Paid family and medical leave may soon prove costly for small businesses under WA House bill
Mar 11, 2025, 2:15 PM | Updated: Mar 17, 2025, 11:43 am
Small businesses will play a bigger role in funding Washington's paid family leave program. (Unsplash)
(Unsplash)
The vote is sparking concerns among small business owners about rising costs. The Washington State House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday that expands worker protections under the state’s paid family and medical leave (PFML) program.
At the heart of the debate is whether businesses with fewer than 50 employees can afford to pay into the state’s system.
In a vote split along party lines, House Bill 1213 passed 55-41, with three Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees would still be exempt from paying the employer portion of the PFML premium, although employees will still be required to contributed through payroll deductions.
The bill also mandates that small businesses restore employees to their positions after family or medical leave—something only larger businesses were required to do before. In practical terms, that means a five-person company must now hold a job open for up to 18 weeks while an employee is on leave.
More from MyNorthwest: Senate passes bill to tattletale on schools not following state education laws
Paid family and medical leave is seen as a ‘two-tiered system’
Representative Liz Berry (D-Seattle), the bill’s primary sponsor, framed the change as a matter of fairness.
“Right now, we have a two-tiered system—one built for our most privileged workers and one for everybody else,” Berry said, citing a University of Washington study showing that while 70% of high-wage workers enjoy job protection, only 16% of low-wage workers do.
To offset costs for small businesses, the bill expands grant funding options. These include a $3,000 reimbursement for hiring a temporary worker while an employee is on leave and a separate grant covering employer-paid health care costs during an employee’s leave.
Supporters argue these measures will help ease the financial burden, but critics say they don’t go far enough.
More from MyNorthwest: WA House pushes through controversial public health bill after heated late-night debate
Concerns over cost and feasibility
Representative Suzanne Schmidt (R-Spokane Valley) warned that the new requirements could strain small businesses.
“There was a reason why we had the 50-employee threshold—because we didn’t believe small businesses could financially afford the burden,” Schmidt said.
During the floor debate, Republican lawmakers introduced amendments aimed at softening the financial impact on small employers, including a proposal to delay implementation and another to allow small businesses to opt out of job restoration guarantees. Each amendment failed.
Representative Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen) didn’t mince words, calling HB 1213 a “bad bill” and urging a no vote. He also warned that expanding the program could put the insurance fund that supports it at risk of insolvency.
“Rather than focusing on fixing that looming crisis, we’re considering a massive expansion of the program that’s looking at massive red ink,” Walsh argued.
More from MyNorthwest: Washington House passes divisive bill to ease misdemeanor dismissals
A personal plea
On the other side, Representative Beth Doglio (D-Olympia) shared a personal story about being unable to take paid leave when her second child was born.
“There are people in our state who are fearful to take advantage of this benefit that they have paid into—and that they have a right to—and it’s not right,” she said.
With House approval secured, the bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to face continued debate.
Matt Markovich is the KIRO Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on X.
