Past Blogs, February, 2008

February 29, 2008

Congress is currently working on the Telework Improvements Act, a new set of requirements that would increase the number of government employees who telecommute. Under this bill, HR 4106, all agencies would have to allow eligible employees to work at home or at a telework center for at least 20% of their two-week pay period.

But it seems no matter who beneficial a law would be for both employees and employers, there's always a naysayer. This time it's Republican Kenny Marchant of Texas, who worries that the requirements could be too much for very small agencies such as the 62-employee Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Obviously Rep. Marchant knows little about the practice of teleworking. He should read some of the research, like the latest study by Penn State academics who examined 20 years of studies and concluded that telecommuting has a "clear upside" for all stakeholders, and a positive impact on performance, turnover and stress. Or perhaps he might check in with some of the government's own agencies, like the Treasury Department's Tax and Trade Bureau, where about a third of employees normally work from home full time and more than half have done so at some point who actually manage remote workers. Or he could talk with managers at the U.S. Patent Office, which was honored with an AWLP Rising Star award for its model telework program.

Allowing eligible employees to work from home for two days out of a two week period a hardship? Hardly. On the contrary, what a great way to begin to teach managers to manage by results.

February 27, 2008

New Jersey is getting closer to passing a paid family leave law. An article in NJBiz today says it’s picking up serious momentum and could get final approval from the Legislature by the end of March. The full Senate is set to vote on it Monday, March 3rd. The legislation’s sponsor, Stephen Sweeney, has been pushing it for two years but believes its time has finally come.

The program would be funded by workers who would pay about 75 cents a week more into the existing state Temporary Disability Insurance fund through payroll deductions.

The New Jersey version would cap workers’ pay at $524 per week for six weeks. Washington, which still hasn’t figured out where the money would come from, offers five weeks of leave with pay of no more than $250 per week for five weeks.

California is still the best place to work if you have a newborn or illness in the family. That state offers six weeks of leave at 55% of pay with a cap of $840 per week.

A landmark bill that could make California the first state in the nation to guarantee paid sick days for all workers was introduced late last week. The bill would allow workers to accrue paid sick days at a rate of no less than one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick time beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. The bill is modeled after a San Francisco law requiring paid sick leave.

February 25, 2008

Corporate Voices for Working Families and Working Mother Media have taken on Congress, getting their attention in the way that works best – rewarding them with publicity for doing the right thing. Here's the latest:

Corporate Voices for Working Families and Working Mother Media have received 50 applications from U.S. Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives for the inaugural “Best of Congress” award. The award spotlights congressional excellence in supporting working families. Equally important, the award provides the opportunity to recognize individual members of Congress for their leadership in improving the quality of life for working families by partnering with business to create long-term solutions to work-life issues.

Recipients of the “Best of Congress” award will be announced in August and will be profiled in the August/September 2008 issue of Working Mother magazine.  

“We’re gratified by the overwhelmingly positive response that we have received from members of Congress who have applied for this award,” Donna Klein, president and founder of Corporate Voices for Working Families, said. “They deserve to be congratulated and recognized nationally for their commitment to helping working families.”

February 24, 2008

This week, New Jersey will consider becoming the third state in the U.S. to allow workers paid time off to care for a new baby or sick family member. (Washington joined California in passing legislation that's supposed to take effect in October, 2009, but so far they haven't figured out how to pay for it, and have delayed their decision.)

Some New Jersey businesses are pulling out all the stops to fight it, says an article in the Express-Times. They're saying it would force them to replace employees on leave with higher-paid temporary workers, or pay employees overtime.

Of course when workers are gone they need to be replaced, often at a higher cost. But employees can already take 12 weeks of unpaid time off. We fail to see how this program would cost employers any more. Instead, the cost would be born by employees – about $33 a year – and it would be a kind of insurance investment.

New Jersey and four other states, including California, have a Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) program. In California, it's supported entirely by employee payroll deductions. In New Jersey, employees and employers both contribute. It currently replaces part of workers' pay when they're temporarily unable to work because of pregnancy-related or non-work-related personal illnesses. It pays a woman who takes leave from work for the birth of a child for four weeks before the expected delivery date and up to six weeks afterwards.

This legislation, which will be decided on Thursday, would just expand the program. Workers would get two-thirds of their pay, or up to $524 a week, for up to six weeks of leave to care for a sick family member, a newborn or a newly adopted child.

So where's the problem? Paid leave seems to be working fine in California. We hope New Jersey does the right thing.

Click here to comment.

February 22, 2008

In case we work-life professionals thought our job was done, how about this Associated Press story?

Governor to end flexible work hours for Ohio workers

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Gov. Ted Strickland is putting an end to flexible work hours for thousands of state employees.

It’s a big change for many employees who have worked nontraditional schedules for years to accommodate child care needs, spend more time with family members or make car pool arrangements with neighbors.

February 20, 2008

It seems as if nobody is really satisfied with the DOL's suggested revisions to the FMLA and maybe that means they're just about right.

Workforce Management reports that Democratic leaders Dodd and Kennedy are opposing the suggested revisions, saying they try to discourage workers from utilizing the law. But it's hard to see where requiring two visits to a doctor within 30 days for a serious health condition is discouraging workers from using the law. Dodd was also concerned about potential violation of employee privacy by allowing employers to directly contact a workers' health care provider. But we'd need convincing that calling a health care provider to verify an illness is an invasion of privacy.  

The article says rather than overhauling FMLA, the proposal "tweaks several areas" in response to court cases and the 15,000 comments received last year. Most of the comments agreed that the family leave part of the law was working well but employers were "vexed by disruptions to their operations caused by medical leave abuses." And a SHRM survey did find about 46% of workers taking FMLA leave without giving prior notice. The new proposal requires employees to notify employers of an FMLA absence “prior to the start of their shift.” Not too much to ask.

Experts say there's not a lot of substance in the new revisions, and the corporate world may be disappointed. But it looks to us as if the DOL reacted pretty carefully, tried to respond to complaints and didn't go overboard for either side.

Click here to comment.

February 16, 2008

A cluster of studies are pointing out the risks of stress, which too few employers seem to be addressing. Stress, depression and anxiety double the risk of a repeat heart attack in those who have had a coronary (26% chance of a repeat incident vs. 13% in the general community) says a McGill/University of Montreal study). And the Whitehall II study that has been following British civil servants since 1985 found stress increased their chances of a heart attack by 68%. And work stress also led to poor health behaviors, poorer diet and less exercise. It seems to make sense that as employers point their guns at obesity, stress shouldn't be far behind.

February 11, 2008  NPR did a nice segment on workplace flexibility this morning. Click here to listen.

Click here to comment.

February 9, 2008

A viable health plan

There's a plan in Congress for health care reform that makes sense. Sponsored by Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and in the House by Brian Baird, D-Wash, it looks like it would provide health coverage for all Americans except those covered under Medicare or through the military. Workers would be able to carry their health insurance from job to job. They, not their employers, would be purchasing the insurance plans - a change that would empower consumers, assuring more competition.

Here's how it works: It requires employers to cash out of existing health plans and give the money saved to workers through increased wages. Workers then would have to use the additional wages to purchase health insurance from a large pool of private insurers. After two years, employers would no longer be required to pay the additional wages. They, instead, would pay into an insurance pool, with the amount paid based on annual revenues and the employer's number of full-time workers.

This would seem to be a strong candidate for bipartisan support, especially at a time of tight budgets and a slowing economy, because it would not cost taxpayers, workers or employers more than they're now paying for health care.

An analysis by Virginia-based health-care consulting firm the Lewin Group concluded that it could reduce private employers' costs by nearly three-quarters and save about $1.4 trillion in total health-care spending over the next decade. It seems to have support from unions (SEIU) and business (the head of Safeway Inc.) It would provide health coverage for all Americans except those covered under Medicare or through the military. Workers would be able to carry their health insurance from job to job. They, not their employers, would be purchasing the insurance plans - a change that would empower consumers, assuring more competition. We wonder why it's not getting more publicity.

Click here to comment.

February 5, 2008

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) says the message of the $3.1
trillion budget released by the Bush Administration today is simple and stark: children in low income families don't matter. "The President's budget cuts 200,000 children from child care assistance programs in two years," says the CLASP release this morning, "a breathtaking signal of the low priority this administration places on investments in working families."

In 2006, federal investments targeted to children (including spending on education, child care, health care, and other social support investments) comprised less than 2% of GDP, according to The Urban Institute. "The president's proposed budget continues this alarming trend by disinvesting in supports for children and low-income families," says CLASP.

The budget proposes a freeze on discretionary funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant program for the seventh consecutive year. According to the administration's own estimates, 200,000 children are projected to lose childcare assistance by 2009 in addition to the thousands of children who have already lost assistance. It proposes funding for Head Start that falls short of meeting even inflationary
increases, let alone providing for any new investments in quality or children served. Head Start currently serves about half of eligible children, and Early Head Start serves less than 3% of eligible infants and toddlers.

CLASP calls for Congress to take the lead, reject President Bush's proposals and at
a minimum, make the following investments:

    -- Increase funding for the Child Development Block Grants by $874 million to restore the program to 2002 inflation- adjusted funding levels. This would provide child care
assistance to an additional 145,000 children, helping to restore help to those who have lost it in years of flat funding.

    -- An increased investment of $1.072 billion for Head Start will allow programs to serve additional children in both Head Start and Early Head Start as well as begin to make needed investments in quality as outlined in the 2007 reauthorization.

Let's hope a new Administration will pay attention to the decades of research that shows investing in programs that support low-income children and their families pays off now and in the future.

Click here to see the Child Care Team's full analysis. Click here to comment and let us know if you'd rather remain anonymous.

February 1, 2008

We've been watching as the New Jersey legislature debates its version of the family leave bill. Now it's out of committee and moving to the full Senate for a vote, but it sounds like there's not going to be any quick resolution.

Here's what the bill as it's written would mean. Workers would be able to take six weeks of partially-paid time off to care for newborns and seriously ill family members. Public and private workers who use the leave would receive two-thirds pay up to a maximum of $524 per week. Workers would have to exhaust their vacation time before drawing on paid family leave.

Where would the money come from? Not employers. Workers would fund the program through a payroll deduction of about 75 cents a week. The money would go into the existing state Temporary Disability Insurance Fund.

The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce opposes it, saying companies – especially small ones – can't afford to lose key workers for up to six weeks at a time and pay for temporary replacements.

But we don't get it. The state's employers are already required to grant as much as 12 weeks of unpaid family leave, and companies with fewer than 50 employees would not have to hold open jobs for those taking the leave.

The bill still has to clear committees in the Assembly. And the Chamber of Commerce is gearing up to lobby against it there, too. "We still have concerns and we will continue to make our case," they say.

We're definitely pro-business and pro-family (can't you be both?) but sorry, guys, in this case, your complaints just don't make sense.

California currently offers six weeks of paid leave at 55% of the worker's pay with a cap of $840 per week. The state of Washington recently adopted a program that offers five weeks of paid leave up to a maximum of $250 per week. New York and Massachusetts are also considering bills mandating paid family leave. Taking care of our families is an idea whose time has come.

Click here to comment and let us know if you want to remain anonymous.