Even Bush’s Labor Dept. Finds Huge Support for Family and Medical Leave

by Mike Hall, Jun 27, 2007

When the Department of Labor in December asked workers and employers to comment on their experiences with regulations that implement the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), many observers believed it was the first step by the Bush administration to revise the rules to restrict access to family leave—as big business has clamored for since it was enacted in 1993.

Under FMLA, companies employing 50 or more people must allow workers up to 12 weeks a year of unpaid leave to care for themselves or family members during illnesses or for the birth or adoption of a child.

The overwhelmingly positive response from workers, family members and other advocates appears to have put the brakes on the corporate-backed changes—at least for now.

Victoria Lipnic, assistant secretary of labor, says the department has no imminent plans to issue changes to the regulations. In the forward to a report today by the department summarizing the comments, she says:

There is a broad consensus that family and medical leave is good for workers and their families, is in the public interest and is good workplace policy…There are no proposals for regulatory changes being put forward by the department with this report.

That’s the good news. But in what maybe a harbinger of bad news, she also told BNA’s Daily Labor Report (subscription required),

There are clearly areas that need to be cleaned up.

Corporate interests are pointing to the report’s emphasis on workers’ use of “intermittent” unscheduled leave for chronic conditions such as asthma, migraine headaches, back pain and other recurring ailments as an indication the Labor Department may move ahead with some leave-use restrictions.

(Of course, with almost half of all private-sector workers and 79 percent of low-income workers without any paid sick leave, many are forced to use unpaid leave under FMLA. And, many of those workers may not have any health insurance to cover the illnesses. The latest figures show that 43.6 million Americans—up by 2 million since 2005—have no health insurance at all.)

Jason Straczewski of the National Association of Manufacturers, which opposed the original law and has long sought restrictions on family leave, told the Daily Labor Report the Labor Department report

sounds like the kind of analysis that will further highlight the case for regulatory changes.

Says Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families:

Certainly, we know that it can be challenging to manage employees with illnesses that require unplanned absences, but that is a challenge all employers must meet. It is simply a part of doing business. With our inadequate health care system and aging workforce, and with chronic illness on the rise, this will become more of an issue in years to come. The best answers may lie in increased access to preventive health care and establishing a minimum federal standard of paid sick days….

We are gravely concerned that the Department will follow this report with regulations designed to roll back FMLA protections. There is simply no justification for doing so.

While many of the business group comments argued for FMLA rollbacks, the AFL-CIO, Working America and other family advocates urged that FMLA be strengthened, not rolled back. The AFL-CIO told the Labor Department:

The Family and Medical Leave Act provides crucial protections to American workers as they struggle to balance their work and family needs. No current, reliable evidence exists to justify making it more difficult for employees to take FMLA leave. The department should refrain from making any changes in its regulations that restrict access to these important rights. Instead, efforts should focus on making sure that employees fully understand their FMLA rights and that employers permit their employees to take FMLA qualified leave when they are so qualified.

Says Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), an author of the original bill:

Time after time, research has shown that the Family and Medical leave Act is a sound policy that benefits employees and employers alike.

According to the Labor Department report, more than 76 million workers are eligible to take family and medical leave, and in 2005 between 6.1 million and 13 million workers took leave. For the report, more than 15,000 people and groups submitted comments. The comments from workers and their families contained

…very personal and in some cases moving accounts from employees who had used family and medical leave…Many commented that the act prevented job loss, allowed them to spend time with sick or injured family members and, upon returning to work, encouraged a greater sense of loyalty to the employer.

One parent wrote:

My daughter was mauled by a dog. I had to take two months of leave. If the FMLA had not been in place, I would have lost my job for sure.

While workers wrote about the benefits of the law, many also noted areas where it could be strengthened, including expanding eligibility, longer leave and providing time paid off to care for sick family members.

As Stephanie Taylor, a blogger for the Democratic National Committee, points out:

Earlier this year, a study by Harvard and McGill universities reported that the United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding. The Associated Press reported the results:

Workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries. Notably, it says the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave; the others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.

Read how working families won paid sick leave in San Francisco and family leave in Washington State and what workers told Working America about family and medical leave. 

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (3)