Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Parental leave bill advances

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

Published February 9, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.
Updated February 9, 2009 at 11:59 p.m.

Text size  

More Colorado Government

More stories »

House members gave final approval Monday to a controversial bill that would require businesses to offer parents unpaid leave time to attend their children's educational activities.

House Bill 1057 passed on a 35-30 vote, with Democratic Reps. Kathleen Curry of Gunnison, Joe Rice of Littleton and Sue Schafer of Wheat Ridge, joining all 27 Republicans in opposing it.

Sponsoring Rep. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, said the requirement to allow leave is vital especially to low-income parents working jobs that do not offer such benefits.

Republicans, however, called the measure intrusive and said leave is an issue that can be worked out between each business and employee rather than put into a uniform policy that must be followed by everyone.

The bill heads to the Senate.

Staff writer Berny Morson contributed to this report.

In other legislative action

* The House education committee rejected a bill to give students a vote on the Colorado State University Board of Governors.

HB 1177 by Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, went down 7-6.

Students currently have nonvoting members on the board of governors from the CSU campuses in Fort Collins and Pueblo. Faculty members from those campuses also sit with the board and do not vote.

Taylor Smoot, the Fort Collins student body president, told the committee that the people paying tuition should have a vote on the board.

But panel members noted that no other college includes students on their governing boards. They also wondered how the faculty representatives would feel if they were not given a vote, too.

* Lower-income residents of rural areas could buy limited-benefit insurance plans under a bill that received preliminary approval in the House.

Insurers already can offer individual plans that cover basic and preventive services but cap annual benefits. And health-maintenance organizations with significant financial backing can offer such plans to small businesses.

But smaller HMOs serving areas such as the San Luis Valley that have more uninsured residents cannot. House Bill 1143 by Rep. Spencer Swalm, R-Centennial, would change that.

Opponent Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, said the bill gives a "false sense of security" because it lets insurers cap benefits near $15,000 and not cover people in catastrophic situations, when they need health care most.

Eleven Democrats joined all 27 Republicans in backing it. It is scheduled for a final House vote today.

* The Senate delayed two contentious school-related bills for at least a day.

A bill by Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, requires school districts to post financial transactions online. It was slowed because of amendments.

A separate bill by Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, allows locals, rather than state workers, to inspect school construction projects. Unions oppose the measure, and King pushed his bill back to talk to contractors.

* The Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee killed two high-profile Republican bills.

Harvey's Senate Bill 28 would have limited the increase in the state's real estate license fees to no more than 20 percent a year - a sharp contrast to the 100 percent increases of 2008.

And Senate Bill 23 by Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, would have required all employers to participate in a federal program to verify that potential workers are in the Unites States legally.

Democrats defeated both measures on 3-2 party-line votes.

Comments

  • February 9, 2009

    5:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DougH writes:

    Why is this a controversial bill ? You mean we have to pass a law so that employers in Colorado will actually grant unpaid time off so parents can attend school events. The only thing that is controversial is why businesses do not support parents trying to do the best for their children. I guess those profits are more important than families.

  • February 9, 2009

    6:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    V_twinMan writes:

    The problem with a bill like this is there will be those that take advantage of it. They will say they need to go to Timmy's play and Sally's recital, while I understand that children need parental support, how many days do you let employees take off 5, 10, 35 or more days? and when they sue the employer for unfair firing who will end up paying those costs?

  • February 9, 2009

    6:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DougH writes:

    HB 1057 has very defined amounts of time to be allowed off.
    BTW, Colorado is an employment at will state. You can't sue for unfair firing.

  • February 9, 2009

    10:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    squeakywheel writes:

    If I remember correctly, the parent is limited to 3 hours per month. It doesn't sound completely unreasonable, but it does open the door for abuse.

    Now they can attend the precious little Aidan's second grade "graduation". In my day everyone graduated once, at the end of high school.

    Just being sarcastic, not negative.

  • February 10, 2009

    5:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    redchief65 writes:

    Lets give them their and their kids' birthdays off too.

  • February 10, 2009

    7:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CDee writes:

    DougH writes:

    BTW, Colorado is an employment at will state. You can't sue for unfair firing.

    Sorry Doug, Oh yes you can. If there is a law you feel was violated in the course of your termination you can sue, and win.

  • February 10, 2009

    7:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RJS07 writes:

    Considering the current state of the economy, this bill looks like just the ticket!

  • February 11, 2009

    10:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    T1anda writes:

    Did you notice that DEMOCRATS killed Senate Bill 23??

    This bill would have required ALL employers to verify that potential workers are in the U.S. LEGALLY!!

    Thanks again Democrats for your loyalty to the American people!

    That must be why Democrat ends with RAT!