Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bob Zeliff, of Bridport, an apple grower who is a retired engineer and the town chair of the Bridport Democratic Committee.
Why does Gov. Phil Scott’s voluntary paid family leave plan favor Chittenden County at the expense of rural Vermont?
We have all heard by now that Scott vetoed the paid family leave plan that would have covered virtually all Vermonters with a modest .2% payroll tax. He said it was not “affordable” to cover all Vermonters, implying it would be “affordable” if it was his voluntary plan.
He proposed his voluntary private insurance early last year but he has not yet found an insurance company with a firm price to provide it. Over a year later!
What he has said that the voluntary plan would be provided to all state employees (if they want it) and the yet to be determined insurance rates would be available to other large employers (over 20 people) assuming they got 100% of their people to sign up. He conceded that the cost would be higher if 100% of the employees did not sign up. For smaller employers (fewer than 20) would be charged even higher costs, even more if not 100% of their employees did not sign up. Maybe, individuals could sign up too but their costs would be much higher yet.
Clearly Scott’s plan favors larger employers over the smaller employers that we in rural areas rely on. Self-employed Vermont businesses would be paying the highest costs. As most of the state’s largest employers are in Chittenden County they would have the benefit of the lowest cost paid family leave. Those of us in more rural areas, with lower wages would have to pay higher costs so the likelihood of our local businesses making available paid family leave to us rural folks would be low.
Scott now speculates that it would cost $300 for a large employer with 100% participation but it would be much more for a rural small business. Let’s test this: a rural working mother making $12/hour ($24,000/year) well above minimum wage would pay $48 (.02%) under the paid leave plan he vetoed. A lot less than his proposed $300.
Does that sound more “affordable” to you? Does it even sound fair?
We in the rural areas are losing jobs, losing people. We know that the “demographic” crisis that Scott feels is so important, confirms that we are losing our young people as they migrate for economic reasons. Why would Scott propose a paid family leave system that would encourage better employee benefits in Chittenden County at the cost to the rural counties?
Paid family leave is not so important to the wealthy, but would be of great benefit to most Vermonters and the working poor. Those now struggling with infant care, child care, aged parent care and health care costs would be able to spend some personal time helping their loved ones. If you think Vermont should be a level playing field of opportunity, should not pit Chittenden County, larger business vs. small, against the rest of Vermont, if you think paid family leave is a benefit particularly to young working families, or if you just think it is a good idea tell the governor you reject his for-profit, insurance-company friendly plan.
