Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paid Family Medical Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes paid family and medical leave bill after fiscal debate; opponents warn of payroll costs
Summary
SB 1122, creating a paid family and medical leave insurance program, passed the Virginia Senate after extended floor debate about cost, scope and actuarial studies. Sponsors said the program would cost workers about a few dollars a month on average; opponents warned of higher payroll impacts and long‑term cost uncertainty.
The Virginia Senate on Jan. 28 passed SB 1122, a bill that would create a paid family and medical leave insurance program for Virginia workers.
Senator Boiskell (Northern Fairfax), the bill’s sponsor, told colleagues the program would create an insurance pool allowing eligible workers to draw benefits to take up to 12 weeks for qualifying reasons such as serious personal illness or to care for a family member. She said a typical worker earning $50,000 annually would pay roughly $3.17 weekly — “like a cup of coffee” — and that the program would increase retention, morale and maternal and infant health, pointing to other U.S. states with similar programs.
Opponents pressed hard on the Senate floor about the program’s fiscal impact and assumptions. Senator McDougall (Hanover) and others cited the fiscal impact statement and said the first-year payroll intake would be over $1.3 billion and rise in year two; they warned that workers would be paying into the program whether or not they used the benefit and that actual use would likely increase when paid leave is introduced. Senator Henn (Botetourt) and Senator Head pressed whether actuarial underwriting supported the sponsor’s cost estimates; the sponsor replied that Weldon Cooper and two actuarial studies had analyzed the program and concluded it was affordable, citing the Weldon Cooper 2024 update.
Supporters said the Weldon Cooper study showed a comprehensive program covering private and public workers would cost less than 1% of payroll in analyzed scenarios and that actuarial results were consistent with other states’ programs. Opponents said past studies undercount use increases when benefits are paid and cautioned against an unfunded expansion of payroll deductions.
Discussion included opt‑out provisions for employers that already provide equal or greater benefits, special treatment for state employees, and exemptions for very small employers. Senator Boiskell said the substitute before the body included opt‑out language and protections for existing employer benefits. Several senators asked whether state employees would be required to pay; the sponsor answered that state employees with equal or greater benefits would not be required to participate.
The bill passed on final passage by a recorded vote of 21 yeas and 18 nays.
