Anonymous wrote:I am more in favor of the shared tax proposed by Senator Gillibrand, which would cost the average worker $72.04 per year, with a maximum contribution of $227.40 per year.

Except that that's going nowhere, whereas this might actually happen.

The bill, which Grosso co-wrote with Councilmember Silverman, would allow any employee in D.C., or any D.C. resident employed outside of the city, [i]to access a government-run fund that would pay for up to 16 weeks of leave for a qualifying event.

Wow. This combined with a more robust PK3 could make DC an infant & toddler haven.

I am more in favor of the shared tax proposed by Senator Gillibrand, which would cost the average worker $72.04 per year, with a maximum contribution of $227.40 per year.

Amazing! Hopefully other states follow behind soon.

This is a great idea. It will definitely make DC more attractive for employment.

Anonymous wrote:Agree, I'm the manager of a team of six women of childbearing age (as well as one myself), and while I hate dealing with maternity leave, I REALLY hate recruiting, hiring, and onboarding new staff. (Which is more expensive than maternity leave, too.) If this keeps my people around, I like it.

Amen. My job has close to a year long learning curve, training a new person seems to go on forever. I would so much rather cover the slack for a few months and have the fully trained person come back then have to train a brand new person and hold their hand for an entire year or more.

I actually think it would be cheaper for the employer to just offer the 16 weeks paid themselves rather than the .6% tax. I know in my job (fed), coworkers just pick up the slack when one person is out for a heart attack or baby. There are so many of us doing the same thing that the burden isn't much heavier.

Agree, I'm the manager of a team of six women of childbearing age (as well as one myself), and while I hate dealing with maternity leave, I REALLY hate recruiting, hiring, and onboarding new staff. (Which is more expensive than maternity leave, too.) If this keeps my people around, I like it.

This is good for the economy. There'll be some crotchety jackasses who complain bitterly. But you know what's worse than paying for 16 weeks paid leave (through a small tax spread among all businesses)? Having the majority of 25-40 year old woman on your team quit right after she has a baby. And then not re-enter the workforce. Because it f-ing sucks to work after having a baby.

Think about the economic effects of having a big chunk of the working population sit out during their prime working years. And then re-enter the workforce 10 years later on a lower salary track than they might have otherwise been on.

It's way better for the economy, and less costly, to do whatever you can to keep those women off the mommy track/sahm path.

i don't think it'll cripple the economy .. people are saying that DC won't be competitive, but i think the opposite. i think people will want to work in DC! AND if DC can lead the way for the rest of the country how awesome!

Anonymous wrote:As much as I love this, it really needs to be done on a national level to prevent it from crippling the local economy.

California offers 6 weeks paid through a similar program. Doesn't seem to have crippled the state's economy. DC has a similar advantage in that due to some unique things about the city (i.e. being the seat of Federal government), businesses are unlikely to leave easily...which won't stop them from complaining mightily.

Anonymous wrote:Time to move my business from DC to Maryland or Virginia.

You don't have a business, PP. You are an old, retired man.

As much as I love this, it really needs to be done on a national level to prevent it from crippling the local economy.

Time to move my business from DC to Maryland or Virginia.

WOOT!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-could-become-best-place-in-us-to-have-a-baby-get-sick-or-have-parents/2015/10/05/0277c3ae-6b30-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html