Paid family leave is a big issue across the nation, whether it’s to care for children or those of us nearing advanced ages.

In Brief: Proposition 118 would establish a paid family and medical leave insurance program, under which employers and employees would pay premiums into a fund, and employees would be able to take up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave annually (with longer periods possible in case of serious health conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth). Some employers will not be required to participate, including companies of nine or fewer employees, the self-employed, local governments that choose not to participate, and employers that already offer paid leave. If voters approve Prop 118, employers and employees would begin paying premiums in 2023, and benefits would be available a year after premiums begin. Prop 118 is statutory, not Constitutional.

Why or Why Not?: Colorado legislators, notably Rep. Faith Winter but certainly others, have been trying to establish a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado through the legislative process in recent years, but they have not been successful. Since legislators couldn’t get a bill passed, a citizen initiative was drafted, and supporters gathered enough petition signatures to put Prop 118 on the 2020 ballot.

Winter offered a personal story to Westword to help illustrate the potential benefit of medical leave:

“I have a very good friend in my life right now who is immune-compromised. She runs out of her vacation time this week, and she works for an employer that’s very exposed to the public. She has to make the decision right now to either go on unpaid leave and risk her mortgage payment, or go back to work and risk her life.”

As it stands today, eight states – California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Oregon – and Washington DC have paid family leave programs.

If Prop 118 passes, premiums would be set at 0.9% of wages per employee for the first two years, and employers must pay for at least half of this premium, meaning employees may need to pay up to half. The premiums would go into a Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund, which would be used to pay leave benefits and administrative costs of the program. In 2025 and years to follow, the premium rates would be recalculated to meet expenses, based on benefits paid in the preceding calendar year and administrative costs of the program, and could not exceed 1.2% of wages per employee.

The program is expected to generate about $1.2 billion in premiums during its first full year. The weekly benefit to employees would be tied to the employee’s average weekly wages, and for a very basic illustration, current state numbers say an employee making $500 per week could qualify for $450 per week in benefits, while an employee earning $3,000 per week and up could qualify for $1,100 in benefits.

Speaking very generally, some number of organizations associated with the business community have typically been opposed to the family leave state bills proposed and Prop 118.

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce said:

“While we support paid family and medical leave, we do not believe a state-run program that mandates a one-size-fits-all approach for small businesses up to large corporations is the answer. This initiative is costly for both employees and employers at a time when many are struggling to keep teams employed, are working to rebuild or even just trying to stay afloat in this economy. Plus, employers are still adjusting to the new federal rules about paid leave that were released shortly after the pandemic hit.”

To help protect against business operation disruption, Prop 118 requires employees who might take foreseeable leave to notify employers in advance, and asks employees to make a “reasonable effort” to schedule leave so as not to disrupt business operations.

The new state division created if Prop 118 passes would be considered an enterprise, since it would be premium-funded and would not receive more than 10% of its funding from the state. This means it would not be subject to the TABOR revenue formula as long as it retains enterprise status.

The full text of this measure is 15 pages long, while the ballot title that voters will see is a long run-on paragraph that isn’t descriptive enough to enable a quality decision. Readers can access the full text under “Initiative 283” by opening the pdf file at this link: https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2020.html

Prop 118 Pro:

  • https://www.voteyeson118.com/
  • “Family values” certainly includes caring for family members who are sick or injured, and the employees caring for family members shouldn’t have to risk their jobs or lose income when facing these difficult situations.
  • Adequate care for individuals at the point of need may contribute to better long-term health outcomes.
  • Medical issues can be quite unexpected and difficult to plan for, but having a fund available in advance could help ensure that a covered employee can miss work for a period of time without major financial consequences.

Prop 118 Con:

  • https://cochamber.com/workers/
  • The program proposed will collect a large amount of money, and employer premiums will be a cost that businesses must either absorb or pass on to customers/clients through higher prices.
  • Employees would pay premiums too, yet some employees would never or rarely use the program.
  • The program will create a large new government bureaucracy.

Richard’s Take: Vote YES. It’s simply a humane action to allow family members to care for other family members without putting their jobs or short-term income in jeopardy. The program that would be established is literally a type of insurance, with premium payments from many employees or employers creating a pool able to cover a wide range of employees. If someone gets into a car accident, insurance will cover some of the damage, and paid family leave will cover income that a person who cares for a loved one might have lost without a program like what would be established under Prop 118. This won’t be an easy vote for some, and it’s a fair point to say the cost of premiums and possible absences from work could have impacts on business bottom lines, business operations, and potentially the cost of goods and services to consumers. It’s still the right thing to do, and we should all at least try to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who needs to care for a family member in difficult times but doesn’t have the financial ability to miss work.