Echoing President Obama’s call this past weekend for corporations with more than 100 employees to reveal how much they pay men, women, and minorities–an effort to improve pay equity by requiring pay transparency and accountability–city council freshman Lorena Gonzalez says she hopes to pass legislation this year that would require the city to follow suit.
Gonzalez, who added “gender equity” to the title of what’s traditionally been known as the Public Safety Committee (it now goes by the somewhat sprawling name “Gender Equity, Safe Communities, and New Americans Committee), says last year’s report on gender and racial pay inequities at the city raised concerns for her about how large the pay gap is and how well the city is keeping track of it. I covered the report last year, and argued that its sanguine conclusions about pay equity at the city were unjustified, given the hoops its authors jumped through to segregate male-dominated departments like fire and police from the city as a whole, and to gloss over the reasons women might be more likely to “choose” part-time work in an environment that doesn’t offer many options after pregnancy.
Marilyn Watkins, Policy Director at the Economic Opportunity Institute
Testimony of Marilyn Watkins, Economic Opportunity Institute, in opposition to SB 6578 and SSB 6087, before the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, February 1, 2016.
Good afternoon. I’m Marilyn Watkins of the Economic Opportunity Institute, speaking in opposition to SB 6578 and SSB 6087.
Washington needs to raise labor standards so that people who work hard in necessary jobs can live in dignity. The minimum wage and sick leave standards proposed in SSB 6087 simply do not go far enough to protect public health and family economic security. State standards must be a floor, not a ceiling, and local jurisdictions should be able to continue to pilot new standards as our economy evolves.
One million workers in Washington do not get a single day of sick leave now, including many in restaurants, retail, personal care, and other occupations with direct public contact. A standard of only 3-5 days would be only a modest improvement, forcing too many people to continue to go to work sick. Norovirus, which is often spread by ill food service workers, is contagious for up to 7 days, according to the CDC. So is the flu. Nationally, the average worker with sick leave uses 4 days annually – but the average includes some who use none, and others who use higher amounts. We found in interviews with low wage Seattle workers, that 25% took no paid sick days the previous year, and 17% took 6 or more.[1]
Washington’s working families also need a higher minimum wage than $12 in 2020, as proposed in SSB 6087. Even today, a single, childless adult working full-time at $12 cannot meet basic expenses in most parts of the state.[2] The vast majority of low wage workers in Washington are adults, many with families to support. Over half of workers making under $13.50 are over age 30, and 3 in 10 have children at home.[3] Across the U.S., the lowest wage workers are also least likely to get sick leave, compounding economic insecurity: 8 in 10 workers in the lowest 10% of wages and 2 in 3 in the lowest 25% of wages don’t get any.[4]
Children from low income families would continue to suffer the most if workplace standards are removed or set too low. Their parents are least likely to have sick leave voluntarily provided by employers. When parents have inadequate sick leave, kids are left sick at school, older kids have to skip school to stay home with sick siblings, and children don’t get adequate health care – especially those with chronic conditions.
Because cities have led the way, we have data on impacts from paid sick leave laws. San Francisco’s law has been in effect since 2007, Seattle’s since 2012. Over 20 cities and 4 U.S. states (California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Connecticut ) have paid sick leave laws in place. Most of these have much higher standards than proposed here.
Covered economies are equaling or out-performing nearby communities in job and business growth – including in Seattle and San Francisco where most workers receive 7 to 9 days annually.
Sick leave laws have had small to no impact on business costs, hiring, or location decisions.
A majority of business owners support the laws.
Workers and their families are benefitting with more access to paid leave and better ability to care for their own and their families’ health needs.
For years studies have found that businesses providing sick leave have higher morale and productivity, less absenteeism, lower rates of turnover,[6] and increased firm profits.[7] A CDC study found that workers with paid sick leave have 28% fewer workplace accidents.[8]
Studies that take into account all of the data on differing minimum wage levels show that higher minimum wages also do not impact the number of jobs. Higher minimum wages do reduce turnover and increase incomes, helping local economies prosper.[9]
Washington workers need to be raised up, not kept down. When working families prosper, our economy prospers and all our communities benefit.
[4] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits Survey, Table 32. Leave benefits: Access, civilian workers, National Compensation Survey, March 2015.
[6] Jane Waldfogel, “The Impact of the Family Medical Leave Act,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 18, Spring 1999; Thomas E. Casey and Karen Warlin, “Retention and Customer Satisfaction,” Compensation & Benefits Review, May/June 2001, p. 27-30.
[7] Christine Siegwarth Meyer, et al, “Work-Family Benefits: Which Ones Maximize Profits?” Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. XIII, No. 1, Spring 2001: 28-44. Specific estimates of the decline in workers voluntarily leaving their jobs because of access to paid sick leave range between 3.6 and 6.4 percentage points; at the mid-point, that translates into one less quite per year for every 20 employees. See: Vicky Lovell, “Valuing Good Health: An Estimate of Costs and Savings for the Healthy Families Act,” April 2005, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/valuing-good-health-an-estimate-of-costs-and-savings-for-the-healthy-families-act. See also: Reagan Baughman, Daniela DiNardi, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, (2003) “Productivity and wage effects of ‘family-friendly’ fringe benefits”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 24 Iss: 3, pp.247 – 259; Patricia C. Borstorff and Michael B. Marker, “Turnover Drivers and Retention Factors Affecting Hourly Workers: What is Important” Management Review: An International Journal¸ Vol 2, No.1, June 30, 2007, pp. 14-27; Stephen Miller, “’Most Admired’ Tie Rewards to Performance, Address Work/Life,” March 11, 2011, viewed March 21, 2011, http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/MostAdmired.aspx.
[8]American Journal Public Health, Sep 2012, “Paid sick leave and nonfatal occupational injuries.”
Testimony in support of Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (SB 6149) before the Washington Senate Commerce & Labor Committee by Janet Chung, Legal Voice
Chairman Baumgartner and Members of the Committee:
My name is Janet Chung and I’m Legal & Legislative Counsel with Legal Voice. I’m pleased to be here to speak in support of SB 6149. I’m going to focus today on providing some legal context about why this bill is necessary and important to advancing women’s health and gender equity in the workplace.
The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination are the existing federal and state laws that protect pregnant workers. But still, as you have heard from others today – too many pregnant women are still forced out on leave before they are ready – or worse, fired because they sought minor accommodations to their workplaces.
Existing laws protecting pregnant workers use an anti-discrimination framework – that is, the laws state that discriminating based on pregnancy is a form of sex discrimination – but do not say anything specifically about accommodations. The anti-discrimination proof process under these anti-discrimination laws is not well-suited to meet the needs of workers needing accommodations.
Under existing law, a pregnant worker has to prove unlawful treatment based on her employer’s failure to accommodate her pregnancy. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified in Young v. UPS what this means: a pregnant worker has to show that an employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers “similar in their ability to work” while denying accommodations to a large percentage of pregnant workers. Basically, it requires a pregnant woman to go out and search for some non-pregnant identical twin to prove a case.
This evidentiary framework simply doesn’t work for pregnant workers who need an immediate, and often, minor, accommodation to stay healthy and on the job and prevent complications. Few women have the time or resources to litigate and prove discrimination. Many are new to their jobs, lack bargaining power, are unfamiliar with company policies (if there are any) and simply do not have the luxury of time to sort out these questions – especially while their pregnancy time clock is ticking.
By contrast, when workers have ADA-covered disabilities that require accommodation, they don’t have to show how other employees are treated. Disabled workers are generally entitled to reasonable accommodation unless the requested accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” on the employer. Pregnant workers deserve the same clarity.
The PWFA also has the benefit of treating pregnancy as its own condition, instead of requiring that it be compared with other disabilities. It’s true that some pregnant workers have disabilities that are covered by the ADA, but the majority of pregnant workers are not disabled. Rather, they are trying to prevent pregnancy complications. But under the current law, they would have to prove they’re disabled to get the accommodation they need to stay healthy and on the job.
This bill will provide employers and pregnant workers with a clear, predictable rule: Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with limitations arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related health conditions.
Simple accommodations are all that most women need to keep them healthy AND earning an income when they need it most.
It’s in everyone’s best interest to help keep pregnant women healthy, and also to keep them in the workforce as long as they are healthy. This bill is good for women, for families, and our economy, and Legal Voice is proud to support this legislation.
Washington’s working families also need a higher minimum wage than $12 in 2020, as proposed in SSB 6087. Even today, a single, childless adult working full-time at $12 cannot meet basic expenses in most parts of the state.
Washington Work and Family Coalition 