The setting was exactly what you’d expect for a D.C. Council hearing: a public witness testifying to a legislator about an issue of concern. But the public witness was Dionne Reeder, the legislator was Elissa Silverman (I-At Large) and the issue was D.C.’s new paid family leave program.

That Reeder showed up to an otherwise-mundane late-September Council hearing chaired by Silverman, who she’s trying to unseat, demonstrates the degree to which the contentious electoral battle between the two has become a referendum on D.C.’s new paid family leave program, which Silverman helped create.

“The current law is regressive and unfairly burdens businesses with a small number of staff, like myself,” said Reeder, who owns a restaurant in Anacostia, Cheers at the Big Chair.

Reeder insists the law would be unaffordable for small business owners, who will be responsible for paying for it. And she says that it too heavily favors employees who work in D.C. but do not live in the city. But Silverman says Reeder and her supporters—including Mayor Muriel Bowser—are loudly complaining about the program without being able to offer up their own alternative.

“That’s a smokescreen. If you don’t have an alternative, which Dionne does not and the business community does not, then you’re against paid leave,” said Silverman in an interview with WAMU.

But Reeder vehemently disagrees. “To say to me, well if I don’t support [the paid leave bill] then I don’t support [paid leave] at all, well I think that’s very immature.”

Bringing paid family leave to D.C.

It was in December 2016, after 15 months of debate, that the D.C. Council gave final approval to a bill creating a paid family leave program. Authored by Silverman, Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) and Chairman Phil Mendelson, the bill required all private businesses in the city to offer their employees eight weeks of paid parental leave, six weeks of paid family leave and two weeks of paid medical leave.

The program, which is set to be managed by a new city agency, is expected to cost $250 million a year, paid for by a 0.62 percent per-employee tax that every business will have to pay. Beneficiaries who take leave would be a paid a portion of their wages, up to $1,000 a week.

Proponents said the new law—which is set to take effect in July 2020—would bring D.C. in line with much of the rest of the world in offering paid leave, and put it on the cutting edge nationally. Currently, only California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York require employers to offer paid leave.

But critics, including the city’s business groups and Bowser, said the program was too generous and too expensive, would create a new layer of bureaucracy to manage benefits, and would provide benefits to non-residents who work in the city. Bowser didn’t veto the bill, but she also didn’t sign it.

While Mendelson did briefly entertain a number of bills in 2017 to change how the program is paid for, who benefits and who’s required to provide leave, he abandoned them earlier this year—in part because he faced a challenger from the left in June’s Democratic primary.

Since it became law, city officials have gone about the tedious but necessary task of actually implementing paid family leave program. Regulations have been written, outreach meetings have been held, and city officials have traveled to or spoken with their counterparts in states that require paid leave. More recently, the city began the procurement process for a system to allow it to collect the 0.62 percent tax from employers, which is set to start next July.

Much of the process has been overseen by Silverman, who has held quarterly hearings on the program’s implementation. It was at September’s hearing that Reeder spoke.

An electoral fight

Reeder quietly declared her candidacy for Silverman’s At-Large seat in October 2017, saying she wanted to challenge an incumbent she said was imposing too many additional requirements on businesses. But it wasn’t until almost a year later that she received a significant boost: an endorsement from Bowser, along with access to her deep pool of campaign funders. (From October 2017 through August 2018, Reeder raised just over $90,000 for her campaign. In the last four months, she has raised more than $200,000.)

At public events, both Bowser and Reeder have taken consistent swipes at the paid leave law, largely aimed at the reality that employees for D.C.-based businesses will benefit — whether or not they actually live in the city. Reeder says that of the $250 million the program is expected to cost every year, roughly $166 million will go to residents of Virginia and Maryland who work in D.C.

“Legislators in the District of Columbia should put D.C. residents’ issues first,” said Reeder. “And that’s the bottom line for me.”

But Silverman says Reeder and Bowser are missing a key point: anyone who works in D.C. enjoys the same labor protections, no matter where they call home.

“We don’t have a minimum wage for District workers and a minimum wage for Virginia workers,” said Silverman. “We pay unemployment insurance through our Department of Employment Services for workers who work in the District but live in Maryland and Virginia. It’s an employer-based benefit.”

Reeder and Bowser have also said they are concerned that businesses are expected to fully shoulder the 0.62 percent per-employee tax to pay for the program. In other states with programs, the cost is split between the employer and the employee. Silverman says that would be impossible in D.C., as Congress prohibits the city from taxing the income of non-residents.

Bad for business?

Yesim Sayin Taylor, who worked with the D.C. Chief Financial Officer when the paid leave bill was being debated and now directs the D.C. Policy Center, says that some of the concerns being raised by both Bowser and Reeder reflect broader discontent in the business community over the program.

“Many of them will tell you that paid leave is a good idea. But businesses in D.C. are irate with the paid leave law because they feel like they’re now tasked with solving a regional problem just using D.C. resources. So they have to compete regionally but they are now bound by these local laws that restrict the choices they have,” she said.

But Mendelson sees it differently — paid leave will be a perk that will attract workers and employers to the city.

“We want jobs here in the District. We want employers here in the District. The more that we make the workplace in the District attractive, and therefore attractive for workers, and therefore attractive to employers who need workers, that’s a good thing for the economy,” he said.

Speaking at the September hearing, Reeder stressed that she is in favor of paid leave for her four employees, and has paid out of pocket to cover their wages when they can’t come into work. She told Silverman that she regularly paid the wages of one part-time employee who was often out sick, and helped pay her funeral costs when she passed away in September.

“I paid her for every hour she was scheduled to work and couldn’t be there because of her illness and her treatment,” said Reeder. “I always supported paid family leave, and quite frankly, I don’t need the government to make me human.”

But as Reeder spoke, Silverman scribbled numbers on a piece of paper.

“It seems like the math would be that actually it would be less expensive for you to be part of the paid family leave system than to pay out of pocket,” she said to Reeder. “I just did the math. It seems like it would be cheaper. And that’s what we’ve heard from a lot of small businesses.”

In recent weeks, Reeder has waffled on how the current paid leave program could be changed. At the hearing, she asked Silverman to consider a proposal from Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) to rename the payroll tax a “fee” and split the cost between employers and employees. Silverman has called that a gimmick that would be challenged in court. And in late October, Reeder told a reporter from The Washington Post that she would have her own paid leave proposal — but not until after the election.

But in an interview with WAMU, Reeder said that the entire debate over paid family leave further highlighted why she thinks Silverman needs to go.

“We have to look at how we unify this city. And you cannot put the emphasis on one particular community only, and that’s the business community, to even pay for those residents that don’t live in the District of Columbia,” she said. “For us to say this is the only way we to do it, I disagree.”

Silverman says she’s willing to make changes to the paid leave program, but wants it to take effect first so that businesses and employees can see how it plays out.

“Let’s put the program into action,” she said. “We have examples all over the world but as well in out country where businesses in the end have seen this as a benefit.”

This story originally appeared on WAMU.