Family leave bill is last measure to clear House

OLYMPIA – A controversial proposal setting up a $250 weekly stipend for workers who take time off to bond with a new child was the last bill to squeak through the House of Representatives before a key deadline Friday.

The proposal, to take effect in October 2009, would allow workers to get the stipend for up to five weeks while they bond with a newborn or adopted child. It would apply to full-time and many part-time workers. The bill passed 62-35.

“No one should have to choose between the job that they need and the baby that they love,” said Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle. She called it “a historic reform.”

The House version of the bill, however, is much more modest than what the Senate wants, covering fewer workers. And it’s unclear where the money would come from. The bill sets up a task force to recommend a source next year.

The broader Senate version would pay for the stipends by taxing most Washington workers 2 cents an hour, which is about $42 a year. It also would cover people who take time off to care for a sick parent.

Most Republican lawmakers oppose both versions, saying workers shouldn’t be forced to pony up cash for a benefit that many will never use. Also, they say that small businesses may not be able to lose a worker for weeks at a time.

“Once again, we’ve got government coming in and saying ‘You guys are doing a rotten job, and we’re going to mandate how you treat your employees,’ ” said Republican Rep. Maureen Walsh, a small business owner from Walla Walla. “I take offense at that.”

Washington should instead focus on attracting and keeping businesses with good wages and benefits, said Rep. Lynn Schindler, R-Otis Orchards.

“That’s pro-family,” she said. “Not taking from one family to give to another.”

After six years of trying in Olympia, the measure got new life this year from a coalition of mothers and their supporters. They’ve sent nearly 8,000 e-mails to lawmakers this year and held rallies at the Capitol. MomsRising.org is a new national women’s advocacy group whose symbol is Rosie the Riveter holding a baby.

Proponents say the legislation is an obvious next step after Congress a decade ago started requiring companies with more than 50 workers to allow up to 12 weeks of leave to care for themselves, a child or an ailing relative. But unless a company decides otherwise, that leave is unpaid. As a result, many workers can’t afford to take the time to bond with a new baby, they say.

“Nothing is more basic than that,” Dickerson said. “We are not talking about a perk.”

“Really, what we’re looking at here is how do we balance work and family,” said Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma. “… California has this leave policy. Did the sky fall in on California?” California pays 55 percent of a worker’s wages for six weeks, up to $882 a week.

Republicans said no one’s anti-baby, but they worry that the requirement will give businesses one more reason to avoid Washington. Rep. Cary Condotta, R-East Wenatchee, said the state’s worker’s compensation rates, property taxes and unique business and occupation tax system are already onerous for business.

“Our concern is adding another brick to the top of this wall,” he said.

Schindler echoed that sentiment.

“Idaho just beckons across the border,” she said.

“This is another nail in our coffin,” added Rep. John Ahern, R-Spokane.