FMLA's Impact: Balancing Employee Rights and Employer Concerns

Overview of the Family Medical Leave Act

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) went into effect on August 5, 1993, with final regulations taking effect on August 6, 1995. The act entitles full-time employees to a total of 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave during any 12-month period under specified circumstances. Full-time status is defined as having worked for the employer for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12-month period. The FMLA requires employers to allow employees to return to the same job or a position of equal status with equivalent pay (BBP, 2004).

The context for FMLA's passage reflects significant changes in American work and family life. Americans work longer and harder than workers in other industrialized nations. The proportion of Americans in the workforce is at an all-time high, largely because more women work outside the home than ever before. In more than half of all families headed by married couples, both spouses work. Additionally, most single parents hold down full-time jobs. As a result, parents spend less time with their children than previous generations, creating what many observers call a "time crunch" (Family Leave, 2005).

The 12 weeks of leave do not need to be taken consecutively. Employees can work a reduced schedule or take intermittent leave in increments as short as one hour. For example, an employee with a serious health condition might take three weeks of continuous leave, then return to part-time work for several months while taking intermittent leave for medical appointments. Each time increment must be recorded and counted as part of the employee's 12-week annual allowance (Charlet & Kimberly, 1994).

Legislative Intent and Workplace Realities

When the FMLA became law in February 1993, women's and children's advocacy groups celebrated the legislation. However, many business groups protested that the law—which allows employees at companies with 50 or more workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, or seriously ill family member—would impose an unfairly heavy burden on employers. Years later, the FMLA remains controversial. Some argue it is too broad in scope; others contend it is not broad enough (Kruger, 1998).

The FMLA was designed largely to alleviate the "time crunch" working parents feel between their jobs and their family responsibilities. The law gives many Americans a federally protected right to take time off work to care for newborn babies, sick relatives, or their own medical conditions. The law has been praised for supporting employee work-life balance and engendering a family-friendly workplace. However, its successes have not come without problems. Since its inception, employers have found FMLA certification, administration, tracking, and compliance confusing and problematic. Employers argue that the law's ambiguous language makes it difficult to certify, track, and administer leave, particularly intermittent leave (Reinberg, 2004).

Many employees remain hesitant to take advantage of FMLA protections. These workers fear that their employers will view them unfavorably for taking extended leave or that they will miss promotions or raises during their absence. Many low-income workers cannot afford to take leave because the law contains no provision for paid leave. However, business leaders and many conservatives have questioned FMLA's value and have opposed its expansion. In their view, employees have begun to feel entitled to extended periods of time away, thereby decreasing business productivity. Additionally, some workers are demanding days off for minor ailments that could be treated with a quick doctor's visit (Family Leave, 2005).