Tompkins County legislators back paid caregiver leave; committee discusses opting into state program and county 'top-up'

Veronica Pillar, chair of the Tompkins County Workforce Diversity & Inclusion Committee, opened a March 23 meeting by noting that a resolution the committee helped draft had just passed the county legislature unanimously and is moving into policy work.

The committee discussed policy options for implementing paid caregiver leave for county employees. Iris Packman, a legislator who led the resolution effort, said the legislature adopted the measure with strong support: "I think there were 14 [yes votes]; I think there were 2 absent, so I think all 14 voted yes." The resolution asks county administration and other bodies to draft an implementing policy.

Why it matters: Members framed the change as a workforce-retention and equity measure. Several speakers said paid leave can reduce turnover and associated costs, while also addressing recovery and bonding time for birthing and non‑birthing caregivers.

What was discussed: Committee members considered two primary implementation paths. One would have Tompkins County "opt into" New York State's paid family/caregiver leave program so the state administers claims and benefits; the other would create a county-run plan. Rachel Ostlund said opting into the state program could reduce administrative burden because the state already evaluates claims.

Iris Packman and other legislators described the state's program as providing roughly two-thirds of an employee's salary through state benefits and said committee members had discussed the county possibly "topping up" the remainder so employees would receive full salary while on leave. "There seems to be support for us, the county, to fill in the last 33% so that people would be at their full salary for the 12 weeks," a legislator said during the meeting.

Labor and legal considerations: Members repeatedly raised collective-bargaining implications. Several speakers said represented employees' terms (pay and paycheck deductions) would require bargaining with unions; one participant noted that non‑represented managers typically follow white‑collar bargaining-unit outcomes. John Halachik asked whether non‑represented staff would have a formal vote; members said non‑represented employees do not get a union vote but must receive notice of payroll-deduction changes.

Next steps and follow-up: Committee members asked county staff and the county attorney to research technical questions: the state's enrollment or effective-date windows, the 90‑day notice period mentioned for non‑represented employees, and whether supplementing the state benefit would trigger bargaining. Leon Holden, the county's new chief equity and diversity officer, said he should be included in drafting to ensure equitable policy design.

Formal action recorded: The committee noted that a resolution supporting development of a comprehensive paid caregiver leave policy had been forwarded through the budget, capital and personnel process and approved by the legislature; the transcript records a unanimous legislative vote by 14 members present (two legislators absent). The committee did not adopt a final policy at the March 23 meeting and directed staff and counsel to return with draft options and legal clarifications.

What remains unresolved: Who would pay any top-up, the precise fiscal impact, and whether unions must bargain specific implementation steps remain open. Members also asked staff to confirm the state's payroll-deduction rate (the transcript referenced a numeric rate spoken aloud that should be verified with state sources) and to return with timeline options that align with the county budget process.

The committee adjourned without approving a final policy; members expect additional staff work and legal review before a policy recommendation is presented.