S.B. 258 Infant at Work Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, SB two, uh, 58 addresses a pilot program that the legislature passed a number of years ago, was housed initially with the Department of Health. Um, it's called the Infinite Work. It was called the Infinite Work Pilot Program. And essentially what it is, it is what, essentially what it did is it allowed new employees or employees with, uh, new children the ability to bring, uh, their infant to work with them for the first six months or until the infant became mobile. Um, and we put, of course, a lot of guardrails around that, ensuring that the workplace was safe to do so, that the agency ultimately had, uh, discretion about who could participate in this program and that it wouldn't be disruptive to, uh, the workplace. But I think Senator, I I wanted to clarify too, I know that you have a, I think you, it's yours, it's a sub online. I do. So I assume you're speaking to the sub. I Am. Okay, thank you. Yeah, and I'll, I'll also mention the differences between the two. Okay. Thank You. Um, but really, uh, the, the biggest benefits of the program, I believe were the ability to, for these individuals to continue to work. I think in Utah right now, as in most places, it's very hard to live on a single family income. Um, and so it, uh, provides a way to retain employees, increase morale, and, uh, allow these individuals the ability to stay in the workplace. Um, but I don't wanna speak too much to the pilot program. I believe there may be somebody here from the Department of Health, if they are. Do you mind, um, just kind of giving an overview of how the pilot program has been, uh, for the Department of Health? And then I'll wrap up my comments.

Thank you, Senator and thank you Chair and committee. Uh, Heather Borsky, assistant Deputy over Community Health and Wellbeing at the Department of Health and Human Services. Um, thank you for the opportunity to share the DHHS experience with the Infant at Work, uh, program. The original bill to create the Infinite Work Program passed in 2020. So our, uh, implementation of the pilot program was delayed because of the COVID Pandemic. Um, but we formally launched the program in 2023. We put an agency policy in place, and originally the policy addressed bringing infants into workplaces. Um, in 2024, we updated our policy to apply to employees, uh, also working hybrid schedules who might work at home a few days a week. Um, our policy also does prohibit bringing infants into places that might be unsafe for them. Um, I think it's common sense, like our state, uh, the state hospital, public health lab, medical examiner's office, those types of places, um, tracking the use of this policy is decentralized and occurs between the employee and their supervisor. That said, we know that at least 35 families have participated in this, uh, infants at Work program in the past year. Also, anecdotally, we've heard overwhelmingly positive response to this program. Um, individuals who've participated in this program have shared how it's helped them transition from parental leave back into the workforce. It's helped them balance continued parental bonding while continuing to work. It's also helped them meet the needs of their families, um, and their infants while working such as feeding. Um, and this program also helps us promote and reinforce a family friendly culture. We've also heard from colleagues, uh, that they largely enjoy having infants in the workplace. Um, it helps them ground and remember why we do what we do, especially since so much of what we do in the Department of Health and Human Services is in support of the health and safety of children and families. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and so what this bill, uh, proposes to do is that the program or the, uh, pilot program naturally sunsets later this year, we're proposing to, um, turn it into a program that is optional for, uh, the executive branch agencies, um, with some guardrails in place. And, uh, the substitute that's been implemented today incorporates, um, some changes from DHRM mostly, uh, logistical in terms of how that would roll out. But with that, I'm happy to answer any ques answer any questions.

That's my understanding. As I'm looking at the second sub, I recall also seeing that list in the first sub. Um, but it is subject to DHRM approval.

So as I understand it, this is a choice, right? Any agency can still choose as to whether or not they participate. They can set their own rules, they can set their own guidelines. Do you think there's, so there's clearly, there are some agencies where this are certain office of environments where this isn't gonna work. You, you cannot a hundred percent do this. Yes. But do you feel that there's any pressure for those agencies internally to still, uh, create rules that allow for it, 'cause pressures that other agencies that can allow for it then put it in rule and allow for it? Do you understand what I'm saying? There's kind of an internal social pressure to do it, even though it's not the appropriate environment for an

Yeah, no, I would agree with you that there are certain agencies where this just isn't going to work. And I think those agencies know that better than anyone. Um, and I would trust that they would be comfortable and able to explain why that's the case. Um, I mean, they'd need to answer to your question specifically, but I, I don't think that this would create undue pressure. I, I think it's designed for an agency to opt out if it's not appropriate.

Yeah. Question for the sponsor. If, uh, this bill is simply giving a choice that agencies already have a choice, why would we codify the same thing that they already can do? I think it's important that we have some guardrails around how this works operationally. If we are going to do it. We do also have old language from the pilot program and with the Sunset there, that at least needs to be cleaned up or addressed. Um, but I do think that some uniformity across state agencies with regards to working with DHRM to come up with a policy that there's a method where DHRM can um, uh, work collaborative collaboratively with these agencies if they are participating. I think that's important probably to lay out in code. Thank you. That was all. Okay. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Audrey Wood and I'm here on behalf of the Utah Public Employees Association to speak on behalf of this bill in support of it. We feel like this is a great benefit for state employees. It gives them flexibility. It's up to the discretion of rule and agency to decide who is who it is appropriate to apply the benefit to. But we appreciate the work of the committee and the sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

There we go. Hi, my name is Jennifer Stout. I am with Voices for Utah Children. Um, and we're in an organization in Salt Lake City. I was just there in person and I had to leave, so I apologize. Um, but I want to testify in favor of this bill. Um, in a world full of anxiety and depression, we ask a lot, how do we get to the root of the issues and of anxiety and depression? And the answer to that is, um, helping at the earliest age possible. And that comes from infants who spend time with a caregiver creating a secure attachment. Children who are securely attached as infants tend to develop stronger self-esteem and better self reliance as they grow older. These children also tend to be, and this is from a study showing that these children also tend to be more independent, perform better in school, have successful social relationships, and experience less depression and anxiety. So I would ask the committee to please say yes to this vote. Thank you.

Yes, I'll move. Okay.

Mr. Tr make a motion that we favorably recommend us B 2 58 to the full body of the Senate.

Yeah, thanks. I just, you know, I'm, I was just reading through it again and I couldn't tell are we making this permanent? Are we keeping it a pilot? We're making it permanent, optional, but permanent. Would you consider adding a Sunset review so that we can review this policy? Again, when it comes around just with COVID, those kinds of things, it feels like, you know, there's some interruption of the data collection right on, on its efficacy. What I learned from a policy I implemented shortly after COVID was the data didn't actually support what I was trying to do and we had to repeal it last year. And so I just would say instead of putting this on autopilot, it'd probably be good to put it on a Sunset review and do that. So if you'd consider that for the Fluor, I, I can support It. Sure. And if I

can respond Mr. Chair, please. Um, I'll just say on the data, the, the department essentially had to start over in 2023, I believe, in terms of implementing this. But I think a sunset's very reasonable and I would support that. Okay.

Thank you. It's nice to be in front of the committee today. Um, so Senate Bill 2 58 is an extension of a bill that we passed a number of years ago, which created a pilot program with the Department of Health. And this program allowed employees that the Department of Health, uh, the ability to bring their newborn to work with them for the first six, first six months or until the newborn became mobile. Um, and so it was authorized in 2020. COVID hit, uh, everybody was working from home for a period of time. And so we reauthorized it in 2023, extended it for an additional three years. Um, and now we have some decent date on that program. And I think there's somebody here hopefully who can speak to that. Um, but what this bill does is, is following what I think has largely been a very successful implementation of this concept. This bill would expand this, uh, program to Allstate agencies, provided it makes sense to do so. Um, and there's also good guardrails in place, ensuring that, um, if it becomes a distraction, if the work environment is not suitable, um, then, uh, that individual would be unable to participate. But otherwise, I think it's proved to be a very, um, good solution and an innovative solution with our state employees. Not a lot of individuals these days can, um, work off of a single, uh, income earner or survive off of single income earner. Many families have two working parents and childcare costs are, are large and babies usually sleep. Um, so that is the gist of the bill and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. So just, just so I'm understanding it right, so up to this point, um, an agency would not, other than the Department of Health, would not have been at liberty to have, have their employees bring children to work.

Yeah, that's a good question. I I perhaps they could have, but I think this was sort of an innovative concept that hasn't really been thought of before that that was, at least the answer that I got a number of years ago when we first were exploring this was like, well, we haven't really thought of that. Um, so yes, this will streamline it. And I think the benefit too of, of having some guardrails in statute is that we're taking a similar approach in all agencies and there's sort of a process for requesting and, and things of that nature. So to answer your question, perhaps they could, but I, I think this is a really helpful

And do we have a sense for how many, um, individual new moms have taken advantage of this within the Department of Health? What, what's the kind of the size of how many people have used?

Um, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair and committee members. Um, Heather Borsky, assistant Deputy Community Health and Wellbeing with the Department of Health and Human Services. Um, to answer your question, Representative Ward, this is a decentralized process. It's an agreement between the employee and their supervisor that said, um, we do know that at least 35, uh, women and their families have participated in the infinite work, uh, program in the past year. Um, we've also heard a lot of very positive anecdotal feedback about the program. Um, uh, individuals who've participated in the program have shared that it's helped them transition from parental leave back to work. Um, it's helped them balance continued parental bonding while returning to work. And it's also helped them meet the needs of their children while at work, such as caring, uh, to feeding needs and that type of thing. Um, we've also heard good anecdotal information from colleagues who enjoy having the infants in the workplace. Um, this goes beyond your question, but I will also say in Health and Human Services, the policy is just limited to places where it's safe to have infants in the workplace. It doesn't apply to things like, uh, the state hospital or the lab, Emmy's office, those types of locations. So it's, uh, only applies to office settings.

So the po the policy is written here doesn't, seems to not only give the ability for an agency to choose to do this, but it seems to say that that agency still is at the mercy of the division as to whether or not they can do it. 'cause it says the division can withdraw or revoke their, uh, approval to participate in the program. Why does it, I mean just, I dunno, why is it structured in such a way that it's still up to the division to tell an agency whether or not they can, as opposed to just having an agency choose to be able to do it if they want, if that makes sense.

Yeah. So further on it, it states that they can do so if they're not in, in compliance with the section or if there's participation in a manner that is in a manner that is detrimental to the effect of administration of the program. I think it was written that way just to provide some guardrails. Um, I to your point, I think there are probably multiple different ways that we could structure something like this. This seemed to be what we were all comfortable with, at least amongst the stakeholders that were looking at this.

Thank you. Um, I have to declare a bias here because when I was a new mom, my first baby, I worked at the BYU law library. And at the time, um, they were already, this was more than 35 years ago. Um, they were already allowing moms to bring a baby to work and that was because of a, one of the professors had done so and so they made it for the entire law school. And I so appreciated that. And the baby, you know, they sleep mostly. Mm-hmm. Anyway, it was a great experience, but I also think it's great for the baby. A lot of the things I sometimes look at bills from the perspective of the baby because babies don't get to vote. But, um, it's good for the baby to be near mom and it's great for the mom to be able to bond with the baby, as she said. And it really wasn't any more disruptive than getting up to get a drink or take a bathroom break or, you know, I, it just wasn't very disruptive at all to library work anyway. You know, I, I'm glad it is tailored to whatever kind of work they're doing, but I think it's a, a great idea. So thank you. Thank you.

Um, I think you make a good point that our culture and what we focus on makes the Department of Health and Human Services an optimal place to pilot, uh, this type of program. But I think our office setting is common, um, and I think applicable to other state agencies. So I think in our pilot we've proven that it's a workable model. It's not disruptive to the workplace and can apply to other office settings.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering what type of jobs you see these infants at work performing, um, beyond emotional support, baby Being extra cute. Yeah. Yeah, I got that. Those are all very important, but They are, I got that question offline too and I think they're mostly gonna sleep, but they're very cute. Sorry, I was just, Thank you.

I I really just wanna ask this question one more time and make sure I'm understanding it. So oftentimes when we do a pilot program and it goes well, then we go to other places and say, you can do the same thing that the pilot program did. And I just am not clear why instead of going to other agencies and said, we had a pilot and it worked well, and we'll now drive to statute that at your agency's discretion, you may also do this thing. Why did we say this thing went well? You may now ask the Department of Health for permission to do it and they might grant it to you or refuse it to you. Why? Why is it whether other agencies choose to do this still at the discretion of the Department of Health?

It doesn't go to the Department of Health. It, I wanna say it goes to,

I believe the division is referring to the Division of Human Resources. That's right. And even the pilot was under the direction of the Division of Human Resources and it, um, directed human resources to work with the Department of Health to implement the pilot.

Okay. But we, and we still think that, I mean, 'cause we'd have the, the requirements are laid out in here, you know, that, that they need to consider this and they need to consider this. But we still feel like it's important that, that the Department of Human Resources decides if they've done done those things as opposed to an agency just saying, well, we'll follow the rules. I dunno if I read it that way.

I, I'm happy to revisit this. I think they work in partnership and I think, uh, the Department of Human Resources is there to help ensure, you know, some amount of, uh, continuity.

And, and, uh, okay. Rolling this out because it says your permission can be revoked by the department. Tell you're looking of human tell looking, uh, 92, the division may withdraw or revoke, uh, a participating agency's approval to participate in the program. Sure. But if those, if the following things happen, so they're either not in compliance in the section or it becomes disruptive or, okay. Alright. So,

Okay. I'll say this, we really developed it sort of in collaboration. I'm very open to a different way of thinking about this, but would just hope that we could do so in partnership with all of the involved entities. Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion to pass out Senate Bill 2 58 substitute to infant debt work amendments with a favorable recommendation. I'll speak to that briefly, if I may. Go

you. Um, I think that some important points have come up with regard to the regulation. I do really like the guardrails because, um, workplaces change, life changes, pandemics happen. You just never know. And I, I think that, um, consistency and making sure that an agency should they choose to adopt this and that they, they check all the boxes, that if anything changes, there is an oversight agency that's got some objectivity saying, you know, maybe, maybe the landscape has changed and maybe this is no longer necessarily appropriate. I don't know. I think, um, and I, I'm, I'm glad that the conversation come up, came up. But, um, what I love best about this bill is that in a, in a time and space where it's increasingly hard to find individuals to work in the public service sector, especially, you know, as state employees, I think this is an incredible benefit that we can really hold out as, as an opportunity. I know when I was a young mom and, and trying to balance a lot of things, you know, if this had been an opportunity, this would've been very, very attractive for me, um, as an applicant for jobs. And so, um, it is really, really hard to, even if you've had a long opportunity to stay home with your babies, it's hard to have to, to go back to work and, and leave them if, you know, um, I don't know very many moms that love that part. Um, and so I, you know, this would, this would've been a, a great transition opportunity for me. And I'm glad that other parents have the opportunity to do this as well. So I think it's a great bill. The pilot was exciting. I'm glad it's working out so well, um, at DHHS as a good demonstration going forward. Thank you to the, the bill sponsor on the motion to favorably recommend. Lemme just mention one thing I forgot to mention in my presentation, which is a substitute was passed in the Senate, which does require a Sunset review every few years. I think that's appropriate. So just mention that and I'll otherwise waive summation. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. I just wanna speak in favor of this bill. I was sitting here debating about whether I'm gonna say anything or not. Um, I took advantage of this type of programming, uh, with both of my babies. Um, and it was back in the nineties with the federal government. I was working as a foul clerk, and we had the option of bringing our babies into work for the first six months. And it made a huge difference, um, having them with me because I did not have any family here. Um, and so it made a huge difference. And some, and remarkable thing happened. Part of, um, part of our policy was that every time I fed the baby, or, uh, took a, um, stepped away from my job, I had to deduct it from my time. So I had this group of women who organized and gave up their breaks to come over and take care of the baby. Um, so I wouldn't have to deduct all of my time at the end of the day, um, with caring for her. So I think it's, it's remarkable. It gives the baby and the mom a chance to bond. But not only that, after my child was gone, I know there were other fathers who saw how successful it was. And some fathers took advantage of it and bought their babies to work for six months. And so it wasn't just the women, it was also the dads who took advantage of it. So, I, I just think it's a great program. Awesome.

with the Department of Health that lets, uh, new parents bring their newborn to work for the first, uh, six months or until the child becomes mobile. Uh, but with some Guardrails. Make sure you pull that mic in so we've got you right close. Yeah, there we go. That better? Yeah, it is. Okay. Uh, the program had a number of, of guardrails in place, um, including, uh, ensuring that the work environment was safe and appropriate and that, uh, the, an individual's participation in the program did not become a distraction. After a few years of running the pilot program, the Department of Health has reported, um, successful implementation. And so what this bill would do would, uh, expand that to other state agencies. Again, with the same guardrails in place, ensuring that it's a, an appropriate work environment. Uh, there's an application process and an individual can be removed if it becomes a distraction. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yes. Thank you, president. I'd like to make a motion to substitute Motion's in order. You wanna explain the substitute? Yeah. Thanks. We talked about this billing committee. Uh, there was significant, uh, interest in the concept continuing. Uh, it got started with, uh, you know, before COVID and never really got a chance to, I guess, uh, you know, get full implementation and, uh, and, you know, get full light of day. But, uh, one of the things that I felt was important after looking through, uh, listening to the public comment and listening to the process, thought it'd be better to add a Sunset date of three years out so that we would review this policy. Uh, and, you know, if that's, uh, if that's the will of the body. Uh, I've worked with Senator Pitcher on, on the issue and feel like adding the Sunset would give us an appropriate time to review this policy, whether or not it works. Whether it doesn't.

Thank you, Mr. President. I've reviewed the sub. Um, and based on the conversation that we had in committee, I think it's a, it's a welcome sub and I would support it.

Thank You. Uh, Mr. President. You know, we passed a pilot program on this just a year ago, uh, for one specific department, and here we are already expanding that to government programs statewide with no data from the pilot program that is, uh, not, is just barely half a year old. I think this bill is premature. And while I think it's better with the substitute we just put in it before we expand this, uh, statewide, we really should base that on some actual data that we're able to collect after this has been implemented through the pilot program. Uh, if we don't do that, then the pilot program looks like it was, you know, it's just a, you know, an attempt to, to stop the door with our foot, uh, only for the purposes of pushing it all the way open, regardless of what the data from the pilot program shows. I would encourage the body to, uh, vote against this bill. Let's let the pilot program run its course and then evaluate that through our interim committees as we normally would through a normal legislative process. And consider this based on actual data about how this is impacting things at the Department of Health and Human Services.

seeing non Senator Pitcher summation. Thank You, Mr. President. Uh, we actually passed this pilot program and it was either 2020 or 2021. It was then extended due to COVID with where we had some employees home for a certain period of time. So the pilot program has actually been in place for at least five years. Uh, the Department of Health was in committee and presented, uh, both some data and their experience. I do think based on their experience, um, and the length of the pilot program, now is a good time to expand it. So I would, uh, with that I'd make a motion that we read for a third time. Second substitutes, uh, Senate Bill 2 58.

regarding when that was implemented and so I was able to confirm the dates there. The pilot program with the Department of Health was authorized in 2020, um, but because of COVI and, uh, employees working from home for a period of time, it was then reauthorized in 2023. And so we have a good four years of implementation. Um, the Department of Health reports that in the past year at least 25 employees participated in the program. Um, feedback from participants and colleagues was positive participants shared that it helped with the transition back to work, helped, uh, build and maintain connections and, uh, helped with, uh, overwhelming childcare costs. Um, so what this bill would do would, would, uh, expand that program from a pilot program to all state agencies with guardrails in place, uh, to ensure that it is, um, that the work environment is appropriate and that it does not cause a distraction. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I move that second substitute Senate Bill 2 58 pass.

Senator Vickers Baldry. Lewin Aye. Bramer Bus Colmore Escamilla. Aye. Fillmore No. Grover pass. Harper Bus Aye. Kins ins Ipson Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Mitch Plum. Rebi Aye. Sandal Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Bickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton. Baldy Brammer Hankins Mikel Wilson.

Thank you Mr. President ProAm. Um, SB 2 48 creates a private public partnership to expand childcare capacity in a very, um, um, existing state-owned building is actually

Second substitute Senate Bill 2 58. Infant AtWork Amendments by Senator Pitcher, Ms. Biller Health and Human Services with the vote of 12 0 2.