A proposed Allegheny County paid parental leave mandate is moving forward with significant revisions, but employers and business groups continue to raise concerns about the policy’s cost, administration, and potential impact on economic competitiveness. The Allegheny County Board of Health recently approved changes to the proposal ahead of a scheduled Sept. 28 vote that would send the measure to Allegheny County Council for consideration. If adopted, the ordinance would require certain employers to provide up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave following the birth, adoption, or placement of a child, in contrast to the 18 weeks in the original proposal. According to officials, Allegheny County would become the first county in the nation to implement a countywide paid leave mandate without a corresponding state law. Several key provisions were revised following months of public comment. Employers with fewer than 15 employees would now be exempt, as would temporary and seasonal workers. Employee eligibility requirements were also tightened. Rather than qualifying after 30 days of employment, full-time employees would need six months of service, while part-time employees would need to work 625 hours before becoming eligible. The proposal would still require employers to provide 100 percent wage replacement, up to $4,200 per week, and would allow employers to purchase qualifying private insurance policies to offset costs. The PA Chamber joined a coalition of state trade associations representing different sectors of employers opposing the proposal. The coalition argued that placing the full financial and administrative burden on employers could create significant challenges for businesses, particularly small and mid-sized employers. They warned that employers could face the prospect of simultaneously paying an employee on leave and a replacement worker, substantially increasing labor costs. The coalition also raised concerns about the creation of a county-specific mandate that differs from state and federal leave requirements, arguing that employers operating in multiple jurisdictions would face additional compliance and administrative burdens