SALEM — The Oregon Legislature soon will debate a bill to provide pay for employees out on family leave.

The proposed legislation would take 2 cents per hour — about $42 per year — from Oregon workers. The money would fund an insurance program similar to unemployment, paying $300 per week to employees who have just had a child or who are caring for a seriously sick family member, including parents.

Oregon law already requires employers to hold jobs open for 12 weeks for those on family leave. The pay would apply only to the first six weeks of an absence, for a maximum benefit of $1,800.

The idea of publicly collected pay for family leave almost succeeded in the 2007 Legislature, passing in the House but losing in the Senate by two votes.

Oregon led the nation with the first parental and family medical leave laws in 1995. But that comes without pay. Advocates of Senate Bill 966 say many people cannot take the leave because they cannot afford it.

“Many employees, especially low-wage workers and single mothers, are unable to take advantage of family leave because they cannot afford to go without a paycheck,” says Kevin Finney, public policy director for Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon.

Often, families in need of leave are experiencing financial struggles to begin with, says Brad Avakian, Oregon’s Labor Commissioner.

“It simply adds to the crisis the family is experiencing,” Avakian told a legislative panel earlier this month.

Sen. Alan Bates, D-Ashland, is a physician. He often sees people struggle over work and pay when they are called upon to care for a loved one. He’s also seen women try to get back to work too soon after having a baby.

“Sooner or later, they crack,” Bates told the Senate Committee on Commerce and Workforce Development. “It leads to all kinds of issues for their families and them.”

Rep. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, used himself as an example of a “sandwich person.” He has children to care for, as well as an elderly mother on the East Coast.

He was able to visit her for 10 days recently to help her recover after hip surgery.

“Most workers are forced to choose between their loved ones and a paycheck,” Dembrow told the committee. “And we in this country like to think of ourselves as family focused.”

While backers say the program will be self-sustaining, critics fear taxpayers will end up paying even more to cover the tab.

“We see no actuarial work, no business plan,” says J.L. Wilson, a lobbyist for Associated Oregon Industries. “We have every reason to believe there won’t be adequate funding for this over the long term.”

Wilson derides the plan as “a tax on workers” and a “raw deal” for most employees, who do not use the leave pay because they have kept enough vacation hours in reserve. Wilson says the program possibly sets up a bizarre situation — low-income workers subsidizing a wealthy worker.

The family leave insurance pay-in would be mandatory for businesses with 25 or more workers and optional for smaller employers.

Oregon’s Branch of the National Federation of Independent Businesses says the proposal places an “administrative burden” on smaller employers.

“This is exactly the wrong time to do this,” NFIB lobbyist Jenna Kaluza told the Senate panel.

“For the majority of Oregonians, $42 is a lot,” warns Christina Martin of the Cascade Policy Institute.

But some employers favor the insurance plan. Gretchen Peterson, a vice president of Hanna Andersson clothing, says paid family leave would counter stress and make for happier workers. Hanna Andersson operates in California and New Jersey and “has not experienced any negative impacts,” Peterson told lawmakers.

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Oregon Center for Public Policy, which support the idea of paid family leave, conducted forecasts in Oregon. The groups said about 4 percent of Oregon workers would use the family leave insurance each year, using up about $20 million annually. Oregon workers are expected to pay more than $30 million per year into the plan. Administration of the payments would cost about 5 percent of the total, said the predictions.

Advocating for the plan is the American Association of Retired Persons and the Governor’s Commission on Senior Services.

“This is going to be our only salvation in the future as we have less and less funding available” for services to seniors, said commission member Bob Lawrence.

Three states already have paid family leave laws.

California’s went into effect in 2004, New Jersey’s in 2008.

In Washington, Gov. Chris Gregoire has put that state’s 2007 leave insurance plan on hold because of budget shortfalls. It had no dedicated money source. Washington lawmakers have since introduced new legislation that, like Oregon, would collect several pennies per hour from workers to fund the program.