Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paid Family Medical Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears divided testimony on expanding job protection in Paid Family and Medical Leave
Summary
Senate Bill 5539 would expand job protection for workers who take Paid Family and Medical Leave; supporters said the change reduces inequities for low-wage workers, while business groups warned of costs to small employers and program solvency concerns.
Senate Bill 55 39, which would expand job-protection provisions in the state's Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, was the subject of extensive testimony Tuesday before the Labor & Commerce Committee.
Committee staff summarized the proposal and said it would reduce the minimum claim period from 8 to 4 hours, remove the employer-size threshold for employment protection, and generally extend employment protection to more workers by replacing the existing hourly- and tenure-based thresholds with a 90-day employment requirement. Staff also said the bill would require additional employer notices and data reporting and expand the employer's obligation to maintain health-care coverage during certain protected leaves.
Sponsor Senator Alvarado told the committee the bill "closes a loophole" that currently leaves nearly half of Washington workers who are covered by PFML without guaranteed job protection. Proponents — including the Economic Opportunity Institute, labor unions, MomsRising and worker advocates — said lack of job protection discourages workers, particularly low-wage employees, from taking leave they are entitled to and that expanding protection would promote equitable access to the benefit.
Opponents including the Association of Washington Business, the Washington Retail Association and industry trade groups said the bill would substantially increase costs and administrative burdens for small employers. They warned of higher employer premiums and argued some employers would respond by hiring fewer workers or increasing automation. Several witnesses urged continued refinement of small-business grants and the program's fiscal assumptions before proceeding.
Committee staff said a fiscal note was requested but not available at the time of the hearing. Several witnesses cited a University of Washington study commissioned by the Legislature in 2024 that found job-protection gaps were concentrated among lower-wage workers.
The committee did not take action on the bill Tuesday and will continue to accept testimony and consider revisions.
