Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) went into effect August of 93. The purpose of this essay was to determine the effects that the FMLA had, It is evident through the research that the effect was both negative and positive, and it truly depends on the perception of the person that one would ask. Through this essay, we have learned that FMLA has affected many people's employment in a positive way; it has allowed them to take time to take care of personal and family issues that were not offered before the FMLA was in existence. However with any positive feedback, comes negative. The essay also discusses how employers felt that the FMLA had negatively influenced employee attendance as well as dedication to employers. The view of the employee is skewed there are those that fear taking FMLA for fear of losing their jobs and those that may take more than they actually need. Regardless this essay has shown that the FMLA has had an impact both positive and negative, and there is still a lot to learn.

The family medical Leave act (FMLA) went into effect on August 5, 1993, and for which final regulations took effect on august 6, 1995; the act states that a full time employee is entitled to a total of 12 weeks of leave during any 12-month period under certain circumstances. Full time is defined as an employee who has worked for the company for at least 12 months and for at least 1250 hours during the previous 12-month period. The FMLA requires the employer to allow the employee to return to the same job or a job of equal position with equivalent pay (BBP, 2004, p. 826) Americans are working longer and harder than ever before. Recent studies have shown that in no other industrialized nation do workers spend as much time on the job as in the U.S. The proportion of Americans who work is also at an all-time high. That is largely because more women are working outside the home than ever before. In more than half of all families headed by married couples, both the husband and wife work. In addition, most single parents hold down full-time jobs, as well. As a result, according to many observers, parents are spending less and less time with their children ("Family Leave," 2005, p. 1).

The FMLA has been praised for supporting employee work/life issues and engendering a family-friendly workplace. However, its successes have not come without problems. Since its inception in 1993, employers have found FMLA certification, administration, tracking, and compliance confusing and problematic. Employers have argued that the law's ambiguous language makes it hard to certify, track, and administer leave, particularly intermittent leave (Reinberg, 2004). When the FMLA became law in February 1993, most women and children's advocacy groups were elated. However, many business groups protested that the law, which allows employees at companies with 50 or more workers up to 12 weeks' unpaid leave to care for himself or herself, a newborn, a newly adopted child, or a seriously ill family member -- would exact an unfairly heavy toll from employers. Years later, the FMLA remains controversial: Some argue it is too broad in scope, others that it is not broad enough (Kruger, 1998, p. 61)

The FMLA is reported to have been designed largely to alleviate the "time crunch" working parents feel between their jobs and their children. The law gives many Americans a federally protected right to take time off work to care for newborn babies or sick relatives, or to tend to their own medical conditions. Many employees are hesitant to take advantage of the FMLA. These workers fear that their employers will view them unfavorably for taking extended leave, or that they will miss promotions or raises while they are gone. Many low-income workers simply cannot afford to take leave, analysts say, since the law contains no provision for paying leave-takers. However, business leaders and many conservatives have questioned the FLMA's value, and have staunchly opposed its expansion. In many companies, they say, employees have begun to feel entitled to extended periods of vacation, thereby decreasing businesses' productivity. In addition, many workers are demanding days off for minor ailments that could easily be cured by a quick trip to the doctor ("Family Leave," 2005, p. 1).

Volinski (1999, p. 6) explains that the FMLA has had a negative impact on transit employees. The act has presented his agency with challenges, with no way of a quick resolution. He states that though the FMLA was created with good intentions, many of the transit managers felt that the act provides an opportunity for those who have a low sense of responsibility to stay out of the workplace when they feel like it. The federal legislation was initially created to provide employees with a maximum of twelve weeks of unpaid, job protected leave a year. In addition, the researcher informs us that there were 36 agencies reviewed and asked how the FMLA affected their agencies. Twenty-six of the agencies interviewed stated that they had an extreme concern with the effects of the FMLA; the act was referred to as a nightmare, a disaster, and a royal pain.

Some employers have discussed that they have had to make special accommodations due to the FMLA that normally would not have taken place. Martocchino (2005) explains that employers may choose to offer a variety of accommodations and enhancement benefits to meet one or more of the five objectives, i.e. (mental and physical well being, family assistance, flexible work schedule, educational benefits, & support programs). The reasons for these accommodations stem from the fact that absenteeism and tardiness is higher than offering accommodation and enhancement benefits that will increase the timely attendance of employees at work.

In 1996, research by the Family Leave Commission appointed by Congress to study the FMLA concluded that the law was a success: Nearly 80% of the 1,206 employers polled said it was easy to implement; 89% said it added only minor administrative costs or none at all. Despite early fears that the FMLA would increase employee turnover, 84% of the workers who took advantage of a leave returned to their company. Nevertheless, the research did point out some other problems. For example, 45% of U.S. workers are not covered by the FMLA, largely because they work at businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Since the findings were released, FMLA supporters have introduced bills in Congress to expand coverage to include workers at companies with as few as 25 employees. Some of the bills would allow up to 24 hours of leave per year for other family obligations, like attending a child's school activities (Kruger, 1998, p. 61).

Industries or individual companies that employ a majority of women may see a greater impact than companies that employ mostly men. A Bureau of National Affairs Inc. poll released in June 1993 found that 47% of working women would take 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child, as opposed to only 7% of working men. So far, the leading reason for a leave of absence has been for parental leave. The 12 weeks of leave do not have to be taken consecutively. In fact, employees can take time by working a reduced work schedule or by working intermittently in increments as short as an hour. For example, an employee with a serious health condition may take continuous leave for three weeks, then return to work on a part-time basis for several months and take intermittent leave for regularly scheduled medical appointments. Each time increment taken as part of leave covered by FMLA must be recorded and counted as part of the employee's 12-week allowance (Charlet & Kimberly, 1994, p. 10).

Other observers say the FMLA has caused more harm than good. In spite of the claims of Clinton and others, they say, the FMLA has struck a devastating blow to many businesses and an expanded version would only increase the potential for damage. Some business leaders say the FMLA has given many employees the feeling that they deserve time off for even the most trifling of reasons. The costs of fighting leave claims are high, reports say; leaving employers in a bind when an employee asks for time off for what is deemed a frivolous reason ("Family Leave," 2005, p. 1). Rose (n.d.) discussed research conducted, the research concluded that there were in fact problematic issues with FMLA stating that the act has lead to misinterpretation, noncompliance, and, ultimately, litigation. The research found not only that employers and employees are misinterpreting the FMLA's intent but also that courts at all levels have had their share of interpretations, which appear to differ or contradict regulatory intent (Rose, n.d., p. 1).

A survey of 300 West Coast employers showed that the 1993 federal Family and Medical Leave Act has had little impact on them. Fifty-two percent said the cost of compliance was insignificant and an additional 41% reported only minor costs according to the survey, which was released in January by the University of California at Berkeley and the consulting firm. One reason for the lack of impact, according to the study, is that few employees can afford to take advantage of the law's unpaid leave provisions ("Family Leave Act has little impact," 1994, p. 4)

Not only do employers have to now contend with making sure they are following all of the regulations and rules under the FMLA, they too must deal with the increased number of court cases evident due to the guidelines not being met set in place by the FMLA. The concern for employers is that court rulings have liberally applied the definition of "serious health condition" to encompass many common ailments that typically are not considered serious. Under the Department of Labor regulations, "serious health condition" includes conditions that necessitate the employee taking three or more days off and having two or more doctor visits. Once this threshold is reached, the employee may qualify for up to 12 weeks of FMLA leave. FMLA complexities are driving more and more employers to turn to outside vendors to manage their FMLA leave (Reinberg, 2004, p. 8). Their reasons include:

1. Avoid potential litigation and

2. Fines.

3. Provide a layer of privacy related

4. To personal health information.

5. Reduce administrative burden

6. And additional training needs.

7. Provide tracking to ensure consistency,

8. integration with other

9. lost-time benefits, and reduce

10. Lost productivity due to over-certification.

11. Provide a compliance process,

12. including appropriate documentation

13. And state-leave requirements

Since the passage of the FMLA, observers have raised concerns that many or most workers are reluctant to take time off under the act. It was explained that employees often feel that taking extended periods of leave will incite disapproval from their employers. Others may fear that they will miss raises and promotions during their absence from work. Workers fear employers will view them as lazy and unmotivated if they take leave. Based on interviews with workers mostly new mothers who had taken leave under the FMLA, researchers concluded that many employers pressure leave-takers to return to work as quickly as possible. Once leave-takers do return to work, they often feel resentment from their peers and believe they must compensate for time away by working longer hours. Most workers and men in particular also worry about how leave will affect their job mobility i.e. promotions and raises ("Family Leave," 2005, p. 1).

Waldfogel (2001, p. 17) reports that findings in the 1996 report concluded that the overall impact of the FMLA on employees had been positive. The report also concluded that the implementation of the law had not caused the types of problems for employers that some had anticipated. Among the most important findings in this regard were the following:

* The law led to increased family and medical leave benefits for employees. Two-thirds of covered establishments reported that they changed some aspect of their family or medical leave policies to come into compliance with the law, and covered establishments were much more likely than non-covered establishments to offer family and medical leave.

* The law had little or no impact on covered establishments' operations in other respects. More than 9 in 10 covered establishments said that the FMLA was relatively easy to administer, and most said that the law had no noticeable effect on their business performance.

* The work of those who took leave was typically covered by other employees. Most employees took short leaves (of median length 10 days, with 90.0% lasting 12 or fewer weeks), and their work was typically covered by being temporarily reassigned to other employees.

The 1996 report also pointed to some problems and limitations. Among the most important were the following (Waldfogel 2001, p. 17):

* Coverage under the law was far from universal. Only 59.5% of private-sector employees worked for covered establishments, and only 46.5% were both covered and eligible.

* Awareness of the law was limited A large share of employees at covered establishments (41.9%) had not heard of the law.

* Although most employees were able to take, leave when they needed to, a small share was not. About 3% of employees said that they had needed leave for family or medical reasons sometime during the previous 18 months, but were not able to take it.

* The lack of paid leave was a problem for many employees. Although most employees were satisfied with the leave they were able to take, many who needed leave but did not take it said that the reason they did not was that they could not afford it.

In addition to the work conducted for the Commission on Family and Medical Leave, there have also been several independent studies of the FMLA. These investigations have found that family leave coverage increased because of the Act and that the use of family leave increased for some groups, such as mothers of newborns. The impact of the FMLA on the use of leave seems to be smaller than its impact on coverage, which may reflect the existence of financial or other barriers to taking leave under the provisions of the Act. Such barriers may be particularly important for men, who had the greatest increase in parental leave coverage, but who have shown little increase in usage to date (Waldfogel 2001, p. 20).

The results of a study conducted pose a serious threat to the "gender neutrality" goal inherent in the FMLA. In addition to not adequately meeting the needs of caregivers of children with chronic or life-threatening medical conditions, a major hurdle for these caregivers is in meeting the criteria for eligibility. Namely, single women with lower incomes constituted the majority of ineligible families. Those individuals who used FMLA and had incomes of more than $35,000 were more satisfied with the act than those individuals who used FMLA and had incomes less than $35,000. This difference in satisfaction can be attributed to an inherent bias in the FMLA that is based on socioeconomic status (SES).

It was stated, "The greatest barrier to taking leave is the fact that it is usually unpaid." It is very difficult for employees who are eligible for leave to take it because they cannot afford to do so. In this study conducted, there was more often the case with female, single-parent households. There exists an inherent bias in favor of those who can afford to go on leave without pay, for the twelve weeks stipulated under the act. Five of the seven individuals who had experience with the FMLA indicated dissatisfaction with the lack of compensation. Employers can offer employees the option of taking accrued sick leave time, vacation time, or disability pay during the time that they are on leave. There needs to be an addition to the policy, however, mandating some form of compensation or wages for those not qualifying for the above options. One way this could be accomplished is to pay employees who take leave a portion of their full wages, and deduct this amount from their wages upon their return to work. This could be a win-win solution (Roog, Knight, Koob, & Kraus, 2004, pp. 39-40).