“A landmark workers’ rights act granting workers unpaid leave for family health issues is threatened by the business community and the Bush administration,” reports the New Standard News.

The law currently protects about 40 percent of the private sector workforce. …


Lower-income workers who are less likely to have access to paid sick days, maternity leave and other benefits through their company’s policies especially value the law. “It’s an incredibly popular statute,” AFL-CIO legislative representative Kelly Ross [said] … “Everyone should be entitled to this leave. The ability to deal with a crisis in your life without getting fired is pretty important to people, and it’s a matter of basic decency.”


New Standard News says that the changes are likely to be made by the Labor Department through bureaucratic rule changes to the FMLA statute instead of through Congress.

In February 2005, Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) introduced the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act, which would provide at least six weeks paid leave to workers for care-giving needs arising from birth, adoption or family illness; expand FMLA coverage to workers in businesses with at least 25 employees – instead of 50; expand the reasons for leave to include domestic violence and its effects; and allow 24 hours a year for school activities like parent-teacher conferences.


“It is still a real burden for people to take leave because they don’t get paid and they get criticism from employers,” said Misha Werschkul, a research associate at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “And they are still being fired if they don’t quite meet the requirements of the FMLA. We need to go in the direction of expanding [the FMLA] and getting more information about it out there, rather than weakening it.”


Here’s a rundown of the bureaucratic changes that might be introduced without Congressional approval:

[T]hree major areas have been discussed during June Senate hearings and meetings between Department of Labor officials and business groups.


One possible change would limit the amount of “intermittent” leave that can be taken in small blocks. Discussed alterations would mandate leave must be taken in blocks of at least four hours. Currently, someone could take an hour of leave for weekly physical therapy appointments, or even half an hour to deal with a child’s illness or to recover from a migraine.


Another change would modify the definition of a “serious illness” and require more proof of health conditions justifying leave or ongoing treatment.


A third change would require employees to provide their bosses more notice before taking leave. Currently, employees are supposed to give 30 days notice for foreseeable conditions and reasonable notice for emergencies. In an emergency, employees do not need to appeal for FMLA leave until they return from an absence.


The Employment Policy Foundation report said that not giving timely notice was one of the most harmful ways workers use the FMLA. …


The report also said employers are hit with costs for replacement labor and continuing health insurance payments for employees during unpaid leave. And it claimed employers have observed morale problems among other employees who see coworkers abusing the FMLA.


Proponents of keeping the FMLA as it stands argue that abuses of the Act’s provision are localized problems that should be dealt with in individual workplaces, not grounds for changing the FMLA. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research released a paper rebutting the Employment Policy Foundation’s work, noting that the survey represented only 110 employers not selected at random, employing less than half a percent of all US workers. They note that employers with complaints were probably more likely to answer the survey, leading to an over-estimation of the difficulties caused by the FMLA.


In fact, a study by the Department of Labor in 2000 found that, “for most employers, the Act had no noticeable effect on their overall productivity, profitability or growth.”