While slugger Roger Clemens denied allegations of steroid use under the harsh lights of the media glare on one side of the Hill, a Senate subcommittee conducted a more sedate hearing about the Family Medical Leave Act, signed into law 15 years ago this month. Senators Patty Murray, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch spoke in glowing terms of this successful program, which provides eligible workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year to attend to their own serious health condition, or that of a family member. While doing so, they may count on continuation of their employer-sponsored health insurance, and know that they can return to their job. Very recently, FMLA has been expanded to offer leave, albeit unpaid, to military families, allowing time off to care for an ill or injured returning veteran transitioning back to civilian life.

The hearing was timed to observe the 15th anniversary of FMLA, as well as promote a bill introduced last session by Senators Dodd and Stevens that would expand the program and make the leave partially paid for 8 of the 12 weeks. This Family Leave Insurance bill requires both the employer and employee to contribute a very small amount every week to fund the paid leave. This method avoids having to find the money within the already stretched federal budget, and reflects the benefit to both parties. The worker gets job security and some income while attending to a personal or family emergency. The employer reduces turnover, has access to the largest possible pool of workers, and avoids a loss in productivity due to absenteeism, or even "presenteeism" (a worker on the job when ill or needed at home to deal with a personal or family emergency). In the absence of a binding national policy, the employers that do offer paid leave do so all at their own expense, which, in effect, puts them at an economic disadvantage.

Again and again, both the witnesses and the committee members noted the overwhelming success of FMLA and its popularity with workers. It allows qualifying adult children to help an aging parent, new parents to settle into life with a newly born or adopted child, or a wife or husband to stay with a sick spouse.

Over 7 million workers utilized FMLA in 2005 alone, the most recent year that data is available. Half of this number used the leave for themselves, and half for the care of a family member. However, because the law only applies to employers with 50 or more employees, and because the employees must be employed for at least a year and have worked at least 1250 hours in the past 12 months, about half the private sector work force doesn't even qualify for FMLA. And of the millions who do, a significant percentage will never take it because the leave is unpaid, and they can't afford to miss a single paycheck.

Senator Dodd believes that FMLA helps both employers and employees. He rejects the notion that workers are trying to take advantage, or get away with something, by abusing the leave. (This is the constant refrain of the business community and opponents of FMLA.) There should be a way for workers to deal with family transitions or health emergencies without the added worry of losing health insurance or a job. Any alterations to the law, now being considered by the Department of Labor, should only be to expand the leave and make it paid, not roll back any benefit it currently provides. While the employer may have the inconvenience of additional paperwork, or trouble with staffing, these temporary and minor hiccups are outweighed by the importance of the leave to the worker.

Senator Murray addressed the proposed changes made by the Department of Labor and released in mid-February. Though denied by the Department's representative, Senator Murray flatly stated that the revisions are in response to complaints by the business lobby, and create new hurdles and burdens on workers which will intimidate them and deter them from exercising their rights under FMLA. She further linked this effort to the White House, trying to roll back this pro-family, pro-worker, pro-maternal employment program in the last year of the current Administration. There are many advocates, your (wo)man in Washington included, who believe this interpretation is well-founded.

Senator Kennedy expressed the popular view that ways need to be found to expand the FMLA, enlarge the circle of covered employees, make at least some portion of the leave paid rather than unpaid, and have it cover school conferences or school events in addition to family health matters. He acknowledged our slowness to deal with work/family matters as a national labor issue, and the fact that we alone among industrialized countries have no paid parental leave policy. The function of government is to make the demands of daily life easier, not more complicated or bureaucratic, and it is long past time that government acted in this area.

Finally, witnesses testified about their own experiences with FMLA, from both the employer and employee perspective. Most notable was the small business owner, who stated that a national paid leave policy will make the economy more dynamic and competitive globally. Attracting the best possible workforce requires offering adequate wages as well as insurance, a pension plan, and a reliable paid leave plan that ensures income security during periods of predictable family need. A bill that funds paid leave with nominal contributions from both the employer and the employee shares the cost (currently borne by the employer alone when they choose to offer it voluntarily) and affords tax advantages to the employer. Until that time, the employer offering paid leave on its own initiative is paying a much higher price, and operating from a disadvantage, compared to other employers.

The House was to have a hearing on FMLA the following day, but it was cancelled so Members could attend the funeral of the recently deceased Tom Lantos, U.S. Representative from California. It will take place in April.

'Til next time --
Your (Wo)Man in Washington