Judith Lichtman, senior adviser to the National Partnership for Women and Families, argued the public sector’s option was created in 1985 to save federal, state and local governments money, not to offer workers more flexibility. Most private-sector workers, she added, lack the union and civil service protections that give government employees leverage in the arrangement.

Judith L. Lichtman, the organization’s senior advisor, testified against the bill before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, saying, “it would leave workers with neither pay nor time” and “magnifies the power imbalance between employer and employee.”

By broader U.S. standards, though, Yahoo is in an elite group, said Vicki Shabo, director of work and family programs at the National Partnership for Women & Families in Washington. Only 11 percent of private-sector workers have access to paid family leave, she said.

“We are particularly concerned about the impact for low-wage workers, those who may be more vulnerable in the workplace and may be less aware of their rights or less likely to exercise their rights,” said Crawford.

“We think it is a completely disingenuous proposal that will strip people of both the money and the flexibility of time off they need,” said Vicki Shabo, director of work and family programs for the National Partnership.

“It should be called the Employer Flexibility Act, because at every turn here, the employer gets to decide,” said Judith Lichtman, senior adviser for the National Partnership for Women & Families.

‘This legislation is based on smoke and mirrors,” said National Partnership for Women and Families senior adviser Judith Lichtman in her testimony before the committee.

New York was seen as a “tipping point,” says Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, which has been leading campaigns supporting their passage.

Vicki Shabo of the National Partnership for Women and Families said that if the proposal is like previous ones, it would be “misguided.”