Legislation on family leave unneeded

By Kathleen A. Davis

The message that the business climate in New Jersey is less than hospitable is falling on deaf ears in Trenton.

The Chamber of Commerce Southern New Jersey has presented study after study and anecdotal evidence that demonstrates the challenges of operating a business in our state.

We've given state officials information on surveys that rank New Jersey last in a small-business survival index and third worst in its business tax climate; show we're ahead of only six states in our ability to compete for businesses to locate or stay in our state; show that business leaders throughout the country believe ours is the most likely state to reduce or eliminate business incentives; rank New Jersey 46th in private-sector job growth; and present data where 83 percent of respondents in a survey of chamber member companies graded our state's business climate a C or less, with 36 percent giving it a failing grade.

Despite this evidence, there is an inexplicable desire to push through an AFL-CIO/CWA agenda item that lacks any evidence that it is needed - paid family leave. Under the guise of "balancing work and family," this proposal would allow workers to take up to 10 weeks off every year to care for a newly born or adopted child, or to care for a sick family member. Benefits would be paid out of the state disability fund and funded by a payroll tax.

Paid family leave will not only cost business and taxpayers money, but also will disrupt the work/family balance for those employees who would have to work longer hours because they have to take on additional duties of those out on leave.

The cost to business is obvious. Having one or more employees out for extended periods of time will burden other employees who will have to cover their coworker's tasks. This will result in lower morale, increased overtime costs, and decreased productivity. Further, the cost of replacing an employee includes a premium on top of the hourly pay rate. Finally, as more employees avail themselves of paid leave, businesses will simply find it more difficult to remain competitive.

If passed, taxpayers can look forward to footing the bill of what will certainly become an entitlement for government workers. Following California's lead, state and local government employee unions will likely negotiate for government (therefore, taxpayers) to not only pay full salary during this leave, but also to pay the tax that funds this benefit.

Proponents of paid family leave seem to ignore the fact that New Jersey is one of only five states that provides paid maternity leave (a minimum of 10 weeks). They also point to a study conducted by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. Ironically, it demonstrated that all of the employers in the study successfully made arrangements with workers to accommodate needed leave time because they have the flexibility to do so.

Legislating employee benefits for the private sector in such a tenuous business climate is dangerous public policy. Union leaders should do their jobs at the bargaining table and be consistent in their cries to the legislature to "negotiate, don't dictate!" We can't help but recall the testimony of labor leaders last fall, who asserted the Legislature had no authority to dictate benefits unilaterally - that wages and working conditions of workers should be determined through collective bargaining - a sacred principle for unions! On this point, we couldn't agree more. Let employers - not government - decide which benefits to offer in order to attract and retain talent in this highly competitive global economy.

)