Urge Governor to Examine True Cost of Paid Leave
Burden on Taxpayers Should be Considered Before Signing

Governor Jon Corzine has stated that he has every intention to sign the paid leave bill passed last week in the legislature. However, chamber members are still encouraged to call the Governor's Office at (609) 292-6000 to ask him to re-examine the potential cost of the program to taxpayers before signing the bill. A recent chamber study revealed that the Office of Legislative Services' fiscal estimate on paid leave is way too low and that employees will end up paying more out of their paychecks to fund this government mandated program. Click here for the study, which was paid for by member donations to the chamber's Enterprise Trust Fund.

The cost issue, as well as others, also led The Bergen Record to rethink its endorsement of paid leave. Please read the editorial below. Thank you.

Jim Leonard
Senior Vice President Government Relations
NJ Chamber of Commerce


Editorial: Hold the applause
The Bergen Record
Friday, April 11, 2008
 
WITH MUCH fanfare, the Legislature has passed a paid family leave bill. It is intended to provide some financial relief to employees who are caring for newborns or newly adopted children or immediate family members who are seriously ill. When first proposed, we applauded the legislation. Now, we are less enthusiastic.
 
Good intentions do not always make good legislation, and, equally important in a recession, sound business sense. The majority of employees seeking up to six weeks' paid leave at up to $524 per week are not looking to game the system. Nor are the majority of employers unreceptive to the individual needs of their employees.
 
Yes, this is well-intended legislation. But there are problems. The original bill proposed 12 weeks' paid leave. That was whittled down to six weeks. Last year's version of the bill was written so vaguely that despite the intention of legislators to exempt employers of fewer than 50 workers from lawsuits if they did not keep jobs open for employees on leave, a more thorough legal review determined that employers were still very much in jeopardy.
 
The bill's language has changed, but we remain concerned that a legal challenge could overturn that provision. As it is, employers will be fearful that they may be sued if they do not hold a job open for a worker on leave. In turn, employees will be fearful that they will lose their jobs if they take paid family leave.
 
It's lose-lose for both sides.
 
Additionally, proponents of the bill continually assert that there is no cost to the employers. Paid family leave is funded through a payroll deduction. That is half true. Employers will still have to train someone to manage paid leave requests and understand the new policy. And someone has to fill the vacated position, even on a temporary basis. That costs time and money.
 
What is also unknown is whether the California experience, held as the model for New Jersey's law, will be the New Jersey experience. Could New Jerseyans have greater needs or medical challenges than Californians? We do not know. Neither does the Legislature.
 
We remain committed to the rights of workers. Families struggle every day to care for children, spouses and parents. Many families are struggling to make ends meet.
 
The state's business climate is not robust. Any bill that may further erode the stability of small businesses across the state gives pause for thought.
 
We still believe that paid family leave is well intended. But given the current business climate and the unknowns in implementing paid family leave in New Jersey, we are also concerned that paid family leave may do little good if workers find themselves unemployed.
 
We urge legislators to carefully monitor the impact of this new law. Too often the state has been resistant to rethinking good intentions that have gone awry. If the worst-case scenario becomes reality, the Legislature should be willing to act.
 
For now, hold the applause.