Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, August 6, 1993 TAG: 9309100395
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Federal legislation took effect Thursday that requires employers to let workers take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year to care for family members, or themselves if they are ill. For Virginians, this is a protection that their own state lawmakers had denied them. They now can stay at home with a new baby or help a sick family member for a limited time without losing their jobs or benefits.
In today's workplace, where women are a major productive force, and in today's family, where both parents often find that they have to work just to provide life's essentials, this is a reasonable and humane policy that also makes good business sense. It is a necessary adjustment to the changes that have occurred in American homes.
The catalyst, of course, has been the fact that so many households no longer have a full-time homemaker, who traditionally has been able to provide care in a crisis. But this legislation is not just a protection for women, who remain the primary care-givers in most families despite their outside workloads. The law is gender-neutral, and men will find they have need of it, too. (For one thing, it specifically does not allow leave to care for parents-in-law.)
Employees who know they will be able to respond to critical family needs without losing the security of a job and health benefits surely will make for a more experienced, better-trained and stable workforce with greater loyalty toward employers.
Many successful employers know this, and long have had similar provisions in their personnel policies. As even critics of the legislation concede, some of the best-run, most competitive companies in the United States and the world have family leave policies, some more generous than the minimal standards set by the new federal law.
So where does the fear come in? Businesses, bridling at yet another federal mandate, complained that some employees would abuse the privilege and take extra time off to take extended vacations.
But this is f+iunpaido leave. Perhaps a few workers can afford the expense of vacationing without receiving a regular paycheck, but not many. It has not been a serious problem in states with family-leave laws, or in private businesses that have voluntarily adopted such policies.
Another fear was that small businesses would feel the impact disproportionately: The smaller the work force. the harder the adjustment when someone takes leave. The law, however, exempts business with fewer than 50 workers.
The latest doubt raised by critics is the fear that businesses with almost 50 employees will choose not to grow in order to avoid the family-leave mandate. This argument is hardest of all to credit. What businessman in his right mind would eschew growth simply to avoid a low- or no-cost mandate whose overall effect is to make work forces more productive?
The Family and Medical Leave Act, passed by Congress and vetoed twice by President Bush, was passed again in February and signed into law by President Clinton. It is the first piece of legislation to become law under the new president - and a welcome shift from pro-family rhetoric to pro-family action.
by CNB