|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... Some of them are planned, such as the birth or adoption of a child, and others, such as a serious illness or the serious illness of a close family member are not. ... Imagine being in such a situation where your family needs you, and you can’t take any time off of work for fear of permanently losing your means of support. For years legislators tried to pass a bill that would require employers to grant workers family leave and at the same time ensure the worker’s job security. After much debate, they were finally successful in 1993 with the passage of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). ...
Prior to the passage of the FMLA only about 34 states had already adopted some form of leave policy. Twenty-three states covered both private and state employees; eleven applied leave policies to only state employees. Nineteen states gave time off for childbirth and pregnancy and 15 states permitted time off for more general family reasons (Campion, 2000). ... From the time the original leave bill was introduced in Congress, it went through four major name changes. ... The Family Employment Security Act of 1984 focused on leave for pregnancy, a child’s illness, or a spouse’s disability, and maintaining job security (Wisensale, 2003). Those underlying principles would remain key components of subsequent legislative proposals and ultimately be incorporated in the final version of the 1993 FMLA. ... This freed up child-care and family leave proponents who would no longer have to divide their time fighting battles on two fronts. ... Third, the continuous compromises on the company size (climbing to 50 employees) and the length of leave (dropping to 12 weeks) produced more votes in favor of the bill. ... Had Bill Clinton not been elected in 1993, chances are the FMLA would not have been adopted.
The FMLA would be the first bill the newly elected president would sign into effect on February 5, 1993. “Family and medical leave is a matter of pure common sense and a matter of common decency. ...
The FMLA allows a worker to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for the birth or adoption of a child, to care for a sick child or spouse, or for the worker’s own serious health condition. ... It also allows a company to deny leave to a salaried employee who falls in the highest ten percent of the company’s payroll if the worker’s leave would create “substantial and grievous injury” to the business operations. The act requires employees to notify their employers prior to taking leave and permits employers to request medical opinions to justify the employee’s absence. Also, if a worker chooses not to return to work after the leave expires, the employer may require the employee to repay all health care premiums that were paid during his or her absence (Norman 2003).
Since Congress passed the FMLA, over twenty million workers of both sexes have taken time off for the birth of a baby or to care for an ill family member (Bernstein, 1999). When the FMLA was enacted in 1993 some thought it might have little effect on family leave coverage because it excluded so many workers and firms and because many of those it covered had family leave rights already. However, the evidence suggests that FMLA has already had quite an impact on family leave coverage.
Since FMLA was implemented in 1993, the Department of Labor has evaluated it twice: in 1996 and 2001. ... Most periods of leave are short, most employees return to work, and reduced turnover seems to be a tangible effect,” (Commission on Leave, 1996).
Approximate Word count = 2951
Approximate Pages = 11.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|