Skip to main content

President Trump's Proposed Budget Calls For 6 Weeks of Paid Leave


On Monday, President Donald Trump's administration rolled out its 2019 budget request and addendum which includes a proposal for 6 weeks of paid leave for new mothers and fathers (including those who adopt).  As always, many will now ask, "Ok, how are you going to pay for it?"  Under the 2019 budget request, these 6 weeks of paid leave would be funded through state unemployment insurance.  (Readers might recall that this is nearly identical to last year's proposal in the 2018 budget request).  

This proposal has started to gain traction among ranking Republicans in Congress, including Mike Lee (from Utah) and Jodi Ernst (from Iowa).  However, there have been critics (on both sides of the aisle) that have argued that funding paid leave through state unemployment insurance is an idea destined to fail...given that it could further hamper already cash-strapped state unemployment insurance.  That could lead to states choosing to raise taxes to cover this paid leave proposal.

Interesting to note that this paid leave proposal in President Trump's budget request bypasses a paid leave idea that had been floated by Senator Marco Rubio and Ivanka Trump earlier this month.  As readers are likely aware, that proposal has met much heavier resistance (notwithstanding the fact that Senator Rubio and Ivanka Trump have yet to produce an actual bill).

Will President Trump's proposal gain much traction?  It is certainly possible as there appears to be an appetite among both Republicans and Democrats to finally approve some sort of nationwide paid leave plan.  The question is whether enough Congressmen and Congresswomen can rally around one proposal to actually make nationwide paid leave a reality.

Stay tuned.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more