Search
Back

Connecticut FMLA bill would give $12,000 to care for “third cousin, once removed”

Connecticut’s proposed family medical leave program would cover employees who wish to visit their “third cousin, once removed that had some kind of family medical issue,” according to an exchange between Representatives Christopher Davis, R-Ellington, and Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford at a Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee meeting last week.

The program proposed under House Bill 5387 levies a .5 percent employee tax to fund a medical trust fund run by the state, but also greatly expands the federal Family Medical Leave Act.

The Connecticut program would extend FMLA guidelines to allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave time and $1,000 per week to care for any blood relative or friend who is considered family.

According to the bill, an employee can use their FMLA time to care for “a sick sibling, son or daughter, grandparent, grandchild, parent or any other individual related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family member.”

Federal FMLA guidelines are limited to immediate family and only apply to companies with 50 or more employees. The Connecticut legislation would extend to any company with two or more employees and allow medical leave to care for virtually any family member, prompting Davis’ question regarding a “third cousin, once removed.”

Critics of the program, such as the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, say the program will not only hurt small businesses but be ripe for fraud and abuse by both employees and employers.

Eric Gjede of CBIA says the bill will put employers at a severe disadvantage when employees take leave because there is no way to challenge the legitimacy of a claim.

“How would they [employers] ever question an employee’s relationship with someone?” Gjede said, adding that employers could not require a doctor’s note or any kind of documentation for the illness of a distant relative.

“You’re also going to get into some potential HIPAA issues if you’re now allowing this leave to be taken for just anyone,” Gjede said. “Now you’re going to have to be sharing people’s medical information with your employer for an expanded number of people.”

HIPAA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, provides privacy protections for individuals’ health care information.

Gjede also said that small employers could essentially game the system by hiring family members for a minimal amount of time and then allowing them to take leave and collect payment.

Under the terms of the bill an individual will only need to be employed for six months and have worked 500 hours in order to receive the benefit.

But the bill also allows sole proprietorships to opt-in to the paid leave program, although they have to have been in business for three years in order to qualify.

“Under that scenario,” Gjede said, “if you determine that your business is not doing particularly well or you’ve decided to close up shop, you could also claim at the same time that you’re now taking medical leave and basically get paid for an additional twelve weeks.”

Rep. Davis noted that an employee could potentially use their protected FMLA time to take 12 weeks of leave, and then use any additional sick time or vacation time allowed by their employer.

The potential for abuse or fraud may create unanticipated strains on the trust fund, which may face funding issues from inception due to the low employee contribution and high payout.

Under the proposed framework, an individual making the state median income of $73,433 would pay $367.16 annually, but be eligible for $12,000 in benefits every year.

The Department of Labor will act as the administrator for the program and will oversee FMLA claims made to the state to ensure they meet statutory guidelines.

The legislation indicates that DOL can request documents and call witnesses in a disputed case in order to determine eligibility. The DOL will have to hire additional attorneys and staff to oversee the program which will affect over $1.2 million employees.

Although state and municipal employees, including teachers, would be excluded from the program, the OFA notes public employees could potentially opt-in to the program through collective bargaining agreements.

The bill also comes with a hefty fiscal note. The OFA estimates the program will cost $13.6 million to start, which will be covered by a $20 million bond. Once the program begins, it will cost “at least” $18.6 million per year in administrative costs.

Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, told the Finance Committee that paid FMLA is a good idea but that Connecticut just can’t afford it right now.

“A paid family medical leave bill like this one is, in concept, a wonderful, wonderful one that we wish we could deliver to the people of Connecticut,” Frantz said. “The only problem is this is coming with a huge fiscal note.”

Frantz added that there is no evidence the program would be able to pay for itself going forward and that it should be looked at in the future in a “much more rational” way to ensure that it would succeed in Connecticut.

Study finds short-term improvements for Connecticut’s medical retirement benefits, possible long-term problems persist

A new study from the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank based in New York City, reported improvements for one of Connecticut’s underfunded long-term debts – namely its medical benefits for state retirees and teachers. Connecticut saw a decrease in the state’s actual liabilities for its other post-employment benefits (OPEB) ...

Read More

Connecticut’s lawsuit over SALT deduction cap dismissed by federal court

United States District Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed a lawsuit by Connecticut and three other states against the Donald Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service over its cap on state and local property tax deductions, commonly known as SALT. The judge concluded “Congress enacted ...

Read More

Marc E. Fitch

(2) Comments

  1. Kenneth Smith

    April 11, 2019 11:39 am

    This is just another expensive entitlement program that employee’s will take advantage of especially since they are paying into the plan. An employee that makes $73000 per year would pay $365 per year into the plan. In 40 years they would pay in only $14680. Lets say they use the plan once every 10 years, they would be entitled to $48000 of paid leave. Based on Connecticut’s financial math that would be OK. I guarantee the trust fund will need more money within a few years and they will simply raise the .5 percent deduction to 1% then to 2% or force employers to pay into the plan. Many small business can’t afford to lose a key employee for 12 weeks. No wonder so many businesses are leaving this state.

  2. Richard Schaefer

    April 8, 2019 2:46 pm

    You have to be out of your minds to put something like through as a law. What small business can afford this benefit?. Most Mom and Pop shop owners aren’t making the proposed minimum wage of $15 per hour for themselves. This law if passed will surely put many small business OUT of business. As a result, the state will not get sales tax, income tax, property tax, entity tax. This state is not business friendly at all. It is, however, a welfare state for those who don’t contribute. I am tired of it and I won’t put up with it. I promise you that if this proposed legislation goes through I will cease doing business in Connecticut and you can find another sucker to pay for the lost taxes that you have been getting from me.

Leave a Reply to Richard Schaefer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE OUR NEWSLETTER