. GIVE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AN EVEN BREAK, PASS A MINIMUM STANDARD FOR PAID S!CK LEAVE, 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/give-smal!-business-owner b 9635872 htm! (last visited Dec. 5, 2017) 

5 
86 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

So the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that -- Mr. Norcross also 

said -- 32 percent of private sector’s employees cannot earn a single 

day. Thirty-two percent. So as we’re talking about all this, we know 

that 1 in 3 Americans cannot earn a single day. This is particularly 

important to me right now because my daughter had a preemie 

baby. And because of her good company and because of her husband’s good company, they were able to be at the hospital and be 

there together. And what a difference that made. 

And so as I think about all those people that we’re talking about, 

one-third of Americans can’t have a single day off. This is what we 

should be focused on. And yet I have not heard the panel express, 

for the most part, the recognition that we’re not doing right by the 

workers of this country. And I hope that we’ll hear more advocacy 

about this. 

So I would like to ask each one of you to just say yes or no, 

please, about the Healthy Families Act, H.R. 1516, Representative 

Rosa DeLauro sitting here, and thank you for this bill. 

This bill requires employers to employ at least 15 employees to 

provide employees with up to seven paid sick days, which can also 

be used to take time off to address domestic violence. Employees 

would earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours. So they 

would just get one hour of sick time, up to seven paid sick days. 

Do you support that and does your organization support that? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. SHRM does not support that. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

How about you, Ms. Brickmeier? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. I would have to say we have no opinion on the 

bill at this time. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. That’s interesting. And -- 

Mr. RIEMER. Strongly support that. Thank you. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. And -- 

Ms. LUKAS. No, we do not support that. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. No. Okay. So when we’re talking about all of 

these people who don’t have coverage, three out of four of you said 

that you don’t support just seven sick paid days. 

May I ask each one of you if you have seven sick paid days or 

more, please? Yes or no. 

Ms. SCHAEFER. We don’t have sick time. We have a general paid 

time off bank. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. But more than seven days? 

Ms. SCHAEFER. Yes. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Yes. 

Mr. RIEMER. Yes. 

Ms. LUKAS. Yes. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Isn’t that wonderful. I’m so glad that you do. 

And you know what, everybody sitting here has time off too. Isn’t 

that great? How are we leaving one-third of American workers and 

their families behind? 

So I ask each one of you there sitting to think about what you 

just said, that you have it, and yet you’re comfortable sitting here 

saying, no, we don’t support that. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

Ms. Brickmeier, I was impressed by your testimony, because you 

were talking about how difficult it is for IBM to comply with all 

of these regulations right now. And I’m going to quote: ‘‘An overwhelming challenge has resulted from the burden created by myriad inconsistencies in the very State and local laws, the speed at 

which new laws and amendments arise, and the sheer number and 

range of requirements applicable to IBM’s operations around the 

country.’’ 

And, of course, IBM is a massive company that’s able to do work 

around the world, so I’m sorry it seems like such a burden. But 

here is the thing that I find interesting. Let me be very specific -- 

this is you again. ‘‘In the area of paid sick leave, by my last count, 

there were six states’’ -- that’s 6 out of 50 -- ‘‘2 counties, and roughly 29 local ordinances covering paid sick leave.’’ 

Is that really that overwhelming for IBM, a big company, to work 

with just six states, two counties, and roughly 29 local ordinances 

that cover paid sick leave? Is that really a problem? 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Well, it did take us nine months to figure out 

-- and the executive order as well -- to figure out the jurisdictions, 

who was eligible, what the rules were, and then compare and contrast them. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. So it’s not just what you said. It’s all the combination and permutations. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. All right. Thank you. But it still seems amazing to me. 

And, Ms. Lukas, you said 99 percent of businesses with more 

than 50 workers offer some form of paid time off. Are you aware 

-- and this is Treasury Department -- that 96 percent of employers 

have fewer than 50 workers? 

Ms. LUKAS. Absolutely. And those workers and those companies 

have a very different situation and costs that they have to consider 

and make budgets. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. So we’re still leaving more workers behind. The suggestion by the number sounds like their covered, but 

we’re leaving them behind. 

And my final point, because we’re running out of time here, is 

that you said we should enable workers to save tax-free for time 

off, right? 

Ms. LUKAS. Uh-huh. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Do you know what the minimum wage is in 

this country? 

Ms. LUKAS. Yes. I -- but that doesn’t -- I mean -- 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So how, if you’re supporting that, because I 

know a lot of people in my district, in my community, who work 

two jobs just to feed their children and get a little roof over their 

heads. They don’t have any money to save to put into the tax-free 

account for time off. So do you still think that’s a solution? 

Ms. LUKAS. I think it’s the start of a solution. It is very hard to 

find jobs for and to find a way to get low income workers, the minimum wage workers, paid time off without displacing them from 

their jobs. Because I worry very much about them losing their jobs, 

not just about the benefits that they have -- 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. Let’s say that they’re fortunate enough to earn $10 dollars an hour. Okay. It’s $400 a week, and that’s 

$1,600 a month, and they have to pay taxes out of that. $1,600 a 

month. Rent where I am is about $1,000. You have a couple of kids, 

that’s it. 

So even though that sounds good, I am just imploring you to look 

at that again and recognize that that is not real. That is not possible. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman WALBERG. Your time is expired. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. And I’m pleased to offer an opportunity for 

5 minutes of questioning to the gentlelady from the Appropriations 

Committee, who comes over to our subcommittee. We’re glad to 

have you today. Welcome for five minutes. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you both, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for allowing me to 

participate in this hearing today. 

I just want to make one very, very quick point. You all have 

talked about the number of sick days that you have. Let me just 

tell you that the United States Congress, we have an infinite 

amount of sick days. We can get sick for several weeks. Our kids 

can get sick for several weeks. Our parents can get sick for several 

weeks. I know this personally. My mom passed away this summer. 

I spent six weeks with her. My pay was not docked. I did not lose 

my job. 

When I was sick with ovarian cancer and had to leave for 2-1/ 

2 months as a staff member to a United States Senator, my job was 

there. He said go, get well. It will be there. That should not be just 

the prerogative of all of you with your seven days, or probably 

more, or Members of the United States Congress to have that kind 

of an effort. 

Let me just try to correct the record, if I can, in two or three 

points, and then I’ll ask a question. 

And, Ms. Lukas, your IWF research says here: Universal paid 

leave will force businesses to provide paid family and medical leave 

benefits. 

This is not what the FAMILY Act does. It creates a fund with 

shared contributions. It is social insurance, employers, employees 

pay-in. The FAMILY Act, Healthy Families Act is not a mandate. 

There is nothing that prevents employers from offering more generous benefits above the baseline. 

My colleague pointed out an estimated -- that’s National Partnership for Women and Families -- estimated 37 million private sector 

workers cannot earn a single paid sick day, does nothing to be able 

to help them. 

And I also read all of the testimony, so I’m sorry I wasn’t here 

for it, but I read all of them. And I just want to make a couple of 

things in correcting the record, Ms. Lukas. And I’ll say this: I think 

some of the -- you’re right, there are various statistics, but I think 

some of these statistics were cherry-picked. 

But let me talk about actual numbers that came from the same 

study that you quoted. Only 39 percent of employers with 50 or 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

89 

more employees allow employees at least five days to care for a 

mildly-ill child. Only 6 percent of the total population of employers 

with 50 or more employees offer full pay during maternity leave. 

Thirty-nine percent offer partial pay. Eleven percent say it depends 

on the situation. Forty-two percent offer no pay at all. Fifteen percent of spouse, partners receive any time -- they don’t receive any 

time paid off -- paid time off following the birth of their child. Less 

than half the workforce, 47 percent, allow all or most employees to 

take time off during the workday to attend an important family or 

personal needs without the loss of pay. Full 25 percent of companies do not comply with FMLA requirements for unpaid leave. This 

is DOL research. 

Just one more -- this is outrageous that we do not understand 

the lives that families are leading today. And I just -- 

I will ask a question of Ms. Birckmeier -- Brickmeier, I apologize 

-- with regard to IBM, you have a generous package. You do have 

a generous package. I applaud you for all of that. Why, then, you 

exceed these baselines? Why wouldn’t -- why wouldn’t it -- why 

won’t you not embrace national paid sick days law or a national 

paid family and medical leave fund? 

In essence, what this piece of legislation does, if you take a hard 

look at it, it is voluntary. There is minimum amount of compensation. Employers decide whether or not the employee can go. There 

are six arrangements. If you don’t fit into this little box, then 

you’re on your own. There is no compliance with state and local -- 

and there may or may not be overtime pay. It’s ludicrous what’s 

been described as overtime pay. 

Why, Ms. Brickmeier, would you not embrace national paid sick 

days? As my colleague from New Hampshire pointed out, we’re 

looking at several states, some localities. The structure of these is 

all the same. All the same. It is not the kind of patchwork that 

some would like to say it is. 

Chairman WALBERG. Five seconds left. 

Ms. DELAURO. In my view, it would allow people to walk around 

State and local laws that we have today, and maybe that’s what 

people want. 

Chairman WALBERG. The time is expired, but briefly respond to 

that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Ms. Brickmeier? 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BRICKMEIER. Okay. So I can’t comment specifically on the 

bill that you’re representing, but I would take issue with the fact 

that the local, state mandates are the same, because they’re not. 

And as I said, what I’m really here to advocate for is a federal preemption for those companies who are multijurisdiction, who decide 

to opt out and have something at the federal level for all of their 

employees, as opposed to having to comply with the patchwork of 

bills that -- or mandates that could be very significantly different 

and are amended. 

Ms. DELAURO. A national policy would not be a patchwork. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you for the question and the response. The time has expired. 

And before I offer the ranking member closing comments, I have 

a letter in support of H.R. 4219 from the Progressive Policy InstiCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

90 

tute that I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record, without 

objection. 

Hearing none, the letter is inserted. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 27662.068

December 5, 2017 

Attn: House Education and Workforce Committee 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Re: PPI Letter of Support for H.R. 4219, the Workflex in the 21st Century Act 

To Members of the Subcommittee: 

To balance the demands of work, family, and the curveballs life throws at us, the Progressive 

Policy Institute (PPI) has long supported flexible work arrangements for workers, including paid 

parental, family, and medical leave, flex-time and telecommuting. Not only do such 

arrangements help workers balance work and family, they are also good for companies. Today's 

knowledge economy puts a premium on flexible and collaborative workplaces in which workers 

and employers work together to innovate, boost productivity, respond to rapid market shifts 

and keep themselves on the leading edge of global competitiveness. 

The policy questions we face are these: What's the best way to balance the needs of employers 

and workers and maximize their joint ability to innovate and compete? How should lawmakers 

construct paid leave and workplace flexibility policies that foster a common commitment to 

company success? 

PPI believes H.R. 4219, the Workflex in the 21st Century Act, strikes this balance in very creative 

ways. The legislation grants both part-time and full-time employees the paid leave and workflex 

benefits they need, like compressed and predictable work scheduling and telework, while 

providing employers with the flexibility they need to administer these benefits. 

For employers looking to attract a talented workforce, the legislation creates a voluntary 

program of compensable leave based on employment size and the amount of time an 

employee has spent with the company. Under this voluntary approach, employers would be 

obliged not only to provide generous leave but also to offer their employees more flexible work 

arrangements. In return, companies could avoid rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates that make lt 

difficult to create the nimble, responsive workplaces today's economy demands. 
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 27662.069

This proposal would not relieve any company of the responsibility to offer paid leave; 

companies that don't opt-in would continue to be subject to state mandates. What's more, this 

legislation provides greater guaranteed paid leave than is provided under any current state law 

and more than nearly all local laws, while also incorporating workflex options and important 

worker protections. 

In contrast to this balanced and collaborative approach, top down mandates alone are unduly 

rigid and fraught with potential for labor-management conflict. And, as a practical matter, this 

does not seem like an auspicious time politically for passing a federal paid leave mandate. Even 

if that were not the case, however, PPI would still favor the collaborative approach proposed by 

the Workflex in the 21st Century Act. It would yield economic and societal benefits for both 

employers and workers, creating a "win-win" solution that merits the support of pro-growth 

progressives. 

Sincerely, 

Will Marshall 

President 

Progressive Policy Institute 
93 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Sablan, your closing comments. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would really like to thank the witnesses for taking time 

to discuss this important subject with us today. 

I’m reminded of two things, if I may. One, the district I represent, the law -- the law of the government, minimum wage is at 

$3.05 an hour today. And the federal government -- Congress 

stepped in and raised the minimum wage in incremental steps. 

And next year, it would be at $7.25 an hour. But the government, 

the law there still is at $3.05. It shows absolutely no desire to increase it. And they paid a very famous lobbyist millions and millions of dollars to fight the Federal Government from implementing 

increasing minimum wage for workers. 

Another thing I would like to -- as I remember my dad who 

worked, and when he retired he had over 2,000 hours of sick leave, 

and he gets, I think, 13 hours a year -- I mean 13 days a year, and 

he had over a year of sick leave, because he doesn’t get sick and 

so he doesn’t call off. 

But anyway, workers don’t need another false promise. They 

should not have to choose between caring for themselves or a loved 

one and earning a paycheck. We have heard today about innovative 

solutions to this issue that’s being developed at the state and local 

level. But Congress must act to guarantee minimum workplace protections for all working people, while not preempting State and 

local government. 

Mr. Chair, I would like to submit to the record three letters: One 

from over 100 groups opposing H.R. 4219, the Workflex in the 21st 

Century Act; another letter urging Congress to pass the Healthy 

Families Act; and a third letter is from momsrising.org. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection. And hearing none, they 

will be entered. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 27662.042

December 5, 2017 

Dear Members of Congress: 

The undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 4219, misleadingly named the 

"Workflex in the 21'' Century Act." This misguided, complicated and confusing proposal 

would eviscerate state and local progress for working families, erode existing legal 

protections, threaten local democracy and jeopardize public health. It would allow large 

corporations to evade state and local laws, creating. a giant loophole that would mean 

uncertainty for workers and an uneven playing field for smaller companies. 

I. H.R. 4219 would undermine state and local progress and preempt the effectiveness 

of state and local innovation - undermining democracy and local control. 

Forty locations in the United States, including eight states, have or will soon have paid 

sick days laws in place. Largely as a result of these laws, more than 13 million working 

people have gained new access to paid sick days, dramatically improving private sector 

access with especially large gains for lower·wage workers.' H.R. 4219 may take away paid 

sick days guarantees for these 13 million people and impede progress in other locations. 

Nationally, nearly one-third of the private sector workforce- at least 37 million workersdo not currently have the right to earn paid sick days.' 

H.R. 4219 would stall or reverse state and local progress on paid sick days and fair work 

schedules. A growing body of research shows that paid sick days laws support working 

families' economic security, 1 individuals' ability to access health carc4 and tho public's 

health5 Fair scheduling laws do the same, by granting working people the predictability 

and input into their work schedules that they need to go to medical appointments, arrange 

child care, advance their education, and care for their families. Paid sick days and fair 

scheduling standards co-exist with- and often boost economic and business growth.' 

H.R. 4219 is an attack on democracy, local governance and innovation. Neither state 

governments nor the federal government should undermine the ability of voters or their 

elected representatives to pass public health and safety laws, including laws that establish 

workplace protections. States and localities have a long history of serving as laboratories, 

spearheading public policies that lead to national standards. H.R. 4219 would thwart such 

state and local innovation and undo local election outcomes. 

II. H.R. 4219 would create uncertainty, unpredictability and inequities for working 

families. 

H.R. 4219 is not a "paid leave" law, as its proponents claim. Real paid sick time laws 

provide predictability and a guarantee of dedicated time, ensuring that workers can use the 

paid sick time they earn to care for themselves and their loved ones when short-term 

illnesses or preventive care needs arise. H.R. 4219 would give corporations the unilateral 

option to deny workers the ability to use their time, thus eliminating these guarantees. The 

paid time off requirements in the bill that proponents claim are "generous" are no more 

than and in many cases less than- what companies are offering nowl Once employers 
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 27662.043

subtract up to six federal holidays from those minimum requirements, as H.R. 4219 allows, 

employees would be left with as few as six guaranteed paid days off for illness, vacation and 

personal time. This is nowhere near the time needed for paid family and medical leaveextended time to care for a new child or a serious personal or family illness. 

H.R. 4219 would eliminate the certainty and flexibility that real paid sick time and fair 

scheduling laws provide. H. R. 4219 would deny protections that ensure people have a voice 

in their work schedules and enough notice of work hours to plan the rest of their lives. It 

would rob employees of their rights under state and local laws to earn paid sick days and 

use them as needed- and it would give their employers the power to decide when, whether, 

for what reason and at what cost employees can use paid time off. Tellingly, according to 

survey data from the Society and Human Hesource Management's (SHRM's) affiliate, the 

Families and Worh Institute, "38 percent of employers report that supervisors consider 

employees' reasons for requesting paid time off when deciding whether they will be allowed 

to take the requested time off. So, in over a third of workplaces, employees' ability to use 

their paid time off is affected by hou• or for whom they plan to use it."' (Emphasis in original) 

Right now, many employers do not allow employees to use their sick time to care for a sick 

family member or to get a physical. H.R. 4219 would allow those practices to continue. 

By eliminating important guarantees, H.R. 4219 would disproportionately harm women 

and families. Many paid sick days laws guarantee workers the right to earn paid "safe" 

time to deal with the aftermath of domestic or sexual violence. Many also include 

definitions of family that reflect the diversity of family structures in our country. Fair 

workweek laws recognize that working people need advance noticE> of their work schedules, 

and that people have the right to compensation when employers change schedules at the 

last minute. These laws set common sense baseline standards that benefit workers and 

their families, public health and the economy. H.R. 4219 would eliminate these guarantees 

at employers' discretion. 

H.R. 4219 would eliminate non-retaliation protections for workers who need to take sick 

time or request work schedules that work for their lives. Paid sick time laws provide 

guarantees that workers will not face adverse consequences at their jobs for taking paid 

sick time. This is important because, in the private sector, as of 2011, half (49 percent) of 

employees reported being subject to an employer's disciplinary absence control policies. 9 

Many fair scheduling laws similarly protect working people from retaliation for requesting 

particular work schedules. H.R. 4219 would eliminate protections against this type of 

retaliation and do nothing to stop employers from disciplining workers who have 

unpredictable illness-related absences or need to modify their work schedules to 

accommodate caregiving responsibilities, a second job or other important obligations. 

Ill. large companies should not be able to write their own rules. 

Employers can and should comply with state and local laws. State and local paid sick days 

and fair scheduling laws are structured similarly to one another and largely have the same 

key components. Multi-city and multi-state employers are already accustomed to complying 

with differing state and local laws in various areas, including zoning, wage and hour, 

business licenses and taxes, and keeping paperwork for local authorities. The answer for 
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 27662.044

corporations seeking to simplify compliance is to create company-wide policies that match 

the strongest standards in effect, not to undermine those standards altogether. 

H.R. 4219 would disadvantage small businesses. This is a proposal written at the behest of 

and for the benefit of large corporations, allowing them to buy their way out of compliance 

with state and local laws. It would hurt the communities and customers that small 

businesses serve and give larger businesses further advantages in the marketplace. 

We urge you to reject H.R. 4219. Working families do need paid time to care for themselves 

and their loved ones and flexibility in their jobs, but this unworkable, unfair and 

inequitable proposal would not guarantee either one. Better solutions, such as a real 

national paid sick days guarantee and real fair scheduling proposals, exist. True champions 

of working people across the country will not be fooled by the H.R. 4219 sham. 

Sincerely, 

9to5, National Association of Working Women 

A Better Balance 

AFL-CIO 

American Association of University Women (AAUW) 

American Civil Liberties Union 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 

American Federation of Teachers 

Autistic Self Advocacy Network 

BreastfeedLA 

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence 

Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLI\SP) 

Center for Popular Democracy 

Center for WorkLife Law 

Coalition of Labor Union Women 

Coalition on Human Needs 

Communications Workers of America (CWA) 

Community Service Society of New York 

Daily Kos 

Demos 

Economic Opportunity Institute 

Economic Policy Institute Policy Center 

The Epilepsy Foundation 

Equal Justice Center 

Equal Rights Advocates 

Faith in Public Life 

Family Values@ Work 

Farmworker Association of Florida 

Food Chain Workers Alliance 

Futures Without Violence 

Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition 

Human Rights Campaign 
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 27662.045

Innovation Ohio 

Interfaith Worker ,Justice 

,Jewish Women International 

Jobs With Justice 

Labor Project for Working Families 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

Legal Aid At Work 

Main Street Alliance 

Maine Women's Lobby 

Make it Work 

Mi Familia Vota 

Minnesota NOW 

Moms Rising 

Movement Advancement Project 

NAACP 

National Alliance for Caregiving 

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) 

National Association of Social Workers 

National Center for Transgender Equality 

National Council of ,Jewish Women 

National Council of Jewish Women- California 

National Employment Law Project 

National Employment Lawyers Association 

National Institute for Reproductive Health 

National Network to End Domestic Violence 

National Organization for Women 

National Partnership for Women & Families 

National Physicians Alliance 

National Physicians Alliance- New York Chapter 

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 

National Treasury Employees Union 

National Women's Law Center 

NEAT- the National Equality Action Team 

New Jersey Policy Perspective 

New Jersey Time to Care Coalition 

New Ventures Maine 

New York Paid Leave Coalition 

Ohio Domestic Violence Network 

Organize Florida 

People For the American Way 

People's Action 

Public Justice Center 

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law 

SEIU :l2B,J 

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 

South Florida AFL-CIO 

South Florida Interfaith Worker Justice 

Ultra Violet 
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 27662.046

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation 

United Auto Workers (UAW) 

URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity 

Women Employed 

Women's Law Project 

Working Families Party 

l:\NCA San Francisco & Marin 

YWCA USA 

1 National Partnership for Women & Famllie>. (2017, November) Paid Sick Days- State, Dtstnct and County Statutes Retneved 1 D<>cemb<'r 2017, from 

http·ffwww.natior.aipartnership org/resean:h-hbrary/work·famdy/psd/pa!d-siCk-day~-statu:E~s pdf 

2 US Bureau of Labo1 Stat1stks (2017, July ,11) National Compensation Survey Fmployee Bene{as m the United Slate>. March 2017(Tdb!e 6) Retrieved 1 December 2017, from 

https i jwww bls gov;news release/pdf/ebs2 pdf 

3 Gould, [, & s,h1ede1. J (2017, Jum.• 23) Work sick or lose pay? The h1'gh cost of bring sick when you don't get paid siCk day> EconomJC Poky !n~t1tute P1Jbhcat1on Retneved 1 

Dt>cember 2017, from http //www.epi orq/pubhcationjwork sick~or~!ose-pay·the·high cost·ol·bemg-~Kk-whcn-yov-dont-get-pald-sick-days/. Sm1th. f W., & Kun, J. (2010, June) 

Pmd Sick Days. AtttWdes and Expenences. Nat1onal Op1mon Research (el)ter at the Unrvers1ty of (hfcago lor l"e Publ:c Welfare roundat101l PublicatiOn Rf'trlf'Ved l Dec€'rnb€r, 

from http //www nat>onalpartner>hip org/research-library/wolk-family/p'>d/paid-siCk-days-attltudes·and·experiences pdf 

4 OeR1gne. L. Stodda•d·Dare>, P .. & Oumn, l (2016, March). WorkNs Wrthout Pmd Srck Le<Jve le~s l;kely to Take lime Off For Illness orii1J\lryCompared to Thoww1th Pa•d Sick 

leavt> Hf'olt/1 A{{mrs, i5(~) Retrtf'VE'd 1 December, 11om https//www healthailansorg/doi/abs/10.1377/hllhalf 2015 0965 Mtller, K, W1lltams, C & Y1. Y (2011. October 31) Pmd 

s,ck Days and Health Cost Sal'!ng5 from Reduwd [magency Department Vi11ts lnst1tute for Women's Pohcy Rt>search PubiECJtio" Retneved 1 Decemb<:>r 2017, trom 

https.//lwpr org/public~tions/patd·s!Ck-days-and-health-cost-savings-f!om-reduced-emergency-departmf'l]\-vlslts/ 

5 Asfaw, A., et al (2012, September) P~1d SICk lPave a,.,d Nonfatal Occupattona! lnJ"r,es. Amencan Journal of P11bl1c Health. 102(9), e)9-e64 Retneved 1 December 2017, from 

http//a;ph aphapubl,catromolg/dol/abs/102105/AJPH 2011300482, Otago, R et al (2010, !anuary 31) $((k al Worr Infected [mpioyel'l •ll the Workp!a,eDurmg theHINI 

Pandemic Institute lorWomen'1 Pohcy Research Publication R<'trieved 1 OecembH 2017, from http//wwwEWprorq/pubhcat:ons/pubs/sick at,work-mlectt?d-employees-m-theworkolac-c--du'>ng-the-h1n1-oandemic 

6 National Partnersh•p for Women & Fam1!1es (2017, Janua'Y) Pmd S~ek Days· Low Co5t, Htgh Reward for WorkPn, Employers and Commumt1e5 Ret••eved 1 DecPmher 2017. f10m 

http / /www ,natmnalpartnersh1 p o rq/re~('arch -library /work -family /psd/pard -s,ck days-low-cost -M •gh-reward pdf 

7 50(Iety !m Hum<m Rf'~ourre Manilgt>ment f2017) SHRM C:~;lamued Po.d Leave Bemhmar!nng Report Sooety for Human Resourc(" Management Pubhcatron Re!neved 1 

DHember 2017, flom https //www shr 'll orq/H:'sourcesm1dtools/buslness-sol<rtions/docum;-nts/paid-1Nve-report-a!!-lndu~tne>-d.ll fte<; pdf 

8 Matos. K., Gallf\k>y, [, & Bond, ! T (2017) Natronol Study of Employers Socwty {or Humon Resource Management, Fam1he~ and Wc•rk lnst1tute- and Wheo Work Wo1ks 

Pubhcat1on Retneved 1 Decembe1 2017, from http.//whenworkworbo•g/down!oadsi2016,Natlonai,Study·of Employe1Spdf 

9 Mill<>•, K. Drago, R, & WilhJms, C. (2:011). Paid S1r.k Days and Employer Petla/11e> {or Absence Institute for Women's Policy Research PublicaLon. Retneved l Detember2017, 

from h1tps //1wpr org/pubhcatrom/pa.d-slck-days-and-employe-r-pendltles·!or·absence/ 
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 27662.047

December 5, 2017 

Dear Members of Congress: 

We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to support the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 

1516/S. 636), which would create a national paid sick and safe days standard. 

The Healthy Families Act would guarantee working people the ability to earn up to seven 

paid sick days a year to recover from short-term illnesses, access preventive care, care for 

a sick family member or seek assistance related to domestic violence, sexual assault or 

stalking. \Vithout 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, jeopardize their 

health and spread illness to their co·workers and communities. Paid sick and safe days help 

keep families financially secure, workplaces and communities healthy and productive, and 

businesses and the economy strong. 

Forty locations in the United States, including eight states, have or will soon have paid 

sick days laws in place. These laws have helped to dramatically expand paid sick days 

coverage to more than 13 million workers who did not previously have paid sick time. A 

strong, growing body of evidence from jurisdictions that have had laws in place for years 

shows that paid sick days benefit workers and families. These studies also show virtually 

no adverse effects and some positive effects on businesses and local economies' 

Despite substantial increases in access to paid sick days as a result of new laws, 

approximately one-third of the private sector workforce in the United States- at least 37 

million people- cannot earn paid sick days to use when they get sick. 2 Millions more 

cannot earn time to care for a sick child or family member' Lower-wage workers, workers of 

color and hourly workers are least likely to have access to paid sick time.4 

Unpaid, unprotected days off have stark consequences for working families. For a family 

without paid sick days, just 3.3 days of lost pay due to illness are equivalent to an entire 

month of health care, on average, and 4.5 days are equivalent t.o an entire month of food. 5 

Nearly one-quarter of U.S. adults (23 percent) report they have lost a job or have been 

threatened with job loss for taking time off work due to illness or to care for a sick child or 

relative 6 

Paid sick days make business and economic sense. When sick workers are able to stay 

home, the spread of disease slows and workplaces are both healthier and more productive. 

Paid sick days also reduce "presenteeism," the productivity lost when employees work sick, 

which is estimated to cost our national economy approximately $160 billion annually 

($219.8 billion after adjusting for inflation) and surpasses the cost of absenteeism.7 Paid 

sick days also reduce workplace injuries: 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-' 

Grave public health consequences can result when workers do not have paid sick days. 

Workers in jobs that require frequent contact with the public, including those in food 
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 27662.048

preparation and service, personal home care and child care, are among the least likely to 

have paid sick days and the most likely to be unable to afford to take an unpaid day away 

from work.' Without paid sick days, workers are forced to take unpaid leave or work sick. 

Workers without paid sick days are more likely to report going to work with a contagious 

illness like the flu. 10 This puts workers, customers and businesses in danger. 

Ensuring all workers can earn paid sick days would significantly reduce health care 

expenditures. People 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. 11 If all workers had paid sick days, 1.8 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. 12 Workers with paid sick 

days are more likely to get regular cancer screenings and preventive care, 13 holding down 

health care costs and improving long-term health. 

Paid sick days enable working parents to care for their children when they are sickshortening recovery time and reducing community contagion. Unfortunately, more than 

half of working parents are unable to earn at least five paid sick days to use to care for a 

sick child. 14 Parents without paid sick days are nearly twice as likely as parents with paid 

sick days to send a sick child to school or day care. 15 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, school staff and child care providers. 

Women are disproportionately affected by the nation's lack of paid sick days, which 

jeopardizes the economic stability of families increasingly dependent on women's wages. 

Women make up nearly half the workforce" and nearly two-thirds of U.S. mothers are 

breadwinners or co-breadwinners for their families." Yet, overwhelmingly, mothers still 

have primary responsibility for selecting their children's doctors, accompanying children to 

appointments and getting them recommended care-" Moreover, nearly four in 10 employed 

mothers (89 percent) say they alone must miss work when a sick child needs to stay home, 

compared to 3 percent of working fathers. Among these mothers, 60 percent are not paid 

when they take that time, up significantly from 45 percent in 2004. 19 

like paid sick days, paid "safe" days are critical for workers' productivity, security and 

well-being. Ninety-six percent of employed survivors of domestic violence say they 

experience problems at work related to the violencc. 20 And one-quarter to one-half of 

domestic violence survivors report losing a job in part due to the violence." Because 

survivors of domestic violence are at increased risk of harm during and shortly after 

separating from an abusive partner," it is essential that they be able to find shelter, file 

restraining orders, attend court dates or receive counseling to prevent further abuse and 

continue working. 

The Healthy Families Act would strengthen workers and families, businesses and the 

economy. It would guarantee workers across the country the right to earn paid sick and safe 

days no matter where they live, bringing the rest of the United States in line with the states 

and cities that have passed these laws and much of the rest of the world. 

2 
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 27662.049

We urge you to demonstrate your strong commitment to our nation's working families by 

supporting the Healthy Families Act. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

9to5, National Association of Working Women 

A Better Balance 

AFL-CIO 

American Association of University Women (AAUW) 

American Civil Liberties Union 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 

American Federation of Teachers 

The Arc of the United States 

Autistic Self Advocacy Network 

BreastfeedLA 

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence 

Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 

Center for Popular Democracy 

Center for Public Policy Priorities 

Center for WorkLife Law 

Coalition for Social .Justice 

Coalition of Labor Union Women 

Coalition on Human Needs 

Communications Workers of America (CWA) 

Community Service Society of New York 

Daily Kos 

Demos 

Economic Opportunity Institute 

The Epilepsy Foundation 

Equal Justice Center 

Equal Rights Advocates 

Faith in Public Life 

Family Values@ vVork 

Farm worker Association of Florida 

First Focus Campaign for Children 

Florida Institute on Research and Education (FIRE) 

Food Chain Workers Alliance 

Futures Without Violence 

Human Rights Campaign 

Innovation Ohio 

Interfaith Worker Justice 

Jobs With Justice 

Labor Project for Working Families 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

Legal Aid At Work 

Main Street Alliance 

Maine Women's Lobby 
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 27662.050

Make it Work 

Mi Familia Vota 

Minnesota NOW 

Moms Rising 

Mothering Justice 

Movement Advancement Project 

NAACP 

National Alliance for Caregiving 

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence 

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) 

National Association of Social Workers 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

National Center for Transgender Equality 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Employment Law Project 

National Employment Lawyers Association 

National Institute for Reproductive Health 

National Network to End Domestic Violence 

National Organization for Women 

National Partnership for Women & Families 

National Physicians Alliance 

National Physicians Alliance- New York Chapter 

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 

National Women's Law Center 

NEAT- the National Equality Action Team 

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice 

New ,Jersey Policy Perspective 

New ,Jersey Time to Care Coalition 

New York Child Care Coalition 

New York Paid Leave Coalition 

Ohio Domestic Violence Network 

PathWays PA 

Pennsylvania Council of Churches 

People For the American Way 

People's Action 

Public Justice Center 

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law 

SEHJ :32B,J 

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 

South Florida Interfaith Worker Justice 

SWPA National Organization for Women 

U.S. Breastfeeding Committee 

Ultra Violet 

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation 

United Auto Workers (UAW) 

URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity 

Women Employed 

Women's Law Project 

Working Families Party 

4 
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 27662.051

Young Invincibles 

YWCA USA 

1 Natrona! Partr.ershrp for Women & Farnilres (2017, January) Pord Srck Days· Low Cost iflgh Reward for Workers. Fmployers and CoiJJrrJUIHiws Retneved 30 November 2011 

from http //www nat:onalpartner shrp orq/resear(h· library /work -farmJy;psd/pi!!d-5rrk-days-1 ow-<o~t h' gh- rE'w<l rd pdf 

2 Us. 8Uie.ou of Labm Statr~trr:s. (2017. July 21) Notwnal Campematron Survey. Employee Benef,ts m the Umted Stales, March 2077 {Table 61 Rettrt>ved 30 November 2017, from 

https I Jwww bls gov/new~ release/pdf/ebs2 pdf 

4 X1a. J .. I-t <lyE's, J, Gcu!t, B. & Nguyen, H (1016, februa!)' 17) Pmd Sd· Days A<C<'I.I and Usage Rates Vary by R<Ke/fthl'rnty, Or:cupatwn, and Eomingr !nstrtute forWom<>n's 

PoliCy Resea1ch publrcatwn Ketm:ved 30 Nov<>mbPr 2017, from httpsJilwpr org/wp,cortent/l1ploads/wpa!lrr•1port/fl!es/1Wpr·export/publicJtrons/835\i pdf 

<;Gould, E., & Schreder, J (20'7 June 28) Work srck or lose pay! The hrgh cost of berng srck when you don't qet pwd wk day~ Economic Policy lnst1tu:e pubilcatron. Retrieved 30 

NoverPber ?017, !rom http j 1wwwep• org/publication/wor~-srcK· or lose-pay-tfle hrgf\-WSt-of-bell"~g·s•ck-when-you dont-get-p<~id-s:ck-days/ 

6 Sm1th. TW, & Krm, J. (.?010, June) !'(lld Srck Days Attrtude> ond Expf'rtl!!l(€~. National Op1r11011 Rf'Se;:Jrch Center at the Un-vers1ty of ChKago for the Public Welfare 1-oundatron 

publiG!tron Ret'leved 4 Septen•be• 2017. from http //www natronalpartnerslup org/research-libl ary/work-farnlly/psd/p-'lid-s<ck-day~-att•ludes-and-experiences pdf 

7 Stewart, W .. eta! (2003, December) Lost ProductiVe Health T1me Costs from Health ConditiOns in the United StatPs Results from the AmerKan Productivity Aud1t Journal of 

Ocwparwnal and [nv:ronmentol Medicine, 4) RetllfNed 30 November, from http-//www nat!Onalpartnership erg/research library/work-lamdy/psd/losl-product;ve work timeamencan-productiVIty-audil pdf (UnpublishE'd cakuldtlon bdseU on $2?5 8 billton annually 111 lost productivity, 71 perc!."nt due to presentee1sm) Inflation calculation for ?017 

dollars based or cakuliltlon of $160 32 billion m 2002 dollars usmg US lnflat.on Caku!ator ;:wadable at httpj/www usmflat1oncakulatorwm 

8 Asfaw, A, et ~l. (2012. September) Pa:d SKk Leave emd Nonfat<:~l Ott\lpiltlonal h1JUIW5 AmerifanJoumalofPubiK Heolth, 10?[9), e~q-e64 Rl"tneved 30 Novembe! 2017, from 

http'//ajph aphapublica11on~ org/dOI/ab~/10 210~/AJPH ?O; 1 300482 

9Seenote4 

10 See note6 

11!b•d 

12 t..1!11er, K, Wi!haP1S, C. & Y•, V (.lOll, October 31) Paid Sick Da)'S and Health· Cost SaYmgsfror>J Fleduo'!d fnwrgenr:yDepartment ViS1t1 lnst,tute fa• Women's PelKy Research 

publtc~tior Ret'ieved 30 t\:ovember 2017, from ~ttp//www iwpr Olg/public<!tlons/pubs/paid·s~e~·days-ar1d hE'a1th co<;t >ilVIngs·from !educed-emergenry-department·VISits/ 

13 Petprns. l A, Soman, A Berkowitz, Z, & Whrte. MC (l012. July 12). The Ia(\: ol pmd SICk leave a~ a bankr to cancer sneemng and med1cal care-seekrng resolts from the 

l\iat1onal Health !nterv1ew Survey BMC Publ<c Heatrh 12{520) Retneved 30 NowmbN2017, from httpj/wwwbiomf'dcentr~lmm/wntPnVpd!/1471-?4S8-12·520 pdl 

14 Sm1th. K. & Sthileter. A (2012, !\me) Who Care\ for the '>Kk K<d>JParr>nts'Access taPa1d Tane ta (are {oraS1ck (hi/d. Ca·~ey lmMute at the UnlVNSityof New Hampshi1e 

pubhcat1o'1 Retr1eved 30 November 2017, frorl"l http~'//tarseyunh ecu;publicat•On/who·e<neS-siC~·k,ds-parenh'-access,paid time Cilre·Sitk·Child 

1 ~) See note 6 

16 U.S Bliteau of Labor StatistiCS (2017. t\ovembet 3) Table A 1 Employment .1tatu1 of the ciHiwn popu/q/wn by 1ex and age Retrieved .lO Novewber 2017, from 

tlt!p'> //www.bh gov/n<.'ws rplease/NllpSil 101 htm 

17 Gly•m. S J (?016. Der:Fmber) Bri'adwrnmng Mofhrr> Are lnmxmngly the US Norm Center for Anwncan Progress publirat10n. Retneved 30 November2017, from 

https //Www amer.caPprogress O!g/!ssues/women/reports/2016/12/19n95203/btE'.,dwinl11!19 -nwth€1'> are l!l(rt'a'>ingly--tlle-li-S-110im/ 

18 RanJI, U, & Salgamco!f. A (2014, October) Balai'Cmg on Shaky Cimund Women. Work, and Family Heo!t!J K<~i>er Family Foundation pobtic,ltiOn R\"tneved 30 November 2017, 

from http //f1les ~If org/attachment}balancmg-on-shaky-g<ound-womeP-VIOrk-<lnd-lamily·hcalth-dat<l note 

19lbid 

20 R;dley. E, et .>1 (?005, Odobel) Dcmest1c Vwlence Survivor> at Work How Petpetmtop; Impact Employment. Mainf' Department of labor and Family Crisis ServiCes publication 

Retrieved 30 Novcmbe1 2017. f1om hlt!)//www maine gov/lilbor;labor_stats/publi~J.t!OnS/dvicpoJts/survlvo:~tudy pcif 

Z1 US Ge~'eral Accounting Offrce, Health, Edocat!Ol', i!nd Human Serv,ces OIVI>ion {1998, Novt>mb<>r) Du1ne<.tu. V:oh:ntf' Prevalence ond impl1catwns for [mplcyment among 

Welfare Renp;ent~ (GAO/HfHS-99 12) Retneved on 4 September 2017, from http //www gdo gov/ar(hrve/1999/he99012 pd! 

22 Campbell, J C, Webslel, D. Kotiol-MclauJ. J et al (2003~. Rrsk fade•> for rern1c1de 1n Abu~rve RclatiOil~h•ps Results from a Multi~tte Case Control Study. Amenwn Journal of 

Puh/1c h'eo/th. 93, 1089·1097 Retr:eved 30 November 2017, from http//Jjph apl'apl,bhcations org/dot/pdf/10 2105/AJPH 'H 7 1089 

5 
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 27662.052

December 5, 2017 

The Honorable Virginia Foxx, Chair 

House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

2176 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Bobby Scott, Ranking Member 

House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

2176 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Tim Walberg, Subcommittee Chairman 

House Education & Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

2176 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Subcommittee Ranking Member 

House Education & Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

2176 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Committee Chair Foxx, Subcommittee Chairman Walberg, Committee Ranking 

Member Scott, Subcommittee Ranking Member Sablan, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

On behalf of MomsRising and our one million members nationwide, I submit this 

letter for the record in connection with the December 6th hearing on 'Workplace 

Leave Policies: Opportunities and Challenges for Employers and Working Families," 

being heard by the Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions. 

MomsRising strongly opposes H.R. 4219, misleadingly named the "Workflex in 

the 21st Century Act." This proposal would set a dangerous precedent by 

undermining the democratic process through which voters, as well and state and 

local governments, passed meaningful paid sick days laws in forty locations, 

including eight states. 

H.R. 4219 would enable employers to evade state and local paid sick days laws, in 

exchange for offering non-guaranteed time off, which will in turn threaten the 

security of paid sick time that more than 13 million people have gained access to 

thanks to the innovation and leadership of local governance. It would give 

corporations the power to decide when, whether, for what reason and at what cost 

employees can use paid time off. 

Proponents of H.R. 4219 wrongly claim that it is a "paid leave" proposal, but it is in 

fact merely an attempt by corporate interests to preempt state and local laws that 

MomsRising.org • MamasConPoder.org 
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 27662.053

boost working families. The bill allows employers to subtract up to six federal 

holidays from the minimum PTO requirements it outlines, leaving workers with as 

few as six paid days off for illness, vacation and personal time. Six days is nowhere 

near enough time for paid family and medical leave- paid time off to welcome a 

new child or care for a seriously ill family member. 

We urge you to reject H.R. 4219 and instead, support The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 

1516) and The FAMILY Act (H.R. 947)- legislation that would respectively offer 

meaningful and guaranteed access to paid sick days and paid family & medical leave. 

Sincerely, 

Kirstin Rowe-Finkbeiner 

Executive Director /CEO & Co-Founder 

MomsRising.org • MamasConPoder.org 

CC: Members, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

MomsRi • MamasConPoder 
106 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman. I urge this Committee to take up the policies that are based on the successes of the state and local level, like 

the Healthy Families Act, the Schedules That Work Act and the 

FAMILY Act; solutions that would actually help workers and their 

families succeed. 

And if I may, I urge -- I’m actually a little happy that we have 

-- we may actually have an ally in the White House that is supporting some kind of forward movement on family leave. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing, and 

thank you -- really, thank you very much for being here today. 

Chairman WALBERG. Well, I thank the gentleman. And you’re absolutely right. And I think that’s why these hearings are taking 

place. 

And, Ms. DeLauro, delighted to have you here today. If you could 

just get some passion about your legislation, it would go a long 

way. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here too. You’ve taken 

your time. You’ve prepared. It’s no easy answer, but, hey, it’s the 

best way to live in America. No easy answers. We have got the 

choices an opportunities that go on. 

And this is just another of our hearings, and I think it is because 

we have questions in this area and we have needs. The questions 

such as can employers be trusted to make good paid time off decisions for both themselves and their employees? Or can we develop 

productive paid time off legislation that fosters good relations between employees and employers, while not violating our constitutional federalism in regards to the state and local primacy? And 

that is an important question to consider. 

While no one local or state paid time-off policy may be a backbreaker for a national or a global business, we certainly ought to 

at least consider how we can keep from unnecessary 

encumberments that take away options and creativity and sensitivity to the flexibility of needs of human beings that are different 

and their situations that are different. 

In the end, the robust competition today that we see, I certainly 

see in my Seventh District of Michigan, competition for qualified 

employees is probably the strongest motivator for employers to put 

paid time off policies, as well as many other policies in play in 

order to compete for employees in this workforce. And so it’s good 

that we are now having these discussions in the marketplace, in 

the House, in the Senate, in the White House, as has been mentioned, truthfully, and both sides of the aisle. 

And I want to commit myself to continue this toward the best solution that we can find that meets the needs of growing economy, 

growing options for employees and employers, growing as best care 

as we can give in their ever-developing process in the marketplace. 

And certainly something that we wrestle with rightly so on the 

Education and Workforce Committee, because they go hand in 

hand, and we want to produce growth. 

So thank you for attention to this hearing today. We will look 

forward to the future. And with no other testimony or issues before 

the subcommittee at this time, it stands adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 27662.059

December 15, 2017 

The Honorable Tim Walberg, Chairman 

HUMAN 

RIGHTS 

c ,\ ! c 

The Honorable Gregorio Sablan, Ranking Member 

US House Education and Workforce Committee 

Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

2176 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: T~s_tif11_0f}'Lf()Lf1_e_a_rJng on_Wqrkplac(?_Lea\/e_P()Iicie.S.:.9.JlQQrtuniti<e_~_a_l}g <::h.a!l".rrggs fo_r 

E_mpJ<:JI'ers_and W<:>rkiQE_F_af11_ilie~ 

Dear Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members of the Committee: 

On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign's nearly 3 million members and supporters nationwide, I 

submit written testimony pursuant to the subcommittee's hearing on Workplace Leave Policies: 

Opportunities and Challenges for Working Families, held on December 6, 2017. As the nation's largest 

organization working to achieve equal rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer 

(LGBTQ) communities, HRC believes that LGBTQ people and all Americans should have access to health 

care, including time to meet their own health care needs and those of their families. Therefore, we urge 

the subcommittee to consider and pass the Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1516), a critical bill which would 

provide workers the opportunity to earn a minimum of seven paid sick days (56 hours) per year to care 

for themselves or their families. We oppose legislation which would undermine paid sick leave for 

workers, such as the misnamed Workflex in the 21'1 Century Act (H.R. 4219). 

The United States is the only industrialized nation that offers no paid medical leave for working families. 

This policy is unconscionable and misguided it subjects workers and their families to terrible 

consequences merely for being sick, including unemployment and bankruptcy; it undermines the health 

of workers and their families; it penalizes low income workers; and it disadvantages American 

businesses, all while having a negative impact our economy. In 2003, the American Productivity Audit 

found that 'presenteeism' -the practice of employees coming to work despite illness-costs $180 billion 

annually in lost productivity.' Studies published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine, Journal of Management Studies, and the Harvard Business Review show that presenteeism is 

a larger productivity drain than either absenteeism or short-term disability. These costs will continue to 

increase due to the aging population of the US. 

1 Stewart et at., Lost Productive Work Time Costs From Health Conditions in the United States: Results From the 

American Productivity Audit, 45 Journal ol Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1234 (Dec. 2003). 

Pagelof4 

1640 RHODE ISLArm AVE .. N.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 

IF 202-423-2861 I HRC@HRCORG 
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 27662.060

HUMAN 

RIGHTS 

The Bure;lU of Labor Statistics reports that about 40 million workers, nearly 40% of the country's 

private-sector workers, do not have paid sick leave2 Among private-sector workers earning wages in the 

lowest 25th percentile, only 29% are offered paid sick leave by their employers. Lack of paid sick leave 

c;:m have an especially negative impact on low-income workers, who may be less able to access 

alternatives and lack other employment options. Lack of paid sick leave also negatively affects public 

health, leading to the spread of infectious disease and presenting obstacles to preventive care. Workers 

without paid sick leave are likely to go to work sick, and without sick leave are unable to care for 

their children, forcing them to attend school while sick. 

As with other working Americans, paid sick leave is a critical issue for LGBTQ people and their families. 

Studies show that in America, nearly 4% or more than 12 million people identify as LGBTQ,' an 

estimated 3 million LGBTQ people have had a child, and as many as 6 million people have an LGBTQ 

parent. 5 LGBTQ individuals and couples form families through adoption, birth, and surrogacy. Like other 

working families, in the absence of paid leave makes it impossible for many LGBTQ people to take time 

to care for themselves and their children. 

The lack of paid sick leave has an even greater negative impact on LGBTQ people in poverty, and LGBTQ 

communities, particularly LGBTQ people of color, are more vulnerable to poverty than the general 

population-' Due to systemic discrimination in employment, education, and housing, transgender people 

are more likely to live in poverty or live paycheck to paycheck than compared to the general 

population" Without paid leave many transgender people are forced to forgo lifesaving gender 

affirming care and treatment. Similarly, many parents and spouses of transgender individuals seeking 

transition-related care are forced to choose between caring for their loved one and keeping their 

livelihoods. 

2 US Bureau of Labor Statist1cs. Employee benefits in the United States, March 2012, Table 6. Selected paid leave 

Lwnefits. Av<:~ilable at http://www .bls.gov/news.releasejebs2.nrO.htrn. 3 Gould E, Filion K, Green A, The Need for Paid Sick Days, EPI Briefing Paper #319 (June 29, 2011), available at 

http://www. ep i. o rg/fi les/tem p2 0 11/B riefi ngP ape r319-2. pdf. 4 Gates, GJ, How Many People Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Tronsgender?, The Williams Institute (Apr. 2011), 

avo if able at http:/ /wi/lio m sin stitute. law. ucla. ed ujwp-conten t/uploads/Ga tes -How-M a ny-People-LG 8 T -Apr2011.pdf. 

5 Gates GJ, LGBT Parenting in the United States, The Williams Institute (Feb. 2013), available at 

https :/ /wi IIi a msi nstit ute .law. uc I a. ed u/wp-cont en t/ uploa ds/LG BT -Parenting. pdf. 6 See Badgett ML, Durso LE, Schneebaum A, New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community, 

The Williams Institute (June 2013), available at https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBPove rty-Update-J u n-2 013. pdf. 7 See James SE, Herman JL, Keisling M, Mottet L, Anafi M, The Report of the 2015 U.S. Tronsgender Survey, National 

Center for Transgender Equality (2016), available at 

http:/ fwww. t ran seq ua I ity. o rg/ sites/ de fa u lt/fi I es/ docs/ u sts/USTS%20F u 11%2 OR eport%20-%2 OF I NAL%2 01.6.17 .pdf. 

Page 2 of 4 

1640 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 

IF 202-423-2861 I HRC::@HRC.ORG 
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 27662.061

HUlVfAN 

R l (; HTS 

\' ,\ \-j p,\ l c ~,, 

Moreover, gay and bisexual men and transgender women, particularly in communities of color, continue 

to be disproportionately impacted by the H!V epidemic 8 There is still no cure for the disease, and access 

to care is essential to ensure that individuals living with HIV/AIDS are able to live longer, healthier lives. 

Without paid leave, individuals living with HIV and their caregivers are often forced to navigate an 

incomplete safety net- choosing between receiving or giving critical care and a paycheck. 

For LGBTQ people, lack of paid sick leave is compounded by the pervasive discrimination they encounter 

in the provision of health care. According to an in-depth survey concerning health care discrimination 

against LGBTQ people and people living with HIV, more than half of all respondents reported that they 

have experienced at least one of the following types of discrimination in care: being refused needed 

care; health care professionals refusing to touch them or using excessive precautions; health care 

professionals using harsh or abusive language; being blamed for their health care status; or health care 

professionals being physically rough or abusive.' LGBTQ people of color and people with lower 

socioeconomic status experience even higher levels of discriminatory and substandard care. Many 

members of the LGBTQ community have a "high degree of anticipation and belief that they w[ill] face 

discriminatory care" which ultimately causes many people to not seek the essential care. For many 

transgender and gender-nonconforming people there is even greater likelihood of negative treatment 

from health care professionals. 10 Lack of paid sick leave adds another challenge to the already numerous 

barriers to health care services for LGBTQ people. 

Congress is best positioned to address these issues by creating a baseline of paid sick leave for the 

nation. Under the Healthy Families Act, paid sick time could be used by employees to care for 

themselves, or to care for a child, a parent, a spouse or "any other individual related by blood or affinity 

whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship." While the 

legislation does not explicitly name same-sex partners or spouses, this inclusive language makes leave 

available for the American family in all of its diverse forms, including those in the LGBTQ community. 

Paid sick leave will relieve workers from having to make harrowing decisions between caring for 

s U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, HIV.gov, U.S. Statistics. (Dec. 5, 2017), available at 

h tt ps ://www. h iv .gov /h iv~ba sics/overview/data-and-trends/stat i sties. 

'Lambda Legal, When Health Care Isn't Caring, Lambda Legal's Survey on Discrimination Against LGBT People and 

People Living with HIV (2010), available at 

http://www .Ia m bda I ega I .o rg/ sites/ d ef au It/files/pub I ica tions/ down loa ds/whci c -report_ when-health-care-isntcaring_l.pdf (explaining that "almost 56 percent of lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) respondents had at least one of 

these experiences; 70 percent of transgender and gender-nonconforming respondents had one or more of these 

experiences; and nearly 63 percent of respondents living with HIV experienced one or more of these types of 

discrimination in health care. !n almost every category, transgender and gender-nonconforming respondents 

reported higher levels of discrimination by health care providers."). 10 Grant JM, et aL, Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Trans gender Discrimination Survey, National 

LGBTQ Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality (2011), available at 

http:/ fwww. th etaskf o rc e .o rg/ down loads/reports/reports/ nt ds _ fu II. pdf. 

Page 3 of 4 

1640 RHODE ISLAND AVE. N.W .. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 

IF 202-423-2861 I HRC@HRC.ORG 
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 27662.062

C.\ :\!1'·\ I C :-; 

themselves or a loved one and losing necessary income, or even losing their job altogether. The bill 

would also benefit employers that suffer revenue losses due to lost productivity. 

While Congress has not yet acted to protect workers and their families, 8 states and at least 32 local 

jurisdictions have passed laws requiring employers to provide at least some paid sick leave. Although 

Congress can and should create a baseline level of paid sick leave for the country, it must not undermine 

these community-established workplace health laws with a mandated one-size-fits-all approach. We 

strongly oppose H.R. 4219, the so-called Workflex in the 21 ''Century Act. This ill-considered bill would 

allow businesses to invalidate these state and local paid sick time requirements, undermine federal and 

state overtime requirements, and do little, if anything, to provide workers and their families with 

meaningful paid sick leave. 

We thank the subcommittee for considering the critically important issue of paid sick leave in America. 

Paid sick leave is an essential component of health care- it makes our workplaces healthier and safer, it 

supports workers and their families, it benefits the economy, and it has even greater significance for 

vulnerable populations like LGBTQ people. As a society we must ensure that workers and their families 

can take time to receive health care and take care of each other without facing negative consequences 

such as unemployment or bankruptcy. We believe that, over time, more states and localities will 

understand this is the right thing to do and pass paid sick leave requirements. Congress can and should 

facilitate this process and support American workers and their families by passing the Healthy Families 

Act. 

Sincerely, 

David Stacy 

Government Affairs Director 

Human Rights Campaign 

Page 4 of 4 

1640 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 

IF 202-423-2861 I HRC@HR(; ORG 
111 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 27662.054

May3,20lil 

Angela Schader 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6100 

Vice President of!luman Resources 

Safety National 

1832 Schuetz Road 

St. Louis, MO 63146 

Dear Ms. Schaefer: 

ROBCIHC.'B{lBBY'SCOH.VlRG!N!A 

HankrngMom/Jer 

Thank you the December 6, 

Labor, and on "Workplace Leave 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Opportunities and Challenges for 

Employers and Working Families." 

Please find enclosed additional qucstlons submitted by a Committee mcmt•cr .following, the 

hearing. Please a written response no later than May 25, 2018, tor inclusion in official 

hearing record. should be sent to Olivia Voslow of the Committee staff. She can be 

contacted at (202) 

\Ve appreciate your continued contribt1tion to the work of the Committee. 

Sincerely~ 

Tim Walberg 

Chuinnan 

Subcommittee on llcalth, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Enclosure 
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 27662.055

Questions for the Record 

Hearing: "Wol'l;.place LcaVl' l'olicics: Opportunities and Challenges for Employns and 

\Voddng Families" 

December 6, 2017 

Ranking Member Scott (VA) 

Ms. Schaefer, below is an excerpt of your testimony fhnn the December 6th hearing regarding 

the SllRM-cndorscd bill Workf/ex in the 21st Cenlurv Act (ILR. 4219): 

"Mr. S<:otL Okay. Now, if there is a local law and, say, as 1 

understand it, you haw to have up to 249 50 to 249 employees, 

you have to have 15 days off, and that would include paid 

holidays. So if you have 9 vacation days and 6 holidays, do I 

understand this that you would not have to require any sick leave 

at all? 

!V!s. ,S_chaefj:J,. I don't have the answer to those specifics. 

Mr. ,"l~QJL lt appears that if there is no State law, you don't have to 

do anything. If there is a State law, you can have worse bcnei1ts 

and exempt yourself fl·om the better benefits on the local law. Is 

thcJT any employee, under 4219, who would actually be better off? 

Ms. ~chae1c.r, They would not receive less than what they arc 

already receiving. 

Mr. ,Scott. Excuse me? 

Ms. Q(;Q.agtieL The employees would not receive less than the 

leave they're--

Mr. Scott. No, no. That's the whole point of 

have a plan and the local law requires more gcnerons you 

would be exempted from the local law and you would be able to 

get away with worse bcndits. That's what the exemption means. 

Is that right? 

Ms. Sch<J(; l'eL That's not my understanding." 

a. In the first question (above), l outlined a scenario regarding the potential irnpact to 

employees involving an employer with 50 to 249 employee who adopts a qualified pbn 

under H.R. 4219. The bill states that for the plan to be "qualified", the employer would 

lwvc to provide a minimum of 15 "compensable leave" days for employees with 5 

years or more of service. The hill also allows employers to deduct Ji·om those 15 days, 

6 days of paid holidays, and the employer could provide the 9 remaining days as paid 

vacation days. The question above is whether the employer would have to provide 

paid sick days in addition. In response, you testified that you did not have the "answer 

to those specifics". With lhe benefit of time to review this question, is it your testimony 

that that beyond the 15 days provided in this scenario, employers in a qualified plan 

would not have to provide paid sick leave required by rr local law? 

b. With regards to the final question (above), you testified that it was not yonr 

"understanding" that if an employer ml()pls a qualified plan under I!.R. 4219 with the 

minimum required level of compensable leave, and the local law requires more 
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 27662.056

generous benefits, then the employer could provide worse benefits than the employees 

could receive pursuant to a local law. What in this legislation guarantees that workers 

would not result in getting worse benefits than provided under state or local laws? 

c. A Society t<n· Human Resource Management (SHRM) fact sheet on the Workjlex in rhe 

2t" Centwy Act (issued on Nov 2, 2017) states " ... under this legislation, this ER!SAcovcrcd plan would pre-empt state and local paid leave and world1cx laws." However, 

your testimony suggests that state and local laws would apply, and workers would not 

receive a lesser paid leave benefit than is provided under a state or loeallaw. Do you 

wish to modify your testimony to clarify that employees could receive a lesser paid 

leave benefit due lo the pre-emption provisions in H.R. 4219? 

2. If an employer maintains a workf1ex plan in a stale which enacted a paid family or medical 

leave insurance system (e.g. California, New Jersey and Rhode Island), would those benefits 

required by state law fall under the definition of "compensable leave" under the ILR. 4219? 

3. SHEM's web site states that H.R. 4219 is "based on concepts originally developed by 

SHRM." Please describe whether SHRM recommended levels of compensable leave in H.R. 

4219? Were the recommenclecllcvcls included in the text of the hill? lfnot, how did they 

differ fi·om what was included? 

4. Section 802(a)( I) of ll.R. 4219 contains a table which sets forth minimum leave requirements 

based on employer size and employee tenure. 

a. What was the basis t(Jr the periods of minimum leave set forth in this table? 

b. Was this based upon evidence that these allocations represent the appropriate duration 

of paid leave and sick days l(Jr the workers in the typical companies of these sizes? 

5. Under section 802(c) of H.R. 4219, the employer can" ... determine whether the usc of 

compensabk kuvc at the time requested by an employee would unduly disrupt the operations 

of the employer; and determine whether an employee may usc compensable leave in full-day 

or partial-clay increments." Under these provisions, does an employer have the ultimate 

discretion to determine when an employee can take the compensable leave offered? Does the 

employee have discretion tc> take compensable time when she needs it? lf so, where is that 

right granted in the text oft he bill? 

6. Under ll.R. 4219, when an employee takes compensable leave, docs the legislation designate 

what percentage oftheir daily rate of pay they would receive? Docs il require 100% orthe pretax daily rate, or can an employer pay less? Is there a minimum percentage of regular pay that 

must be paid for leave to be deemed "compensable leave" as part or a qualified plan? 
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 27662.057

June 21, 2018 

The Honorable Tim Walberg 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2176 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C 20515 

Re: May 3, 2018 Letter addressing Ranking Member Scott's Questions for the Record 

Dear Chairman Walberg, 

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my remarks from the December 6, 2017 hearing that examined 

"Workplace Leave Policies: Opportunities and Challenges for Employers and Working Families." I 

enumerated my responses to reflect Ranking Member Scott's questions. 

1A) Under H.R. 4219, a participating employer would be required to provide employees with a minimum 

standard of compensable leave to be used for any reason they choose to use it-sick, vacation or 

personal reasons. SHRM believes employees should determine how to utilize their compensable leave 

that best fits the needs of their work, family and personal obligations. 

lB) The compensable leave required of participating employers under this proposal far exceeds all state 

mandated sick leave, even for the smallest employers of 0-50 employees with less than five years' 

experience. Under state and local paid sick leave requirements, employees only utilize their sick leave 

for three or four qualifying instances. H.R. 4219 provides access to guaranteed leave to be utilized under 

any circumstances that best fits the needs of the employee. 

lC) Ranking Member Scott, your question appears to pertain to those states and localities that have 

mandated paid sick leave laws. In the situation where an employer is covered under a state or local paid 

leave law, an employee is either covered by those state and local laws or by a participating employer's 

plan. Under no circumstance, do those employees lose access to paid sick leave. 

2) No. H.R. 4219 does not preempt the four states' parental paid leave programs you reference in your 

question. 

3) SHRM was part of a stakeholder group that worked with Representative Walters that reflected 

different industries and different sized organizations that operate throughout the country. The amount 

of compensable leave outlined in the bill was drawn not only through this input, but from SHRM's 

research of their members' paid time offerings. 

4) As stated above, the table sets forth the amount of leave consistent with SHRM survey data as well as 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics and interested stakeholders. The amount of compensable leave increases 

with employee tenure, consistent with the data and other traditional employer policies. 

3440 -!l 703 0.35 +l-703 548-Gq99 rTY/fDD • www \hrm org 
115 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 27662.058

5) Under the bill, the employer has limited discretion to deny use of leave by an employee. The 

legislation adopts the "unduly disrupt" standard that has been codified in the Family and Medical Leave 

Act, which states the employee "(A) Shall make a reasonable effort to schedule the treatment so as not 

to disrupt unduly the operations of the employer ... " This is also the same standard in the U.S. House of 

Representatives introduced Healthy Families Act and in many state and local leave laws currently in 

place. 

6) Under the legislation, it is intended that the employee will receive the same level of pay as they 

would if they worked that day. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Angela D. Schaefer, SHRM-SCP