New Jersey’s new paid parental and family leave mandate went into effect July 1. NJBIZ.com reports on the impact in “‘In a world of hurt’“:

Rich Balka, owner of Trenton-based Home Rubber Co., said he appreciates the concept behind the law. “Anything we can do to benefit our employees is a good thing,” he said.

But Balka said his company doesn’t have enough employees to sustain the loss of anyone for the time allowed by the law.

“We have really no redundancies in our employees at this point,” said Balka, who bought the industrial rubber products maker in 1996. It is one of the few manufacturers left in Trenton.

Since Home Rubber eliminated the jobs of general office manager and purchasing assistant, the remaining office staff is picking up the slack. “If I lose an employee, I’d be in a world of hurt.”

Melanie Willoughby, senior vice president with the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, said she has spoken with many business owners at seminars who remain unsure how the law will intersect with the federal leave law and other requirements. “There is tremendous confusion still among employers,” she said.

This story appeared before last Tuesday’s elections in New Jersey, where voters defeated incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, who signed the law.

And to employers: Think you’re confused now? From WSJ, “House Bill Introduced to Require Paid Sick Leave for H1N1 Cases.”

Proponents of the Healthy Families Act are unfortunately taking advantage of the Administration’s guidance for employers on dealing with the potential H1N1 pandemic by advancing a restrictive mandate on employers that will reduce flexibility of leave options for employees.

“Workforce Magazine” reports that that advocates of the bill are interpreting recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “establish policies for employee compensation and sick-leave absences unique to a pandemic” in a way to further promote federally mandated paid leave.

What isn’t noted is that most employers are already providing some form of sick leave for their employees; 83 percent of workers in private industry have access to illness leave.

The NAM encourages manufacturers to review the Administration’s information and develop contingency plans, as appropriate, in an effort to limit the potential negative impact on our workers, their families and our communities. However, mandating a costly one-size-fits-all approach to paid leave is far from the right approach. This legislation threatens an employer’s ability to provide the benefits that best fit the needs of their workforce. Additionally this bill would place limits on employers that provide more benefits than the minimum requirements proposed in the bill.

The advocates who are calling for passage of the Healthy Family Act in response to the H1N1 are also purposely overlooking the regulatory realities that would disconnect any new law from this year’s illness. It took 17 months to implement the final regulations for the Family and Medical Leave Act (enacted February 5, 1993; final regulations January 6, 1995). The Healthy Families Act is an equally complicated piece of legislation and there’s just no possibility of implementing it before the winter flu season. So what we’re seeing is alarmism for political purposes.

In May, the number of unemployed by 787,000 to 14.5 million, and the unemployment rate rose to 9.4 percent.

So it’s obviously the right time for Congress to pass a paid leave mandate, right? From Marketplace Morning Report, “Congress talks mandating paid leave“:

Keith Smith: Additional burdensome costs, especially at a time like we’re currently undergoing where manufacturers are struggling to retain and create jobs, that is not the best time to burden manufacturers with yet another cost of government compliance.

Employers may be feeling a little overwhelmed by a flurry of bills in Congress mandating paid leave for workers — not just for vacations, but also for family emergencies and illness.

Manufacturers and NAM member companies overwhelmingly provide paid leave, but those small businesses that do not have reasons. Perhaps, maybe, they can’t afford it and one more mandate will force them to close. The more mandates, the higher the costs, the more closures.

In any case, it is strange to see members of Congress decry unemployment one moment and at the next advocate legislation that would make it more expensive to create jobs — for the private sector to create jobs, that is.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) will be introducing a bill today, the Paid Vacation Act, which would require companies that employ over 100 employees a week for both full time and part time employees after they’ve worked one year for the employer. Three years after the bill goes into effect, companies would be required to provide double that amount of paid vacation days AND the bill would then be applied to small business employing 50 employees and up to require one week of leave.

So what’s the motivation for introducing this bill? To stimulate the resort industry, as Congressman Grayson’s district includes Disneyworld.

The majority of manufacturers already provide paid vacation time to their employees in addition to other generous benefits and we love going to the Magic Kingdom. But, it is irresponsible to levy yet another mandate on employers at a time when manufacturers are struggling to retain and create jobs in the current economic climate.

From the AFL-CIO Now blog, “House Panel OKs Paid Family Leave for Federal Workers“:

Federal workers could receive four weeks of paid family leave to care for a newborn or adopted child under a bill approved by a U.S. House subcommittee yesterday. If enacted, the bill also would allow federal workers to use up to eight weeks of accrued paid sick time or annual leave immediately following the first four weeks of parental leave.

Says AFGE President John Gage:

The time has come for the federal government to set the standard for U.S. employers on paid parental leave. The benefits to children and families of four weeks of paid parental leave are enormous and long lasting. This sets an example for private sector employers.

How does a government mandate set an example? A mandate sets a mandate.

What Gage is really saying, “This action by the House committee to require paid family and medical leave for federal workers is an example of what Congress is going to do to the private sector next.” Or so we interpret it.

The bill is H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. It come out of the House Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia by a voice vote.

A bit of good news today as it was announced this morning that the SEIU has asked that the Proposal 4 that would impose a competitiveness-killing paid sick leave mandate on employers, be removed from ballots in November. The proposal sought to require seven days of paid sick leave each year for employees who work at least 30 hours a week, and a pro-rated number of days for employees working fewer than 30 hours. The devil was in the details though, as in the “fine print,” the proposal would have also allowed employees to take that leave with little or no advance notice in increments as small as an hour or less.

Ohio Gov. Strickland had recently come out strongly opposed to the measure which he deemed: “unworkable, unwieldy and would be detrimental to Ohio’s economy”. One may assume that a similar proposal in the U.S. Senate sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would be have the same detrimental economic impact…however on much larger national scale.

UPDATE (10 a.m. Friday): Here’s the news release from the Ohio Manufacturers Association.

The NAM issued a release, as well: “REMOVAL OF PAID LEAVE BALLOT INITIATIVE IS GOOD FOR OHIO JOBS GROWTH AND ECONOMY, SAYS NAM.” Excerpt:

“We are relieved that Ohio businesses will not have to face this issue in November,” [NAM President John] Engler said. “Rising energy, health care and other costs in a slowing economy have taken a toll on manufacturers in Ohio and across the nation. Gov. Strickland (D-OH) and Sen. Brown (D-OH) clearly recognized that the added burden of this misguided proposal couldn’t have come at a worse time. These types of restrictive mandates limit employers’ flexibility to provide the best fit of benefits for their employees,” he noted.