|
. Letters
from Our Readers *******
******* - John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute
Replies
[Ed. Note: This letter from John McClaughry is
in response to an
editorial article we ran on Paid Parental
Leave. In large measure,
our piece used a Commentary of Mr.
McClaughry's, in which he
opposed the bill that was then being
formed in the State Legislature,
in order to analyze the
proposal and construct an argument in support
of Paid Parental
Leave. ... We thank Mr. McClaughry for his
thoughtful
reply. His letter is printed here in its entirety.]
.
I
congratulate DownStreet editor Lou Colasanti for an informed and
fair-minded
critique of my view in opposition to paid parental leave
legislation. I
would like to offer a few additional comments on the
issue.
The
"actual cost of the legislation" cannot exceed the $750,000
Gov.
Dean asked for (assuming the legislature approves that amount.)
According
to the Department of Employment and Training, when the
appropriated funds
are gone, that's the end of the program until more
moneys come from
somewhere.
The game here is to find a pot of money to tap for paid leave.
The
most obvious pot is the Employment Security Fund, currently brimming
with
unspent funds. This fund is created by employer tax payments, and
builds
up in good economic times to be able to pay laid off workers in
hard
times.
The existence of a surplus in the fund always tempts politicians
to
raid it to support their favorite unmet need - in this case, paid
leave.
Vermont employers have been dead set against any raid on this
fund. They
know that if the fund runs dry in a recession, they will get
hit with a
tax increase to keep the employment security program operating
at a time
when they are hardest pressed.
The operation of the federal
(unpaid) Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1996, applicable to employers of
50 or more, gives a useful snapshot
of family leave in operation.
According to a Vermont human relations
manager who had to administer FMLA
in a unionized plant in Maine:
"Although we were aware that the FMLA
leave statute included
'intermittent' leaves, we had no idea to what
extent that people would
take advantage of the 'excused" time under
FMLA. During the first
(union) contract year, out of a workforce of 600
union employees we
experienced over 150 applications for FMLA leaves,
over 75% of which
were for intermittent leaves. The next contract year we
had over 275
applications for leaves, almost 90% of which were for
intermittent
leaves. In order to track these leaves on an equitable
basis, we were
forced to develop a computerized system of coding
absences. A tremendous
amount of resources were used to develop and
maintain software, process
leave paperwork, track leave time, answer
grievances of employees that
had had their leaves denied etc. What if
this leave was paid leave
instead of unpaid... for a workforce that was
intent on maximizing
excused absences?"
Admittedly the current
Vermont unpaid leave statute is more
restrictively drawn than the federal
law. Nonetheless, given the
political pressure of a workforce
"intent on maximizing excused
absences", it's not hard to see
where this will go, especially if the
leave comes with a full paycheck.
Editor
Colasanti raises the point that good employees might
gravitate to a state
where paid leave is mandatory, thus benefiting
businesses. That's an
interesting theory, and it's certainly not
impossible. My guess - and
it's only a guess - is that paid leave would
be more likely to attract
workers who, like the Maine union workers
described above, are
"intent on maximizing excused absences."
A Vermont business
competing for good workers is free to offer
paid leave, along with good
medical benefits, long vacations, and other
inducements. But there is a
world of difference between an employer
choosing to offer incentives to
attract premium employees, and all
employers being forced to offer costly
incentives because the government
thinks it is a dandy idea for them to
do it.
As editor Colasanti acknowledges, a state whose politicians are
determined
to impose more and more politically beneficial mandates on
employers may
well become a state viewed, in my words, as a "politically
unfriendly
high-cost economic environment".
Would I favor lowering the cost of
doing business in Vermont so
drastically that it would compete with
Mexico for cheap labor? No, but I
wouldn't mind making Vermont
competitive with, say, New Hampshire.John McClaughry
Ethan Allen
Institute
. Kudos
from an Underhill reader ...
11 APR. 2001
Your online
magazine is great!
.
Julia
.. Praise
for our Sugaring Special ...
1 APR 2001
Thanks! We really enjoyed
reading your web site info.
.
Tom Olson, New England Maple Museum
.
27
MAR 2001
Excellent! Your staff has put together a great issue
highlighting Maple Sugaring in Vermont. For all Vermont Maple Sugar
Makers, Thank You!
.
George Cook, UVM
Extension Maple Specialist
.. A
few questions on the flag burning legislation ...
APR 2001
Should
we outlaw burning the US flag? Should we outlaw burning the Canadian
flag? Should we outlaw burning the US Constitution? Should we outlaw
burning the Vermont flag? Should we outlaw US flag pattern
underwear? Should we outlaw US flag pattern toilet paper? Should
we outlaw toilet paper with an image of the Constitution on it? Should
we outlaw toilet paper with the words of the Constitution on it?
Should we just take a soothing shower and have a good night's rest?
.
Rob
.
.. *******
******* If you'd like to send a letter to DownStreet,
we invite you to do so. ... Please use any of our
e-mail addresses which is most directly connected to the topic of your letter. Thanks. *******
*******
|
