Lazy Investigation Leads to Flawed Editorial

By Nichole Berklas

The editorial published April 12, 2018 in the Hartford Courant regarding the paid family leave bill currently being reviewed by the Connecticut legislature was patently false in its analysis.
The Editorial notes that while there are “humane reasons to support the paid family leave bill in the legislature” the overwhelming reason not to is that the “state is broke.” It then spends a number of paragraphs detailing how expensive the paid family leave bill will be for the State. This analysis fails to note one simple and important point: THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT WOULD NOT PAY FOR PAID FAMILY LEAVE.
The proposal includes a very small tax taken from each worker’s check, which is then put into a reserve to fund future paid leave requests. In fact, employees will not be able to access the funds for a year after the tax begins, so that the reserve accumulates to insure sufficient funds to cover not only the requested leaves but also the additional State workers required to administer the program. How do we know this simple fact? An actuarial analysis was commissioned by the legislature in 2015 that determined whether such a program would be sustainable (https://fmli.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/implementation-study.pdf). Moreover, we have actual real life proof in the long standing programs in both California and New Jersey.
Contrary to the conclusion made in the Editorial, paid family and medical leave is a clear solution to some of Connecticut’s fiscal struggles. With our neighboring states either now offering paid family and medical leave or on the eve of passing such a program, our lack of this clear and necessary program creates another reason for young people to take their educations and leave the State. No one should have to choose between their job and their family or health, and when our neighbors do not require young, mobile future leaders to make such a choice, Connecticut becomes the clear loser.
Moreover, as the Editorial itself notes, this is the “humane” decision. Unlike the alternative proposal discussed in the Editorial in which business owners would be given a tax credit for providing paid leave to their workers . . . the current option neither requires a payment on the part of the employers nor does it remove the tax revenue from that State. This really is a proposal that should easily garner support as it allows the State to do the right thing by giving workers an opportunity to address the reality of family and medical needs, while not asking either employers or the State to foot the bill.
It is one thing to disagree with the analysis that has been prepared, or even have concerns over the value of such a program, but it is just laziness on the part of the Editorial Staff to not investigate the actual proposal for paid family leave and the supporting analysis for the bill. I urge you to take two minutes and review the real facts on paid family and medical leave found on the Connecticut Campaign for Paid Family Leave website or Facebook page.
Nichole Berklas is CT NOW representative for Campaign for Paid Family Leave.

 

Share Button