[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.''

                          ____________________