Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Employer and
Worker Experiences
with Paid Family
Leave in California
1976 TDI amended to cover disabilities tied to normal pregnancies for three weeks
effective 1977 before and three weeks after delivery.
1978 State Fair Employment Practices Act amended to cover pregnancy discrimination
effective 1979 and provide up to four months job-protected leave for pregnancy-related
disability. Small employers (with less than five employees) exempted.
1979 TDI program amended to repeal all provisions specifc to pregnancy, in effect
entitling disabled pregnant women to the same benefts as employees with any
other type of disability. (In 1979, the maximum leave under TDI was twenty-six
weeks per year; that maximum has since been increased to fifty-two weeks per
year, with medical certifcation required.)
1991 California Family Rights Act gives private sector employees of both genders
effective 1992 whose employers have fifty or more workers the right to four months job-
protected family leave to care for a newborn or adopted child or a seriously ill
family member.
1992 State Fair Employment and Housing Act amended to require employers with
five or more employees to provide job-protected leave of up to four months for
employees disabled by pregnancy.
1993 Federal Family and Medical Leave Act gives all public sector employees,
and private sector employees of both genders whose employers have fifty or
more workers, the right to twelve weeks of job-protected unpaid family or
medical leave.
1999 “Kin Care” legislation requires that employers who provide paid sick leave must
effective 2000 permit employees to use up to 50% of annual allotment to care for a sick child,
parent, or spouse.
2002 SDI (formerly TDI) amended to provide Paid Family Leave of up to six weeks
effective 2004 per year for bonding with a newborn, adopted, or foster child or for caring for
a seriously ill family member.
N =175
Note: The number of employees shown refers to the stratum of firms from which the establishment was drawn and in some cases may not match current firm size due to the
effects of the 2008–2009 recession.
ur
ur
rs
rs
ur
of it.
ke
ke
ke
ho
ho
ho
or
or
or
0/
0/
10
W
$2
$2
r$
50
er
–
de
ov
0
<
un
50
$1
–
es
50
es
es
ag
ag
ag
er
er
er
av
av
y
pa
y
y
pa
pt
pt
pt
em
em
ex
ex
ex
n-
n-
No
No
No
25% 21.0%
0%
Fe le
e
e 35 4
or 54
te
ca L n
er o
n
gn rn
n
om rad ol
l e C te
ad e
te
e –$ k
er 0k
0k
5/ s
ur
ac n
n
$1 Les
or
al
Gr leg
0
Ag ge – 3
ia
ica
or
/V io
io
Am in
a
G o
hi
ol e ua
ua
ei Bo
ho
co 30 3
Ov 8
$8
M
m
As
55 –
n at
ys cat
at
ol Sch
M
-B
In e $ er $
W
ge ol
Fo .S.-
er or
A 18
Da Va
ho h
Ov r
ol om nd
U
e
u
Sc ig
ck s/
Ag
rn o
r
eh nc U
Si ay
H
Ea 5 / h
m
us ld I me
gh n
D
tri
Hi tha
$1
Pa Sick
Ho ho nco
Af
rn
ss
e I
ith d
id
Le
Ea
us ld
w Pai
Ho eho
Jo ut
us
o
ith
Ho
b
w
N = 500
b
Jo
of awareness of PFL. And an earlier analysis of PFL older workers. Latinos were far less aware of PFL than
claims data by the California Senate Office of Research the other ethnic and racial groups shown; similarly,
(Sherriff 2007) found that low-wage workers were immigrants (many of whom are also Latino) were far
underrepresented among PFL claimants. less aware of PFL than respondents born in the United
Nearly half (48.6 percent) of all respondents in States. Respondents with limited education were also
the 2009–10 screening survey analyzed in this report less aware of PFL than those with higher educational
indicated that they were aware of PFL. Unlike the attainment. And respondents with annual household
representative surveys of California adults described incomes under $30,000 were only about half as likely
above, the screening survey included only respondents to be aware of PFL as those with annual household
who had experienced a life event that qualified them incomes over $80,000. Similarly, respondents earning
for PFL eligibility, which probably explains why their $15 per hour or less (the hourly equivalent of a $30,000
awareness level was higher than that in the earlier income for full-time, year-round workers) had far lower
surveys. However, as in the previous surveys, as awareness of PFL than those earning over $15 per hour.
Figure 2 shows, the 2009–10 screening survey found Figure 2 also shows that respondents whose jobs
that awareness of PFL is least extensive among the lacked employer-provided paid sick days or paid
demographic groups that need it the most. The one vacation benefits—the group of workers most in need
exception is gender: female respondents—who are more of the state’s PFL program, since they have no other
likely than their male counterparts to have assumed access to wage replacement during a family leave—were
the care responsibilities that trigger the need for far less aware of PFL than respondents whose jobs
family leave—are more aware of PFL than their male provided paid sick days and/or paid vacation benefits.
counterparts. This is precisely the group that stood to benefit most
For all the other demographic categories shown in from the new state program.
Figure 2, the data suggest that those most in need of Among those respondents who were aware of PFL’s
PFL are least likely to be aware of it. Thus respondents existence, knowledge of the details of the program
under thirty-five years old—the age group most likely followed a similar pattern of inequality, as Table 2
to become new parents—were less aware of PFL than shows. Respondents with high-quality jobs (paying over
Can be used for bonding with an adopted or foster child 68.5% 75.9% 63.6%
Can be used to care for a seriously ill family member 64.2% 68.2% 62.0%
N = 246
$20 an hour with employer-provided health coverage) their employees about the existence of PFL: if these
consistently knew more about the details of the PFL workers can draw benefits from the state program in
program than those with low-quality jobs, although lieu of some part of what the employer would otherwise
these differences were more modest than those in overall provide, the employer enjoys a cost
awareness. savings. That is presumably why, Respondents earning
as we noted in the last section of
The Role of Employers this report, many employers do $15 per hour or
coordinate their own benefits with
less had far lower
Respondents who were aware of PFL had learned about PFL. Thus, as one manager we
the program from a variety of sources. By far the most spoke with just before PFL benefits awareness of PFL
common source of information about the program was became available predicted, “Paid
than those earning
the respondent’s employer: 63.4 percent of respondents family leave in California was
who were employed in the private or nonprofit sector intended to help people who don’t over $15 per hour.
indicated that they learned about the program from have any pay during maternity
their employer—twice the proportion for any other leave or other family leaves. But in fact the main
information source except family or friends (see Table 3). beneficiaries will be higher-paid workers who already
In addition, more than half (50.6 percent) of those have paid sick leave and vacation and who will use the
screening survey respondents who had actually used state program to top off their current benefits.”
the PFL program reported that they had obtained the Among respondents who are aware of PFL and
PFL application form directly from their employer, eligible to use the program (measured here by
again reflecting employers’ central role in disseminating employment in the private or nonprofit sector), take up
information about the program.6 rates do not vary much by race, ethnicity, or between
Indeed, family-friendly employers—those who U.S.-born and immigrant workers. However, whereas
themselves provide various forms of paid time off to half (49.8 percent) of all PFL-aware respondents with
their workers—have an economic incentive to inform high-quality jobs had used the program, only 36.6
percent of those in low-quality jobs had done so.
6 The
second most common source of a PFL application form was
These findings suggest that employers—especially
receiving it by mail from the state of California, as reported by 30.1 family-friendly employers who have long provided
percent of respondents. PFL application forms are routinely sent to benefits that their employees could use to support
anyone who makes an SDI claim for pregnancy, since most of these
claimants are eligible for PFL baby bonding leaves as well. We do not paid leave—may be the major conduit for information
have data on how many survey respondents learned about SDI from about the California PFL program. Employers also may
their employer, but some of these 30.1 percent surely did, which
means the 50.6 percent figure understates the role of employers in
be influencing whether or not those workers who are
making respondents aware of PFL. aware of PFL actually take advantage of it. Indeed, an
N=178
Note: Includes only respondents who were aware of PFL and who were employed in the private or nonprofit sectors; total adds to more than 100 percent because respondents
could cite more than one source of information.
analysis by the California Senate Office of Research with their own benefits, it will not achieve its intended
found that individuals who worked for very large effect of reducing the disparity between workers who
employers (those with a thousand or more employees) previously had access to paid leave (via employer-
were overrepresented among PFL claimants, relative to sponsored benefits) and those who lacked such access.
the proportion of the overall workforce accounted for The danger, in short, is that in the absence of other
by those large employers (Sherriff 2007, p. 9). means to raise the level of awareness of PFL, the
The promise of PFL was to extend access to paid longstanding inequality between those who currently
leave to all the state’s workers, especially those who have access to paid leave and those who lack such
previously lacked access to wage replacement. But until access will persist. Outreach to the latter group – which
awareness spreads considerably beyond those workers is disproportionately made up of low-wage workers – is
whose employers are coordinating the state PFL program therefore an urgent priority.
35%
32.5% 32.5%
31.9% 31.9% 32.0%
30.0%
30% Care Claims
26.0%
25% 24.1%
22.6%
20.7%
20% 18.7%
17.0% Bonding Claims
15%
2004 – 2005 2005 – 2006 2006 – 2007 2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010
been flat, except for a small increase during the second ago,” 31 percent of the employers said “more,” while
year of the program’s existence, but male take-up of this 5 percent said “less” (the others reported no change).
part of the program is actually greater, at just under By contrast, these employers saw almost no change in
one-third of all “care claims.” That proportion is higher the number of women taking parental leave over this
than the male proportion of bonding claims, but the period (16 percent indicated that more women were
gap has narrowed over time. taking paid parental leave than five years earlier, 15
Our survey found a gender gap similar to that in the percent said less, and the others reported no change).
EDD data, in that among respondents who were aware However, 36 percent of the employers we surveyed
of the PFL program and employed in the private or reported that women were taking longer leaves than
nonprofit sectors (our best proxy for PFL eligibility), 25 they had five years earlier, with only 4 percent reporting
percent of male respondents, but 49 percent of females, shorter leaves (the rest reported no change).
had made use of the program. A smaller proportion Many employers indicated that men, like women,
of male (39 percent) than of female (56 percent) were taking longer leaves than was the case before PFL
respondents were aware that the PFL program existed. was available, with 32 percent of employers reporting
However, there was almost no gender difference in the that men were taking longer parental leaves than before,
proportion of respondents who did not know that it compared to 4 percent reporting shorter leaves (the
could be used by both mothers and fathers, which was others reported no change). The average parental leave
22 percent. employer respondents reported for men was four weeks
Although our survey found that women’s family leaves (compared to ten weeks for women).
were longer than those of men, those men who did go In our on-site interviews, several managers pointed
on leave took substantial time off, with a median of three to an increase in use of parental leave by fathers since
weeks for both bonding and caregiving leaves, compared the state program began, as well as an increase in the
to a median of twelve weeks for women on bonding length of leaves for workers of both genders. “Women’s
leaves and five weeks for women on caregiving leaves.7 and men’s parental leaves have both become longer
The employers we surveyed in early 2010 also since the state PFL program began,” a human resources
reported an increase in male employees going on manager at a large manufacturing firm in Southern
parental leave. Asked if “the number of men who took California told us. “Men used to take only two weeks
paid parental leave this year to care for a new child off when they had a new child, using sick leave and/or
is more, less, or about the same as it was five years vacation. Today new fathers typically take around five
to six weeks of bonding leave.”
7 Leave “Before PFL came into existence, it was rare for the
lengths referred to here and throughout this section were
measured independently of whether respondents used PFL. men to take any significant time off when they became
Less Than Half 10.3 11.3 10.1 6.4 11.6 16.2 9.6
More Than Half 15.3 41.8 9.4 35.4 15.9 48.2 6.9
N=204
contrast, among those in low-quality jobs who used workers receive no wage replacement whatsoever when
PFL, only 16.2 percent received less than half their they go on a family leave. This was the case for 20.9
income. All the rest (83.8 percent) received at least half percent of public-sector workers in high-quality jobs and
of their usual income while on leave, compared with nearly half (47.9 percent) of those in low-quality jobs.
just 31.2 percent of those who did not use PFL. The PFL In our sample, workers in low-quality jobs had similar
program, these results suggest, is a critically important patterns of wage replacement regardless of whether they
source of income support for low-wage workers who were employed in the public or private/nonprofit sector.
must miss work to attend to their families’ needs. But among workers in high-quality jobs, about twice as
many public-sector as private/nonprofit-sector workers
Public-Sector Workers and Wage had no access to wage replacement.
Replacement during Leave
Length of Leave
Most of California’s public employees are not covered
by the state disability insurance (SDI) program and thus While PFL made a substantial difference in access to
are also not covered by the SDI-based PFL program. wage replacement during leave, especially for those
Some public-sector employers have chosen to provide in low-quality jobs, its effects on length of leave were
SDI and PFL coverage, which is optional for them (but mixed. As Table 6 shows, the median length of baby
legally required in the private sector) and in some cases, bonding leaves taken by all new mothers in our sample
public-sector unions have bargained successfully to was twelve weeks—and for mothers in low-quality jobs
obtain access for their members to the SDI and PFL the median length was the same whether they used
programs (see Fendel et al. 2003). But overall, less PFL or not. Mothers in high-quality jobs took longer
than one-fifth of the state’s two million public-sector bonding leaves, however, with a median length of
employees are covered by SDI and PFL.9 eighteen weeks for those who used PFL.
While one might expect that public employees For fathers, the median length of parental leave was
already have relatively high pay and benefits, and so have also longer for those who used PFL than for those who
little need for the state’s SDI and PFL programs, our data did not, especially for fathers in low-quality jobs. Men
suggest otherwise. As Table 5 shows, many public-sector in low-quality jobs took longer leaves than those in
high-quality jobs, for both baby bonding and for leaves
9 Unpublished data, California Employment Development Department. to care for an ill family member.
N = 204
Table 6. Median Length of Family Leave (in Weeks), by Gender, Leave Type, and Job Quality, 2009–10
Figure 4. Percentage of Workers Who Were Figure 5. Percentage of Workers Who Returned
“Very Satisfied” or “Somewhat Satisfied” with to Former Employer after a Family Leave, by Job
Length of Family Leave, by Job Quality and Use Quality and Use of Pfl, 2009–10
of Pfl, 2009–10
88.4%
82.6% 83.9% 82.5% 82.7%
80% 79.2% 80%
73.0% 73.0%
60% 60%
rs
L
rs
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
PF
ke
ke
se
se
d
se
se
or
or
se
se
se
se
W
lW
tu
tu
tu
tu
u
u
no
no
no
no
b,
b,
b,
b,
Al
Al
jo
jo
jo
jo
id
id
id
id
y
y
d
d
lit
lit
lit
lit
b,
b,
b,
b,
ua
ua
ua
ua
jo
jo
jo
jo
-q
-q
-q
-q
y
y
lit
lit
it
lit
gh
w
gh
w
al
Lo
Lo
ua
ua
ua
Hi
Hi
qu
-q
-q
-q
h-
gh
w
w
g
Lo
Lo
Hi
Hi
N = 198 N = 165
L
Weeks
PF
PF
PF
ke
e
or
us
us
se
se
u
t
t
l
no
no
b,
b,
Al
jo
id
d
di
y
y
d
lit
lit
b,
b,
ua
jo
jo
qu
-q
y
ity
-
l
Lo
ua
ua
Hi
-q
-q
w
Lo
Hi
as Figure 6 and Table 7 show. Leaves were also helpful in enabling parents of a
Previous research suggests that longer leaves for new child to make child care arrangements. Among all
new mothers are associated with longer duration of parents, 58.0 percent reported that PFL had a positive
breastfeeding of the infant (Guendelman et al. 2009). effect on their ability to arrange child care. For parents
Our results provide further confirmation of this. in low-quality jobs, PFL made a substantial difference,
For new mothers who took bonding leaves of fifteen with 72.4 percent of PFL users reporting a positive
weeks or more and used PFL, the median duration of effect, compared to 49.1 percent of those who did not
breastfeeding was 13 weeks. use PFL.
Edds, Kimberly. 2002. “Calif. Adopts Family Leave: Law Mandates Paid Time Off,” Washington Post, September 24,
p. A3.
Fendel, Nina, Linda Gregory, Joannie Chang, and Netsy Firestein. 2003. “California’s New Paid Family Leave Law:
Family Temporary Disability Insurance (FTDI),” California Public Employee Relations, no. 161 (August): pp. 11–16.
Girion, Lisa and Megan Garvey. 2002. “Davis OKs Paid Family Leave Bill,” Los Angeles Times, September 24, p. B1.
Gornick, Janet C. and Marcia K. Meyers. 2003. Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and
Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Guendelman, Sylvia, Jessica Lang Kosa, Michelle Pearl, Steve Graham, Julia Goodman, and Martin Kharrazi. 2009.
“Juggling Work and Breastfeeding: Effects of Maternity Leave and Occupational Characteristics,” Pediatrics 123, no.
1, pp. 38–46.
Heymann, Jody. 2000. The Widening Gap: Why America’s Working Families Are in Jeopardy – and What Can Be Done
About It. New York: Basic Books.
Koss, Natalie. 2003. “The California Temporary Disability Insurance Program,” Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the
Law 11, no. 2, pp. 1079–1088.
Milkman, Ruth and Eileen Appelbaum. 2004. “Paid Family Leave in California: New Research Findings.” The State
of California Labor 2004 (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 45–67.
Ruhm, Christopher J. 1997. “Policy Watch: The Family and Medical Leave Act.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11,
pp. 175–186.
Sherriff, Rona Levine. 2007. Balancing Work and Family. California Senate Office of Research (February).
U.S. Department of Labor. 2001. Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: Family and Medical Leave Surveys,
2000 Update. Rockville, Maryland: Westat.
Waldfogel, Jane. 2001. “Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from the 2000 Surveys.” Monthly Labor Review 124, pp.
17-23.
Williams, Joan C. and Heather Boushey. 2010. The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict: The Poor, the Professionals, and
the Missing Middle. Center for American Progress and Work Life Law, UC Hastings College of the Law (January).
The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies, CUNY
www.workered.org