Connecticut lawmakers in the Labor and Public Employees Committee argued over the merits of a bill that would expand the state’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) program to include all school employees, not only those that require certifications for their positions.
In 2019, the state signed into law a statewide FMLA program, following in the footsteps of California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. The bill stipulated that employers must provide 12 weeks of paid medical leave to employees for reasons such as the care of newborn children or gravely ill family members, as well as recovery from serious illness or medical treatments.
While the FMLA program has expanded since its original passage in 2019 to include coverage for most public and private sector employees, non-certified positions in the education field, such as tutors, substitute teachers, paraprofessionals and many private school teachers, have thus far been left out. The proposed bill intends to ensure their inclusion. While up-to-date data on the number of non-certified educators in the state is hard to come by, it was reported by CTMirror in 2017 that one in six school staff were instructional aides, with these aides representing only one such example of a non-certified position.
“No matter what sector of work you work in, life happens,” said Rep. Derrell Wilson (D-Norwich). “These employees can’t schedule or predict that their pregnancy is going to happen during the summer months. You can’t predict when someone is going to get sick, when you are going to have a major incident occur in your life.”
While Democrats spoke positively of their constituents’ response towards the state’s FMLA program and advocated for its expansion, Republican lawmakers argued against it for a variety of reasons.
“I’ve heard nothing but horror stories about the paid Family and Medical Leave program damaging businesses,” said Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott). “What’s happened is exactly what me and others predicted several years ago, which is that it might take a few years, but what would happen is that eventually employees who are inclined to take advantage of this program and abuse it, would figure out how to, and that is happening today.”
Sampson said that the program puts strain on business owners, and took issue with the fact that businesses have to pay into the program without the ability to opt out. Sampson also argued that expansion of the program among additional school employees would only further strain municipal budgets, a point that Wilson pushed back on.
“This benefit is paid out of the authority,” said Wilson. “So when we talk about school districts having to add to their budget, that money that they’re saving on an individual’s salary during their time out, the long term sub or whoever they’re bringing in, that money is taking care of that individual [their replacement].”
The money for FMLA is funded by a deduction from employees, and leave is authorized through the Paid Family Leave Authority, not employers themselves. Rep. Joe Canino (R-Torrington) said he spoke to a constituent whose business lost “3,800 man hours” last year from employees taking FMLA.
“I understand that most of those hours were probably due to some very important need, but we really need to take a full revaluation of this program,” said Canino.
Canino also voiced concerns that FMLA’s salary reimbursement rate may be too high and that the 12-week period provided under FMLA, may be too long, saying it might incentivize employees not to work.
“If an individual might not be losing any money at all, what if they’re able to work sooner than the time granted?,” said Canino. “We should be taking a look at the incentives there.”
Committee Co-Chair Julie Kushner (D-Danbury) said that Canino had “some misunderstandings about the program,” saying that FMLA can only be extended under very slim circumstances and that all approvals, besides those done for the care of newborns, must fall in line with medical evaluations.
“In terms of incentivizing people not to go back to work, there has to be a medical need in all other instances other than bonding,” said Kushner.
Rep. Steve Weir (R-Andover) asked Kushner about the utilization of the program as well as how large of a surplus is held by the Paid Family Leave Authority. Kushner told Weir that the most recent numbers indicate that 80% of all requests were approved and that the Authority currently has $700 million in surplus to pay for new requests going forward.
Weir said that the expansion of FMLA would up its utilization rate, ensuring the fund is “going to continue getting eaten into,” calling it “unsustainable” in the long run. Weir also called the program “wage theft,” taking issue with the fact that employees pay into the program regardless of whether or not they actually use it.
“You have many people who pay into this who will never use this,” said Weir. “Any surplus by this Authority, I would consider wage theft. It’s taken from employees, you can’t opt out, you’re automatically enrolled, 5.5% percent of our paycheck is taken out.”
Rep. Anne Hughes (D-Easton) took issue with Weir’s characterization of FMLA as wage theft, comparing its function to that of Social Security. She shared confidence that the Authority’s funds would remain solvent even with the addition of a new employment group and said that just because employees haven’t used it yet, doesn’t mean they won’t in the future.
“It is a benefit,” said Hughes. “That’s how benefits work, is that we all pay a little bit into it so that our colleagues, our neighbors, our friends and our family members can use it when they need it, and we never know when that will be. To say that people won’t use it, I think, assumes that nobody has family that will someday get sick or have care needs, and I think that’s just not true.”
Democrat lawmakers stressed the popularity of the program; Rep. Nick Gauthier (D-Waterford), Rep. Kaitlyn Shake (D-Stratford) and Sen. Kushner all insisted that they have only received positive responses from constituents in relation to the program.
“I have heard nothing but positive feedback, whether it’s from people, residents or businesses that are within my district and across the state, as we’ve all had conversations with people here in this building,” said Shake.
Ultimately, lawmakers voted 6-4 to pass the bill out of committee, with three Democrat committee members being absent at the time of the vote. Once officially passed out of committee, the bill must pass votes in both chambers to be signed into law.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
