Thread: Marco Rubio introduces paid family leave bill

Marco Rubio introduces paid family leave bill

by Kimberly Leonard
August 01, 2018 05:00 AM

Parents would be able to draw from their Social Security benefits early under a paid family leave bill to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo.

The U.S. stands apart from other industrialized nations that have mandatory or subsidized leave policies, and the issue has long divided both parties. In recent months, however, Republicans have shown more interest in the idea, though they still disagree with Democrats on the policy details.

Rubio has framed his plan, the Economic Security for New Parents Act, as an offering to support families and people in the workforce, one that would lead to healthier families.

"Falling rates of marriage and childbirth, coupled with the loss of stable, good-paying employment in a rapidly shifting global economy are making young families socially and financially insecure," Rubio wrote in a USA Today opinion excerpt provided in advance to the Washington Examiner. "Today, having a child can be an income shock matched only by college tuition or a down payment on a home."

Under the proposal, parents have the option to receive monthly payments to help cover costs such as rent, groceries, and baby supplies. The benefit would be transferable between parents and be available to both moms and dads.

In return for receiving Social Security payments early, parents would defer their retirement benefits for three to six months, or the amount of time necessary to offset the cost of their parental benefits. The idea was first presented by the conservative Independent Women's Forum.

"Our proposal would be a consistent application of Social Security’s original principle — to provide assistance to dependents in our care — to the challenges of today," Rubio wrote.

Passing a policy on paid family leave has been a focus for first daughter and presidential adviser Ivanka Trump, who has stressed that she wants to arrive at an agreement that will have enough votes to pass. She has met with Rubio as well as with GOP Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah. She has not disclosed the names of Democrats who have discussed the policy with her.

Thirty-two Senate Democrats support a bill called the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, which is funded through payroll taxes paid for by employees. The provision is similar to laws on the books in California, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The proposal, unlike the Republican idea, allows leave for circumstances other than a new child, including if a family member gets sick or if someone needs to take time off to undergo treatment for an illness. During that time, people would be guaranteed 66 percent of their regular earnings or up to $4,000 a month. The plan is similar to short-term disability coverage some employers offer.

Divisions became apparent July 11 during a Senate hearing examining the issue. Democrats said medical leave should be included, that they didn't think people should have to choose between family leave and retirement and that they believed people already did not receive enough in Social Security.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ily-leave-bill

That will certainly help some people with part of their rent, groceries and baby supplies, without being so much that it's a reason to have a baby if you understand my drift here, so maybe this will be okay. If you have 2 children and your benefits take 6 months of retirement to pay off, then that's just one year less of social security when you retire. For most people that would be okay to work 1 year longer to have some help instead with having 2 children. If you have 4, then that would be 2 years longer to work before you retire. If your expenses are cheap and 3 months to pay off, then it would only cut your retirement by 6 months for 2 children or 1 year for 4.

This is actually a good plan. If Ivanka came up with this, which I guess she did, this is a pretty smart plan to deal with this issue that a lot of people seem to need. Maybe there will be some other side benefits as well, like healthier children, less stressed mothers and fathers, so ... good deal? It sure sounds like it the way they've worked it out.

Hope it passes.

There is another aspect to this that isn't being considered. How does this not hurt an employer, especially a small business owner, that can't afford to lose an employee for 6 months? I'm not sure a law requiring an employer to carry an employee for 6 months is a good idea. What this does is create a huge hassle for the employer who would probably be forced to find a replacement for the individual. However, the law wouldn't allow the employer to fire the employee out on 6 months paid family leave, which means the employer would have to hire a temporary worker. Depending on the skill set for the employee out on paid family leave, hiring a temp. for a skilled position could be tough. Not all jobs are high turnover jobs like what you would find at McDonald's or Taco Bell.

If you want to start a family, that's on you. Prepare and plan accordingly, but your employer shouldn't have to suffer for your life choices.

If they want to amend the current Family and Medical Leave Act, that may be a consideration. All public agencies must follow FMLA rules, including State, Federal and local employers, as well as schools. For private employers, FMLA applies to those employers who employ 50 or more employees. The FMLA offers 12 weeks of unpaid leave, however, the employee is allowed to remain on the companies health plan.

I see no reason the social security portion can't be applied to the 12 weeks given to those eligible for FMLA. That would have no adverse effect on the employer.

It's my position we don't need another law, just amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to include the social security portion of the Rubio plan.

Judy wrote (excerpt):

If Ivanka came up with this, which I guess she did

There is nothing in the article that would indicate Ivanka came up with the plan. Actually, the article says the plan came from the Independent Women's Forum.

6/30/18

$15 Minimum Wage, Required Paid Leave Are Coming To (States)

Here's how the paid leave program would work: Employees would be allowed to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a family member or bond with a new child, and take up to 20 weeks to deal with a personal medical issue.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote (excerpt):



There is nothing in the article that would indicate Ivanka came up with the plan. Actually, the article says the plan came from the Independent Women's Forum.

Independent Conservative Women's Forum. Ivanka has been working with them on this since the campaign. So like I said, I don't know whose idea it was, but the first we've heard of it is after she got involved which is why I think it was her idea. Maybe someone will investigate and report whose actual idea it was, maybe it was a combination of people's ideas, it's actually good the way they worked it out.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

6/30/18

$15 Minimum Wage, Required Paid Leave Are Coming To (States)

Here's how the paid leave program would work: Employees would be allowed to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a family member or bond with a new child, and take up to 20 weeks to deal with a personal medical issue.

Just a note that none of this has anything to do with Ivanka Trump or Rubio's bill. Rubio's bill only deals with paid family leave for having a baby, it's only partial, and it is offset with loss of SS benefits when they retire, they'll have to work longer to make up for the benefit they chose to use when they were having kids.

Originally Posted by MW

There is another aspect to this that isn't being considered. How does this not hurt an employer, especially a small business owner, that can't afford to lose an employee for 6 months? I'm not sure a law requiring an employer to carry an employee for 6 months is a good idea. What this does is create a huge hassle for the employer who would probably be forced to find a replacement for the individual. However, the law wouldn't allow the employer to fire the employee out on 6 months paid family leave, which means the employer would have to hire a temporary worker. Depending on the skill set for the employee out on paid family leave, hiring a temp. for a skilled position could be tough. Not all jobs are high turnover jobs like what you would find at McDonald's or Taco Bell.

If you want to start a family, that's on you. Prepare and plan accordingly, but your employer shouldn't have to suffer for your life choices.

If they want to amend the current Family and Medical Leave Act, that may be a consideration. All public agencies must follow FMLA rules, including State, Federal and local employers, as well as schools. For private employers, FMLA applies to those employers who employ 50 or more employees. The FMLA offers 12 weeks of unpaid leave, however, the employee is allowed to remain on the companies health plan.

I see no reason the social security portion can't be applied to the 12 weeks given to those eligible for FMLA. That would have no adverse effect on the employer.

It's my position we don't need another law, just amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to include the social security portion of the Rubio plan.

They don't receive benefits under Rubio's plan for 6 months, only up to 3 months, 12 weeks. Depending on your wage and the amount of the benefit versus your retirement earnings down the road, you can have 3 to 6 months of delayed retirement to pay for it, whether it's 3 months of delayed retirement or 6 months of delayed retirement depends on the amount of your benefit paid to you, not on how long you took off from work. It's not an amendment or extension to the Family Medical Leave Act, it's a separate legislation to amend SSA laws to add this provision.

It won't change anything for employers.

Originally Posted by Judy

They don't receive benefits under Rubio's plan for 6 months, only up to 3 months, 12 weeks. Depending on your wage and the amount of the benefit versus your retirement earnings down the road, you can have 3 to 6 months of delayed retirement to pay for it, whether it's 3 months of delayed retirement or 6 months of delayed retirement depends on the amount of your benefit paid to you, not on how long you took off from work. It's not an amendment or extension to the Family Medical Leave Act, it's a separate legislation to amend SSA laws to add this provision.

It won't change anything for employers.

Okay, do you have a link that provides the information in detail?

I know it's not an amendment. I just said maybe it should be instead of creating new law.

So if it won't change anything for employers, does that mean an employer is not obligated to participate if he has less than 50 employees? So you're saying nobody can take 6 months under the plan?

Like I said, can somebody please provide a link to the program in detail?

Originally Posted by MW

Okay, do you have a link that provides the information in detail?

I know it's not an amendment. I just said maybe it should be instead of creating new law.

So if it won't change anything for employers, does that mean an employer is not obligated to participate if he has less than 50 employees? So you're saying nobody can take 6 months under the plan?

Like I said, can somebody please provide a link to the program in detail?

People can do whatever they want, but it's my understanding that they are not changing the Family Medical Leave Act to extend that from 12 weeks (3 months) to 6 months, so employers aren't impacted by having to keep the person's job longer than 3 months as a matter of law. Employers may want to keep that person and that person may want 6 months leave for the new baby, that is between them and not forced by law. Only 3 months leave is forced by law requiring employers to keep their job open.

I'm sure you can find Rubio's bill on the internet in a few days. He introduces it today and it usually takes a few days for the clerk to log it in and get it up on their Senate website. Hopefully that will answer a lot of questions about it. Also, based on the reports about it, they have to pay for it through their own benefit payments, not the employers portion. That could also be why the up to 6 months for 3 months of benefits, since it's only coming out of the employee's share of payments into SSA.