Family Discrimination Laws States Like Connecticut, New

Family Discrimination Laws

States like Connecticut, New Jersey, and Alaska are taking the lead when it comes to passing laws protecting employees from discrimination based on family responsibility. These anti-family responsibilities discrimination (FRD) laws are designed to protect workers, but whether they are a good idea is a matter of opinion. There are concerns that these laws may be abused, and that employers may end up bearing the brunt of missed days and dissatisfied customers because employees are missing too much work time to be with their families (Pynes, 2013). Personally, I do support the idea of anti-family responsibilities discrimination laws. I think that work is very important, but there should be a good work-life balance. Most people do not have that anymore, because they know they will likely risk being fired if they want or need to miss any work time to spend with their family. People should not have to choose between their job and their family. The two do not need to be mutually exclusive, but more employers appear to be moving toward that (Reeves, 2006).

Rather than focusing on how to get workers to come to work instead of spending time with their family, employers and HR departments would be better off focusing on how to keep employees happy and productive. Workers who never get to spend any time with their family and fear being fired if they take a day off for a family medical issue or an important life event are not as productive, overall (Reeves, 2006). These workers can feel drained, unhappy, exhausted, and like they really do not have any personal or human value to their employer (Pynes, 2013). They become just another number at that point, which is incredibly unhealthy and can lead to burnout, worker fatigue, and problems with the quality of their work. At the same time, their family life is suffering because they are stressed out from work and do not get enough time to relax and enjoy the company of loved ones.

Further legislation should cover everyone, and not just state employees. While one can see why state employees would be covered and it can be harder to protect the private sector, no one should be required to choose between work and family when it comes to significant life events, medical issues, becoming a parent or single parent, or other factors that are often beyond a person's control. So many families today are contending with issues that they never would have expected, and these have to be factored in as a part of life or there will be a real risk of problems for employers through lack of productivity and related issues (Pynes, 2013). One area of legislation not addressed is the "sandwich generation," where people are raising children and also caring for aging parents. Having family laws that cover children is helpful, but those that cover caregiving for elderly relatives should also be a concern. Many of these people have no one else to help them, and access to paid help is not always affordable or even available, especially to low-income people in rural areas.