DC Residents are you ok with DC govt voting to keep their own benefits and cutting everyone else's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't Feds get annual and sick leave? This is all the same pot.

Uh, I take it your employer does not offer maternity leave, paternity leave, or short term disability insurance? Vacation, sick leave, or PTO is not parental leave or STD.

Fed here. I think two weeks a year of sick. No maternity/parental leave that is paid. No short term disability. The D.C. Plan looks great as a starting point. Companies can give more if they like.

This comes with a new tax on businesses. Not so much money to give more after the benefits budget is diverted to the tax.

What do Feds usually get for vacation in a year?

What does what Feds get for annual leave have to do with this paid family leave? The family leave mandated by this bill is separate from any annual or sick leave employees of private businesses get.

However, for the record Feds in years 0-3 get 13 days of annual leave, years 3-15 get 29, and years 15+ get 25. However, I've yet to meet anyone in the 15 year leave category in the DC area that's still having a baby. It took me 5 years per kid to save up enough annual and sick leave to cover time off after I had kids at year's 5 and 10 into govt service. If I wanted a 3rd, it would take another 5, at which point I'd be 41 and just about to reach the 15 year mark.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, that should be 20, not 29. Finger slipped on my phone keypad.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused by your rant. Unless I am wrong, I don't think the new law requires employers that currently give more than the legally required leave, to reduce what they are offering to give only the legally required amount.

As for the hypocrisy of electeds, I would save my energy for Congressional republicans like Paul Ryan, who don't support any paid family leave or Obamacare, yet enjoy 20 weeks off plus Cadillac insurance.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a problem with an organization offering more than the minimum. I do have a problem with organizations who were happily offering more suddenly reducing what they offer because a minimum is established. To me, that is essentially the same as an employer suddenly deciding to pay employees only the minimum wage rather than the higher wages they previously paid.

[Anonymous]

It should be capped at a certain income level, and limited to D.C. residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by your rant. Unless I am wrong, I don't think the new law requires employers that currently give more than the legally required leave, to reduce what they are offering to give only the legally required amount.

As for the hypocrisy of electeds, I would save my energy for Congressional republicans like Paul Ryan, who don't support any paid family leave or Obamacare, yet enjoy 20 weeks off plus Cadillac insurance.

Yup. OP, please provide a source to your claim that this law prevents businesses from exceeding the city-mandated minimum. That's like saying because DC has a minimum wage, all employees in DC MUST be paid the minimum wage.

[Anonymous]

Does the law apply to domestic employers (nannies, housekeepers)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the law apply to domestic employers (nannies, housekeepers)?

Hopefully. I would love to have a way for my nanny to get maternity leave benefits.

[Anonymous]

The idea that the paid leave should be for DCresidents only is absolutely ridiculous. What about D.C. residents that work in MD or VA, how would they benefit? they wouldn't. Since the leave will be paid by a business tax, and D.C. businesses don't just hire D.C. residents only, it is foolish to think that only D.C residents benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with an organization offering more than the minimum. I do have a problem with organizations who were happily offering more suddenly reducing what they offer because a minimum is established. To me, that is essentially the same as an employer suddenly deciding to pay employees only the minimum wage rather than the higher wages they previously paid.

In theory, yes, and if the law just established a minimum, you'd have a point. But that's not what it did. It established an entirely new program, administered by the DC government and funded by a tax on DC employers. I don't' think there's a carve-out for employers who offer more generous benefits, so those employers would be paying those benefits AND paying the tax to fund the other benefits. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.) In essence, they're be required to offer - and pay for - double benefits. That's why this law, good-intentioned though it is, is so screwed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the law apply to domestic employers (nannies, housekeepers)?

Hopefully. I would love to have a way for my nanny to get maternity leave benefits.

Traditionally, employers pay for maternity leave benefits. There's nothing stopping you from providing them.

What's that? Oh, you want someone ELSE to pay for your nanny to have maternity leave benefits. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by your rant. Unless I am wrong, I don't think the new law requires employers that currently give more than the legally required leave, to reduce what they are offering to give only the legally required amount.

As for the hypocrisy of electeds, I would save my energy for Congressional republicans like Paul Ryan, who don't support any paid family leave or Obamacare, yet enjoy 20 weeks off plus Cadillac insurance.

Yup. OP, please provide a source to your claim that this law prevents businesses from exceeding the city-mandated minimum. That's like saying because DC has a minimum wage, all employees in DC MUST be paid the minimum wage.

It doesn't say that - in fact, Sec. 108(c)(2) says the exact opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by your rant. Unless I am wrong, I don't think the new law requires employers that currently give more than the legally required leave, to reduce what they are offering to give only the legally required amount.

As for the hypocrisy of electeds, I would save my energy for Congressional republicans like Paul Ryan, who don't support any paid family leave or Obamacare, yet enjoy 20 weeks off plus Cadillac insurance.

Yup. OP, please provide a source to your claim that this law prevents businesses from exceeding the city-mandated minimum. That's like saying because DC has a minimum wage, all employees in DC MUST be paid the minimum wage.

It doesn't say that - in fact, Sec. 108(c)(2) says the exact opposite.

Can employers benefit from both? That is, for the period covered by the law, employees could collect the $1000/week + an employer portion to make them "whole?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by your rant. Unless I am wrong, I don't think the new law requires employers that currently give more than the legally required leave, to reduce what they are offering to give only the legally required amount.

As for the hypocrisy of electeds, I would save my energy for Congressional republicans like Paul Ryan, who don't support any paid family leave or Obamacare, yet enjoy 20 weeks off plus Cadillac insurance.

Yup. OP, please provide a source to your claim that this law prevents businesses from exceeding the city-mandated minimum. That's like saying because DC has a minimum wage, all employees in DC MUST be paid the minimum wage.

It doesn't say that - in fact, Sec. 108(c)(2) says the exact opposite.

Can employers benefit from both? That is, for the period covered by the law, employees could collect the $1000/week + an employer portion to make them "whole?"

Employers can supplement. Problem is that the employers with better benefits are likely paying a higher tax. If the tax is more than what they spent on benefits, they're short. That's how pp's nanny gets paid. This $250 million is coming from somewhere!

The only thing businesses can't do is opt out when they want to offer alternatives like flex hours or a higher benefits. Everyone's funneled through DC government. It's absurd that DC thinks they can do anything to stop the millions of ways to game this system. Are they going to do anything to see if someone's parent in the Phillipines is really sick every year? That I hired my Uncle Jed so he can pull money every year? Crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by your rant. Unless I am wrong, I don't think the new law requires employers that currently give more than the legally required leave, to reduce what they are offering to give only the legally required amount.

As for the hypocrisy of electeds, I would save my energy for Congressional republicans like Paul Ryan, who don't support any paid family leave or Obamacare, yet enjoy 20 weeks off plus Cadillac insurance.

Yup. OP, please provide a source to your claim that this law prevents businesses from exceeding the city-mandated minimum. That's like saying because DC has a minimum wage, all employees in DC MUST be paid the minimum wage.

It doesn't say that - in fact, Sec. 108(c)(2) says the exact opposite.

Can employers benefit from both? That is, for the period covered by the law, employees could collect the $1000/week + an employer portion to make them "whole?"

Employers can supplement. Problem is that the employers with better benefits are likely paying a higher tax. If the tax is more than what they spent on benefits, they're short. That's how pp's nanny gets paid. This $250 million is coming from somewhere!

The only thing businesses can't do is opt out when they want to offer alternatives like flex hours or a higher benefits. Everyone's funneled through DC government. It's absurd that DC thinks they can do anything to stop the millions of ways to game this system. Are they going to do anything to see if someone's parent in the Phillipines is really sick every year? That I hired my Uncle Jed so he can pull money every year? Crazy.

Every social net program has weaknesses. These weaknesses are often overblown by critics, who are happy to cut all our noses off to spite our faces.