Paid leave is good for business, particularly in recruiting and retaining talented workers. In a survey of 200 human resource managers, two-thirds cited family-supportive policies as the single most important factor in attracting and retaining employees. Given that the typical cost of replacing an employee is around 20 percent of that employee’s annual salary, family-friendly policies that reduce turnover can be highly cost-effective. Another survey of 253 employers affected by California’s paid family leave initiative found that “the vast majority – over ninety percent – reported no noticeable or a positive effect on profitability.”
Paid leave, raising the minimum wage and who knows what else is good for business, so says government and employers providing testimony.
I’m not sure who is right, but America must have a substantial number of not so bright employers if we need federal and state laws to make them do things that are good for business.
It reminds me of the health care issue in some ways. Government wants to increase competition and then forces insurers to lower premiums because the increase is excessive. Wouldn’t you think that an insurer with excessively high premiums would not be competitive and therefor such premiums would not be good for business❓
I guess it all comes down to the fact that government is smarter than the people who run America’s companies … and even consumers 👀
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
No problem with paid leave if it is financed by individuals or taxpayers. Big issues if the mandate applies to employers or employees.
Paid Family Leave (PFL) (Family Temporary Disability Insurance (FTDI)) was added to California’s State Disability Insurance (SDI) program in 2002 – benefits started in 2004. It extends benefits paid for worker disability to also provide benefits for those who take time off from work to care for a seriously ill family member or bond with a new minor child. The PFL insurance program is fully funded by employees’ contributions, similar to the SDI program. The California SDI program, and comparable programs in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and I believe Rhode Island, get a pass on ERISA preemption.
So, if the state wants to mandate paid leave for state residents, who am I to challenge that.
Of course, it is a much different story when they want to mandate employers offer specific benefits. And, where such mandates conflict with existing benefit plans or mandate a benefit (if it is not structured a la the San Francisco Health Care Ordinance), you can anticipate a battle over ERISA preemption for those employers who are subject to ERISA.
LikeLike