[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
{time} 1720
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tucker). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, little over a year ago, this
Congress passed H.R. 1, the Family and Medical Leave Act. President
Clinton quickly signed this measure into law. Its enactment was the
culmination of a decade-long struggle which was successful only when a
Democrat was elected to the White House.
Throughout the debate on the bill, opponents claimed that the measure
would impose a costly new mandate on businesses. We argued that the
requirement of a modest period of unpaid family leave would only be
used by employees who had a pressing need to care for themselves or
family members. On March 20, The New York Times carried an article that
surveyed many in the human resources field and concluded that the
supporters of the act were right and that the opponents were not.
We're Doing Just Fine, Thank You
(By Barbara Presley Noble)
Despite the worst expectations of companies large and,
especially, small, the Family and Medical Leave Act, which
entitles employees to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year
for family medical emergencies, appears to have had little
negative impact since it went into effect last August. If
anything, according to a recent survey by William M. Mercer
Inc., the benefits consultant, and the University of
California, Berkeley, small businesses have felt the law's
impact less than large companies.
``In large employers, there are so many levels of
bureaucracy and different policies,'' said Janice Stanger, an
associate at Mercer who worked on the study with researchers
at the Work and Family Task Force of the university's
Institute of Industrial Relations. ``Small business is more
flexible, more used to working around people's idiosyncrasies
and changes in schedule. There has not been a
disproportionate impact.'' The survey included questions on
the impact of California's family and medical leave law, a
measure similar to the Federal mandate that has been on the
books since the beginning of 1992.
There has been little impact in part because few employees
have taken advantage of the new leave entitlement. Two-thirds
of employers covered by the earlier California leave law
reported that less than 1 percent of their employees have
taken a leave; just 1.5 percent of the employers said that
more than 3 percent of their people have used the leave
option. Employees at small businesses are the least likely to
take advantage of the law.
Another business fear--an F.M.L.A.-related escalation in
administrative costs--has also failed to materialize since
the California law went into effect. More than 90 percent of
employers said they had experienced either insignificant or
minor costs.
The 4 percent who incurred major costs were businesses with
10,000 or more employees, a finding that probably reflects
the paradox of largeness: big companies have the
infrastructure in place to cope with government's whimsical
excursions into regulation, but as regs beget regs,
inevitably they collide. At one large company Ms. Stanger
works with, the new leave law conflicts with its many pre-
existing leave policies.
Compliance efforts by large companies have been made more
difficult by cutbacks, which have hit human resources
departments especially hard. ``Large employers are very
leanly staffed,'' Ms. Stanger said. ``They are trying to do
more with less. It is difficult to cope with the mandate
because they don't have the staff.''
A significant minority of companies are hanging tough,
taking no compliance action until, presumably, tested by an
employee in search of a leave. About a quarter of companies
responding had not developed a leave policy, one step beyond
the legal requirement that employers post a notice about the
leave law and make sure their workers are informed of their
rights. Perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not, more than a mere
blip of employers--8.5 percent--said they do not guarantee a
leave-taker's job, although the legislation specifically
requires that an employee be allowed to return to the same or
equivalent position.
Researchers received 299 completed questionnaires out of
980 sent to employers in the West. Companies sampled
represent a variety of industries and an even distribution of
company sizes.
The results may have been shaped somewhat by the sample: 80
percent of the companies responding were from California.
Because that state's family leave law has been in effect for
two years, those employers ``were more attuned to leaves, and
they saw the Federal law coming for awhile,'' Ms. Stanger
said. ``They were further along in decision-making.''
But the results comport with the experience of other people
familiar with the impact of the law nationally. John T. Koss,
a vice president in the New York office of the Segal Company,
another big benefits consultant, said the sound and fury that
accompanied the signing of the bill in February 1993 has
decrescendoed notably since then. ``When the act first
passed, a lot of employers overreacted,'' he said. ``They
thought they would have to do a lot and would have all sorts
of people going on leave for a sprained ankle.''
Most employers have by now completed the first step:
informing employees and devising leave policies in line with
Labor Department regulations issued last summer. Step two was
bracing themselves for what did not happen: all these people
going on leave. And while some implementation details of the
legislation remain unclear, such as how to coordinate leave
and group health benefits for former employees, ``the
doomsday predictions were not true,'' Mr. Koss said. ``I
can't confirm this statistically, but I suspect that those
who would have gone went. If you have to take a leave for
chemotherapy, you don't have much of an option.''
____________________