California Paid Family Leave Used by Nearly 138,000
Source: BenefitNews Connect
When California started its paid family leave insurance program, the first of its kind in the nation, officials from the state’s Economic Development Department expected 300,000 workers to use it the first year.
The statistics are in, and the program paid nearly 138,000 workers – fewer than half the projected figure of 300,000 users – about $300 million to take time off to care for a seriously ill family member or bond with a new child since July 2004.
The program is funded through employee contributions. Employees are taxed .08 % more on their wages to cover the cost of the program. Eligible workers receive up to 55% of last wages, to a maximum of $849 a week. In each 12-month period, workers may receive benefits for up to six weeks of leave.
Nearly 13 million workers are covered by paid family leave insurance, which is included under the state’s disability insurance program. More than 88% of the paid family leave insurance claims were for bonding with a new child. Eighty-three percent of those claims were from mothers, 17% from fathers. Nearly 12% of the workers took leave to care for a seriously ill family member. Seventy percent of those claims were from women, 30% from men.
California’s law goes beyond the benefits mandated by the federal Family Medical Leave Act.
One of the main criticisms of the Family/Medical Leave Act is that it places an undue burden on businesses, particularly small businesses (even though businesses with less than 50 employees in a 75-mile radius are exempt). Another frequent criticism is that it would lead to falling attendance due to abuses. Both situations can be avoided with careful planning and monitoring of the leave — which can reduce the administrative burden, a third criticism — but the criticism remains.
This statistic, though, suggests that the second criticism (attendance) especially may not actually be as much of an issue as many might have thought. I don’t dispute that abuses occur; I’ve certainly seen my share of them. But the fact that less than half of employees even took advantage of this benefit is telling. Since federal law requires employers to inform employees of their FMLA rights, it can be inferred that employees at least have the opportunity to learn about this particular benefit; or, in other words, the lack of utilization shouldn’t be caused by a lack of awareness. (The 55% pay provision is also a considerable disincentive toward abuse; most people have a hard time living on 55% of their normal income.)
Although it certainly can be a pain to administer, for the most part the benefits of family or medical leave (of all types, not just FMLA or California’s Paid Family Leave) tend to outweigh the disadvantages. Employees tend to worry less while on the job if they know that they can take protected time from the job if absolutely necessary, and this increases productivity. At the same time, the lower or nonexistent pay available during those periods provides an incentive to reserve use of this right to serious circumstances, which decreases abuse. This is a valuable benefit available to help both employees and employers alike balance work and family demands.