A House bill and a Senate bill that aim to modify the state’s Paid Family & Medical Leave (PFML) program have both cleared their respective houses of origin and could be scheduled for their first opposite chamber hearings soon.
PFML as COVID relief
HB 1073, which provides temporary alternative eligibility metrics for workers applying for PFML during the COVID-19 pandemic, passed the House March 3
on a largely partisan 56-40-2 vote. You might recall that AWC initially opposed the bill when first introduced, as it made several permanent changes to the PFML program that could have resulted in additional costs for employers and higher premiums
for employers and employees. After the bill was modified into a temporary COVID-19 response measure, AWC moved to a neutral position on the proposal.
Before the bill was voted out of the House, a floor amendment was adopted specifying that any small business grants to employers related to covering employees using alternative eligibility are funded separately from the PFML insurance account. This aims
to prevent any impacts to the account that could result in future premium increases. HB 1073 is expected to be assigned to the Senate Labor, Commerce, & Tribal Affairs Committee.
PFML program study
SB 5097 received some significant modifications on the Senate floor before it was voted out on a largely partisan 29-19-1 vote. AWC opposed the original
version of the bill that reached the Senate floor, as it would have broadened the definition of “family member,” expanded job protection coverage to small employers, and required continued medical benefits coverage well beyond what the
PFML program currently requires. These would have led to significant cost increases to employers.
The adopted floor amendments removed all the provisions that expanded PFML eligibility (although it keeps the expanded “family member” definition), health benefits coverage, and job protections. It replaced those with a study requiring the
Employment Security Department and the PFML Advisory Committee to collect and analyze data, and report to the Legislature on:
- Program utilization by employees covered by voluntary plans vs. the state plan.
- Program utilization by employees working at employers with 50+ employees vs. fewer than 50 employees.
- The number of employees who took leave and then did not show back up on premium reports after leave was completed.
- The lengths of leave employees took for different purposes.
- The data in the previous two bullets (leaving job and lengths of leave) are required to include information such as size of employer, employment sector, employee earnings level, and employee demographic information like race and gender.
The adopted amendments also require a report to the Legislature on the impact of the new “family member” definition to the program, and that if the expanded definition results in 500 or more PFML claims by July 2023 then the state general
fund is to cover the extra costs. With these adopted changes, AWC is now neutral on the proposal as it heads to the House of Representatives.
SB 5097 has been assigned to the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.