AN ACT Relating to responding to federal guidance on tax liability issues in the state paid family and medical leave program by modifying the distribution of employer and employee contributions between family and medical leave premiums without affecting how the total premium is divided between employees and employers;
Bill Description
Concerning contributions in the state paid family and medical leave program.
What this bill does Powered by Legitron
This bill amends RCW 50A.10.030 to change how premiums for the state paid family and medical leave program are assessed, calculated, collected, and limited. It requires the department to assess a premium for each employed individual and each individual electing coverage, and directs the commissioner to determine the share of paid claims attributable to family leave versus medical leave and set family and medical leave premiums by applying those proportional shares to the total premium rate. The amendment specifies what portion of premiums employers may deduct from employee wages (including a detailed formula for the family leave deduction and allowance to deduct the full medical leave premium), allows employers to elect to pay some or all of the employee share, and exempts employers with fewer than 50 in-state employees from paying the employer portion unless they opt in (opt-ins may be eligible for assistance under RCW 50A.24.030).
The bill prescribes annual premium-rate mechanics and limits: the commissioner must annually set the maximum wages subject to premium equal to the Social Security Administration’s maximum, calculate the total premium rate on or around October 20 using a three-step formula that uses 140% of prior fiscal year expenses less the September 30 account balance divided by prior fiscal year taxable wages, apply a specific rounding rule, maintain a three-month reserve (defined in the bill), and cap the total premium rate at 1.20%. Employers must collect employee premiums by payroll deduction, act as remitters to the program, and premiums are held in trust for covered employees and employers. Employer size for certain program provisions is determined each September 30 by averaging quarterly year-end employee counts over the last four completed quarters.
The bill also prohibits local governments (cities, code cities, towns, counties, and other political subdivisions) from enacting measures that create a paid family or medical leave insurance program that alters this title for private employers, providing for local enforcement of this title, or requiring private employers to supplement duration of leave or wage replacement benefits under this title. The amendment references the Employment Security Department and related RCW sections (RCW 50A.05.070, 50A.24.010, and 50A.24.030). The provided text does not explicitly define “department” or “commissioner,” does not state an effective date, and omits some procedural remittance details and the prior-version comparisons implied by bracketed edits, so those specifics are unclear from the extracted material alone.
Why it matters Powered by Legitron
If enacted, employers will have to withhold and remit payroll premiums for state family and medical leave as set each year by the Employment Security Department; employees will see deductions for medical leave up to the full medical premium and for family leave limited by a prescribed formula, while employers may choose to pay some or all of the employee share. Employers with fewer than 50 Washington employees won’t be required to pay the employer portion (but can opt in and seek state assistance), the commissioner will cap taxable wages at the Social Security maximum, and the annual total premium will be calculated from prior-year costs with a required three-month reserve and a 1.20% maximum rate, which could cause yearly adjustments in payroll costs up to that cap.
The department will centrally administer rate-setting and collections, premiums will be held in trust for program beneficiaries, and local governments are barred from creating their own private-employer paid leave mandates or requiring supplements, reducing local variability and compliance burdens for multi-jurisdiction employers. The text provided does not include an effective date or some procedural remittance details and does not explicitly define “department” or “commissioner,” so timing and some implementation specifics remain unclear.