ENZI OPPOSES UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES, SUPPORTS PRIVATE MARKET SOLUTIONS ALREADY IN PLACE

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today noted that proposed legislation requiring employers to provide paid sick leave would be a massive unfunded mandate on employers that could easily cost small and large businesses tens of billions of dollars. “Labor market competition has already resulted in employers establishing a wide array of paid leave plans, insurance programs, paid time off policies, sick leave banks and other human resource options,” Enzi said at a HELP Committee hearing titled “The Healthy Families Act: Safeguarding Americans’ Livelihood, Families and Health with Paid Sick Days.” “The question is, should the federal government mandate one costly, inflexible approach to employee benefits, an approach that will be an administrative and logistical nightmare for many employers, at the expense of all the other good things that employers are already doing? And I think the answer to that question is a resounding ‘No.’” “If the goal of this bill is to promote healthier families, why not support legislation that will get more working families insured – as the bipartisan Small Business Health Plan bill I introduced last year would do if adopted. That initiative will make America’s working families healthier by allowing small businesses and associations to band together and buy into health plan coverage at better rates. If I were one of the 46 million uninsured Americans, I’m certain that putting health insurance within reach of my family’s budget would be my choice over more days off work.” Today’s hearing focused on a Democrat proposal that would establish a rigid federal mandate requiring employers with 15 or more employees to give all employees 7 days of paid family and medical leave. The mandate would cover part-timers, as well as those with little or no seniority. The reasons for leave under the proposal are extremely broad, the checks on potential abuse are few, and the paid leave would be divisible into increments as small as a few minutes. By some estimates this bill will affect roughly 45 million workers. The legislation requires up to 56 hours of paid sick time per employee; and the average hourly non- supervisory, non-farm wage is right around $17 per hour. As a result, the average cost exposure of the proposed legislation for each full-time employee is nearly a thousand dollars. Even if one adjusts the pool of the approximately 45 million workers that would be affected to allow for part-timers, the cost exposure here is plainly in the tens of billions of dollars.“The money necessary to pay those increased costs must come from somewhere,” Enzi said. “The pool of available labor dollars is not infinite, and when we mandate their expenditure for a specific purpose, we always run the risk of unintended consequence. A dollar that must be spent here, often results in a dollar that will not be spent elsewhere. Imagine the irony for an employee who is granted sick leave under this bill, but whose employer decides to eliminate or reduce health plan benefits.” Enzi noted that the legislation lacks definitional precision, adequate safeguards against abuse, and due recognition of, or provisions to counter, its disruptive impact on affected businesses. In fact, the legislative language is so open-ended as to arguably create a federal mandate of 56 hours of paid time off to be used as an employee wishes, and in such increments as the employee wishes. “All across the country, without any Congressional intervention, the operation of the labor market economics, and the voluntary cooperative efforts of employers and employees, are resulting in the establishment of leave policies that meet their unique needs,” Enzi said. “This bill throws good will out the window and abandons free markets and innovation in favor another Big Government, one--fits-all mandate that will only compound existing problems.” ####