In these politically contentious times, finding a legislative initiative for which there’s true bipartisan support might seem a little like discovering a beautiful oasis after spending weeks lost in the desert, dodging snakes on the left and scorpions on the right. (Or vice versa, if you prefer.)
Then again, this shimmering blue pool of kumbaya could well be a mirage. It all depends on how you look at it.
First things first. There appears to be broad support in the Legislature for a state work-share program that would be a win-win-win for businesses, workers, and communities.
| “One of the benefits of the work-share program for businesses is that they’re able to keep their skilled workers attached to the company and they can avoid [incurring] additional cost later on.” – State Sen. Julie Lassa |
Twenty-five other states currently offer work-share programs, and supporters point out that in Rhode Island alone, work sharing prevented more than 16,000 layoffs between 2007 and 2011. Such programs have also been successful internationally. According to one analysis, a German work-share program saved approximately 235,000 jobs in 2009, when the global economy was reeling and pink slips were flying like confetti at a post-Super Bowl celebration.
In addition, the federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allows states to temporarily seek reimbursement for the costs of the program, making the passage of a work-share bill something of a no-brainer for Wisconsin pols.
The program works like this: Rather than lay off employees en masse during economic downturns, businesses would be allowed to reduce employees’ hours. So instead of letting go a fifth of its workforce, for example, a company could reduce its employees’ hours by 20%. Employees would then be allowed to claim unemployment benefits for the lost hours. The number of months businesses could take advantage of the program would be limited (e.g., six months over a five-year period), the program would be voluntary for businesses, and workers would not be required to do job searches while they receive partial unemployment benefits.
Work-share advocates note that this benefits businesses, which can retain their skilled workers and are not forced to hire and train new employees after every recession and recovery. It would also benefit workers and the communities they live in.
“One of the benefits of the work-share program for businesses is that they’re able to keep their skilled workers attached to the company and they can avoid [incurring] additional cost later on – when the economy and orders pick up, they’re able to ramp up much more quickly,” said state Sen. Julie Lassa (D-Stevens Point), who introduced a work-share bill (SB 28) to the Legislature in mid-January. “They don’t have to go through retraining and rehiring. And for the employees, the benefit is they continue to have access to any type of health insurance benefits or retirement benefits or any other benefits that the company offers. They also maintain most of their earnings. …
“For the community, it really helps because people are losing the majority of their paychecks and their buying power [when they’re laid off], so they can continue to buy groceries and pay their bills, and so it’s a real benefit for everyone.”
Real consensus
According to Lassa, there’s broad support from across the political spectrum for work-sharing programs. The concept has been endorsed by both conservative and progressive think tanks, including the right wing-leaning American Enterprise Institute and the left wing-leaning Center for American Progress.
In addition, lawmakers feel a certain sense of urgency to get a bill passed soon, because as one member of the state Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council told Lassa, “every day the state doesn’t do this, we lose money because of the federal incentives.”
Still, as widely embraced as work sharing is, it wouldn’t be politics if there weren’t at least one fly in the ointment.
About a month after Lassa introduced her work-share bill, legislators including Sens. Paul Farrow (R-Pewaukee) and Rick Gudex (R-Fond du Lac) and Reps. Edward Brooks (R-Reedsburg) and Amy Loudenbeck (R-Clinton) introduced their own bills, Senate Bill 26 and Assembly Bill 15, which are similar to Lassa’s legislation but leave out measures that would require employers to negotiate with their employees’ unions. Of the 25 states that currently have work-share programs, only Minnesota does not require a union representative to sign off on an employer’s work-sharing plan.
This new tack set off a flurry of complaints from Democrats in the Legislature. In a written statement, state Senate Minority Leader Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said, “Republicans began their war on bargaining rights with Act 10, and with this bill they have now turned their attention to private sector unions. This bill is a clear opening shot at undermining private sector unions.”
Apparently worried that the Republican version of the work-share legislation was going to get hurriedly pushed through the legislative process, Rep. Sandy Pasch, (D-Shorewood) said in a written statement, “I urge the Republican authors of this flawed legislation to slow down and work with us in a bipartisan manner to ensure that we avoid completely unnecessary conflict and delay in implementing a work-share program.”
Ouch. So much for kumbaya.
For his part, Sen. Farrow noted that any union-protection measures in the work-share legislation were unnecessary. In a written statement, he said that the Republicans’ bill “is in no way an attack on private sector unions. The language my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about is not required by the U.S. Department of Labor nor will it add or take away any of the protections that unions currently enjoy under both federal and state law.”
Rep. Brooks, the lead sponsor of AB 15, was more blunt: “With more than 200,000 Wisconsin residents unemployed, this issue is too important to politicize. This bill is about jobs and nothing else.”
Moving forward?
Despite the political football this issue has now become, it seems all but certain that a work-share program will soon become an option for businesses, and with half the nation already onboard and the advantages of instituting a work-share program clear to employers, employees, and politicians alike, it could come soon.
“[States with a work-share program] are getting the advantage that they’re able to maintain their skilled employees, whereas those that do not have the work-share program are losing out on the federal incentive,” said Lassa. “So I do think there already is an advantage for those states and those companies that are participating in the work-share program.”
To track the progress of the state Legislature’s work-share legislation, click here for SB 28, here for SB 26, and here for AB 15.
Sign up for the free IB Update – your weekly resource for local business news, analysis, voices, and the names you need to know. Click here. If you are not already a subscriber to In Business magazine, be sure to sign up for our monthly print edition here.
