Encouraging Family Friendly Practices in a Recession
March 4, 2009 — Despite the continued economic storm, the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing on how to encourage workplaces to adopt family friendly practices, such as paid sick leave, during a down economy.
"As a human resource manager, I saw how important employee benefits — such as paid leave, paid sick days and health care — are to workers in both good times and bad. And there is substantial evidence that they ultimately improve the bottom line of the employer," said Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) in opening the hearing.
However, Ranking Member Tom Price (R-Ga.) warned that "we must not ignore the implications of putting costly government mandates on businesses that may jeopardize job creation." He also advocated supporting Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers' (R-Wash.) recently introduced legislation that would allow private-sector employees to choose between overtime and comp time.
The committee heard testimony from:
Eileen Appelbaum, director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University
Nixon Clay's testimony focused on how the lack of any paid leave through her employer (the state of Illinois) has affected her.
Appelbaum focused her testimony on how family friendly policies, such as paid sick days and family leave insurance, positively affect employers' bottom line, as well as employees. "Paid sick days and family leave insurance reduce job loss. They are effective job retention strategies that help workers behave responsibly as employees and as family members and, at the same time, enable businesses to realize net savings when the lower costs of reduced turnover and presenteeism (coming to work sick) are balanced against the costs of absenteeism," she wrote.
Boushey testified that the United States needs to update its thinking about workplace policies to address that fact that everyone works inside and outside of the home now. She placed equal emphasis on the need for pay equity as she did on paid leave policies, arguing that families are increasingly reliant on the wages of women because men are losing jobs faster in this recession.
Bernard testified that government-mandated benefits would be detrimental to job creation and, for the most part, are not needed. "Like most employers, I recognize the benefits of finding mutually beneficial work arrangements. While many focus on what employers aren't doing for their workers, it's also important to recognize that most businesses, large and small, already provide their employees with more benefits and flexibility than is required by federal law," she said. "If mandates drive costs up, that means there will be less money available to pay workers directly as compensation."
Valerie Anne Young public policy analyst Comments: 1
I was at this hearing and I agree with this summary. I found Ms. Bernard's testimony particularly suspect, based on her premise that the employer and employee can effectively negotiate any individual needs that arise. The employer and the employee are in fundamentally different positions, vis a vis each other, and arms-length negotiation between the two is simply not possible.
Paul Weatherhead Program Manager Member Since: 5/1/2000 Comments: 553
Here's a novel thought: if a company could gain a competitive advantage by offering better family friendly policies to attract-retain-motivate people to their employment, wouldn't that be a better impetus for improving these policies than a government mandate?
March 4, 2009 — Despite the continued economic storm, the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing on how to encourage workplaces to adopt family friendly practices, such as paid sick leave, during a down economy.
Print this Page