Commission on Leave

A Workable Balance:

Report to Congress on Family and

Medical Leave Policies
Commission on Leave Members

The Honorable Patricia Schroeder

U.S. Representative

Colorado, First District

The Honorable Mary Tavenner

Senior Associate

Boland and Madigan

The Honorable Ronald H. Brown,

Ex-Officio

Secretary of Commerce

The Honorable Philip Lader,

Ex-Officio

Administrator, Small Business

Administration

The Honorable Robert B. Reich,

Ex-Officio

Secretary of Labor

The Honorable Donna E. Shalala

Secretary of Health and Human

Services

Ann Bookman

Executive Director

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd,

Chairman

U.S. Senator

Connecticut

The Honorable Donna R. Lenhoff,

Vice Chair

General Counsel and Director of Work

and Family Programs

Women’s Legal Defense Fund

The Honorable Ellen Bravo

President

9to5, National Association of Working

Women

The Honorable Larry E. Craig

U.S. Senator

Idaho

The Honorable Leland B. Cross, Jr.,

Esq.

Attorney-at-Law

Ice, Miller, Donadio and Ryan

The Honorable Pamela L. Egan

Executive Director, Secretary-Treasurer

Montana Family Union, AFL-CIO

The Honorable Steve Gunderson

U.S. Representative

Wisconsin, 3rd District

The Honorable Lenore Miller

President

Retail, Wholesale, and Department

Store Union, AFL-CIO

The Honorable Scottie Theresa Neese

CEO

Terry Neese Personnel Services

The Honorable Richard L. Reinhardt

President and CEO

PII Affiliates, Ltd.
April 30, 1996

The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum

Chairman

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Labor and Human Resources

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510-6300

The Honorable William F. Goodling

Chairman

The Honorable William L. Clay

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Economic and Educational

Opportunities United States House of

Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-6100

Dear Chairman Kassebaum, Senator Kennedy,

Chairman Goodling and Representative Clay:

On behalf of the Commission on Family

and Medical Leave, I am pleased to transmit

to you “A Workable Balance: Report to

Congress on Family and Medical Leave

Policies,” the final report of the

Commission.

As you know, the Commission was created

with the enactment of the Family and Medical

Leave Act of 1993 and was charged with

examining the impact of this new law and

other family and medical leave policies on

workers and employers across the country.

Our membership was diverse and divided on the

enactment of the FMLA itself. But since its

first meeting in November 1993, the

Commission pursued its statutory mission in a

cooperative, thoughtful and comprehensive way.

The Commission undertook two major

research surveys that provide us with the

very first statistically valid and reliable information on the national impact of these

policies on businesses and employees. In

addition, we held hearings across the country

and heard from a diverse group of businesses,

employees and their representatives about

Commission On Family

 and Medical Leave

SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

CHAIR

SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG

CONGRESSWOMAN

PATRICIA SCHROEDER

CONGRESSMAN

STEVE GUNDERSON

PAMELA L. EGAN

ELLEN BRAVO

LENORE MILLER

DONNA LENHOFF

VICE CHAIR

RICHARD L. REINHARDT

MARY TAVENNER

LELAND B. CROSS JR., ESQ.

SCOTTIE THERESA NEESE

SECRETARY DONNA E. SHALALA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

 HUMAN SERVICES

SECRETARY ROBERT B. REICH

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

SECRETARY RONALD H. BROWN

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

HONORABLE PHILIP LADER

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ANN BOOKMAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
-2-

their experiences with the new law and other

family-friendly policies. Finally, the

Commission and the National Academy of

Sciences convened a workshop with the

nation’s foremost experts to review the

findings of our research and what they meant

for America’s workers and employers.

This report is good news for America’s

families and businesses. The Family and

Medical Leave Act is working for millions of

workers and their families. The research

shows it has clearly become an important tool

in the effort to balance the demands of

family and work. Fully two-thirds of covered

employers have expanded their policies to

come into compliance with the FMLA. And

workers have not been the only ones to

benefit. The great majority of companies

reported no or only minor new costs, and this

in the period in which they had to implement

the FMLA. Beyond reporting few problems,

some businesses also indicated they have seen

a positive benefit from these policies in

increased productivity and lower worker

turnover.

As chairman of the Commission, I am

honored to present our final report to you

and hope that you find it a valuable source

of information on the impact of family and

medical leave policies.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Chairman

Commission on Leave
April 30, 1996

The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum

Chairman

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Labor and Human Resources

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510-6300

The Honorable William F. Goodling

Chairman

The Honorable William L. Clay

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20510-6100

Dear Chairman Kassebaum, Senator Kennedy, Chairman Goodling and Representative Clay:

 The Department of Labor joins with the bipartisan Commission on Leave in the release of “A Workable Balance:

Report to Congress on Family and Medical Leave Policies.” This report is the culmination of the Commission’s two-year

effort to evaluate the effects of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

 The FMLA, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, is intended to help Americans balance their work and

family responsibilities in an era when most households are headed either by two working parents or by single mothers.

The signature features of the Act require businesses with more than 50 employees to allow up to 12 weeks of unpaid

leave to care for a new born or adopted child, to attend to their own serious health needs, or to care for an ill parent,

child or spouse. The FMLA also established the Commission on Leave and gave it the mission of assessing the new

law’s impact on workers, families and employers.

 The enclosed report shows that the FMLA is of great benefit to a large number of working Americans while imposing

minimal burdens on employers. Fewer workers will have to choose between their jobs and their loved ones if a child or

parent should need care. For their part, most businesses find that the new law is easy to administer and costs are small.

The majority of leaves are short in duration and most workers return to their jobs. In fact, some businesses have

reported reduced employee turnover, enhanced employee productivity and improved morale which they attribute to the

FMLA. The Family and Medical Leave Act is good for families and good for business.

 The Commission members and staff are to be commended for their dedication and hard work in the preparation of

this report — a process that included systematic review of existing data on family and medical leave policies, two

national surveys to gauge the effects of the FMLA on workers and employers, and three public hearings. In particular,

we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Commission’s chair, Senator Christopher Dodd, who has been a leader on the

FMLA for many years — long before it became law. Our thanks also to Senator Larry Craig, Congresswoman Patricia

Schroeder, Congressman Steve Gunderson,
-2-

and the representatives of business, labor, working women and their families for their contributions and service to the

commission. And we are deeply grateful to the three successive executive directors who gave such outstanding service

to the Commission — Irasema Garza, Susan King and Ann Bookman.

 Thanks to the work of the Commission on Leave, we can be sure that the FMLA is an effective response to the

changing demographics of the American workplace. The Act has succeeded in bringing many Americans a benefit that

was once afforded to a fortunate few — the knowledge that they can return to their jobs and keep their health benefits if

they need unpaid time off to meet medical or family needs. The FMLA is helping Americans achieve the workable

balance they have long sought.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Reich

Secretary of Labor
vii

The Commission on Leave wishes to thank many individuals and organizations for their

part in making this report possible. Woven from multiple threads, this report is a work of

the mind and of the heart: some contributed scientific expertise and data; others contributed very personal and sometimes painful family stories. Through the efforts of many

people from diverse perspectives, who willingly gave of their time and experience, we have

created a document which explores how a new public policy is affecting the lives and

livelihoods of many Americans.

First, the Commission would like to thank the many people who came forward through

the public hearing process to share with the Commissioners their own view of how the

Family and Medical Leave Act has affected their family or business. Their voices and

testimony are an important component of this report.

The Commission wishes to acknowledge the dedication and professionalism of the two

organizations that conducted the Commission’s scientific research. We want to thank

David Cantor of Westat, Inc., not only for guiding the development and completion of

the Employer Survey, but also for his continuing interest and contributions to this report.

And our appreciation goes to Kerry Levin, Jeffery Kerwin, Susan Heltemes and David

Becher of Westat for their efforts on the Employer Survey. We also want to thank Robert

M. Groves and Katherine A. McGonagle of the Institute for Social Research, Survey

Research Center at the University of Michigan for their significant contributions in the

development and completion of the Employee Survey, and express our gratitude to their

colleagues Judith Connor, Stephen Heeringa and Patricia Veerkamp for their work as

well.

There are a number of government agencies and other organizations that responded with

generosity and enthusiasm when asked to contribute data and information to the Commission on Leave. We especially wish to thank Maria Echaveste and her staff at the Wage

and Hour Division of the Department of Labor; Jane Malloy of the Department of Commerce and Ruth Runyan at the Census Bureau; Ellen Galinsky and James T. Bond of the

Families and Work Institute; Sheila Wellington and Marcia Brumit Kropf of Catalyst;

Paula Rayman and Francoise Carre of the Radcliffe Public Policy Institute; John Abraham

of the American Federation of Teachers; and Stan Wisniewski of the National Education

Association. And a special note of appreciation goes to Deborah Phillips, Director of the

Board on Children and Families at the National Academy of Sciences, who graciously

hosted a workshop to assist the Commission in analyzing the data from the Employer and

Employee Surveys at a critical point in the development of this report.

This report could not have been completed without the efforts of many hard working staff

members, each of whom played an important part in different phases of the Commission’s

work. The Commission’s first Executive Director, Irasema Garza, and Hermelinda Pompa

who served as Acting Executive Director after her, effectively laid the foundation for the

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
viii Commission’s work: assessing existing data sources and linking the Commission to multiple resources and researchers. Susan King, the Commission’s second Executive Director, brought dynamic leadership and energy to the launching of two national surveys and

the organizing of three public hearings. She was ably assisted in these tasks by Diane

Quinn, Linda Paris, Jean Coyle, and Kathleen Denny. Finally Ann Bookman, the

Commission’s third Executive Director, provided invaluable research guidance to the

Commission throughout its life, and skillfully led the preparation and writing of this report.

Essential to the background research, analysis and writing in this report were the talents

and tireless efforts of Kirsta Millar, Miriam Szapiro and Kirsten Wever - the Commission

is most grateful to each of them. Administrative support from Rebecca Griffin, Stacey

Oliphant, Tracy Reed and Lynette Shelton have greatly aided the day to day work of the

Commission. The Commission also thanks Angelique Larsen, Carrie Cyphert, Gail

Blachly, Sarah Varela, Gretchen Wright, Lisa Lederer, Jim Blackmon, Lionel White and

Howard Waddell for their creativity and careful attention to detail in the design, graphics

production, and copy editing process.

The Commission also wishes to acknowledge the special contributions made by members

of its own bipartisan Technical Task Force. The extra effort, long hours and genuine

committment of Commission Vice Chair Donna Lenhoff, Commissioner Mary Tavenner,

Suzanne Day representing Commission Chair Dodd, and Damon Tobias representing

Commissioner Craig, added immeasurably to the Commission’s research efforts and the

completion of this report.

A final word of appreciation to the U.S. Department of Labor which provided significant

resources and technical support to the Commission’s work all along the way. Two agencies in particular have made this report a reality: first, thanks are due to the Women’s

Bureau which, under the leadership of Karen Nussbaum, housed the Commission and

wholeheartedly supported its work in countless ways; second, a debt of gratitude goes to

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and especially to Clyde Tucker who has contributed enormously to the rigor of the Commission’s research and the quality of this final report.
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................xiii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 3

A. Families and Employers in a Changing Economy .......................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER II. HOW THE COMMISSION

WENT ABOUT ITS WORK.............................................................................................................. 15

A. Mission of the Commission on Leave .......................................................................................................... 15

B. Organization of the Commission .................................................................................................................. 16

C. Assessment of Existing Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 17

D. Public Hearings ............................................................................................................................................. 20

E. Commissioned Research ............................................................................................................................... 21

F. National Academy of Sciences Workshop .................................................................................................... 31

G. Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER III. OVERVIEW OF LEAVE POLICIES PRIOR

TO THE PASSAGE OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL

LEAVE ACT ............................................................................................................................................... 35

A. Voluntary Leave Policies .............................................................................................................................. 35

B. State Statutes ................................................................................................................................................ 45

C. Employee Utilization and Experience .......................................................................................................... 49

D. Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER IV. ACCESS TO FAMILY AND MEDICAL

LEAVE SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE FMLA: COVERAGE, KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF THE NEW LAW ......................................................... 57

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 57

B. New Data on the Extent of the FMLA Coverage ........................................................................................ 58

C. Changes in Employer Leave Policies Since the FMLA ............................................................................... 66

D. Knowledge of the New Law.......................................................................................................................... 76

E. Rate of Utilization of the FMLA .................................................................................................................. 83

F. Compliance Under the FMLA ...................................................................................................................... 85

G. Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 87

TABLE OF CONTENTS
x CHAPTER V. EMPLOYERS’ AND EMPLOYEES’

EXPERIENCES WITH LEAVE SINCE ENACTMENT OF THE FMLA .......................................................................................................................... 91

A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 91

B. Who Needs and Takes Leave? ...................................................................................................................... 91

C. Reasons for Taking Leave ............................................................................................................................. 93

D. Length of Leave ............................................................................................................................................ 96

E. Employees Who Needed but Did Not Take Leave ....................................................................................... 98

F. Expectations of Needing Leave Within the Next Five Years ...................................................................... 101

G. Methods Used to Cover Work ................................................................................................................... 102

H. Continuation of Benefits and Wage Replacement During Leave ............................................................. 105

I. Job Protection and Returning to Work ....................................................................................................... 112

J. Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 114

CHAPTER VI. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE POLICIES ON

EMPLOYERS ............................................................................................................................................ 119

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 119

B. Administration of and Compliance with the FMLA ................................................................................. 119

C. Costs to Employers ..................................................................................................................................... 125

D. Benefits to Employers ................................................................................................................................. 127

E. Business and Employee Performance .......................................................................................................... 130

F. Comparisons of Covered Worksites’ Experiences ....................................................................................... 134

G. Small Worksites Experiences and Expectations........................................................................................ 137

H. Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 144

CHAPTER VII. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE POLICIES ON

EMPLOYEES............................................................................................................................................. 149

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 149

B. Overview of Leave-Takers and Leave-Taking............................................................................................. 149

C. Employees Views of Leave ......................................................................................................................... 156

D. Portraits of Leave-Takers ............................................................................................................................ 162

E. Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 167
CHAPTER VIII. ANALYSIS AND RESPONSES xi

TO STATUTORILY MANDATED QUESTIONS................................................................. 171

A. to H. - Responses to Questions posed by Congress to the Commission on Leave .................................... 171

CHAPTER IX. FUTURE DIRECTIONS:

COMMISSION ON LEAVE RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 193

Public Education and Technical Assistance ................................................................................................... 194

Directions for Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 195

Policy Directions ............................................................................................................................................. 198

APPENDICIES ........................................................................................................................................ 201

A. Federal Law: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ........................................................................ 201

B. Commissioner Biographies ......................................................................................................................... 207

C. Commission on Leave Activities ............................................................................................................... 213

D. Additional Views ........................................................................................................................................ 219

E. Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... 253

F. Information on Survey Instruments ............................................................................................................ 305

G. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 307
xii
xiii

Executive Summary

Families and Employers in a Changing Economy

In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA or the Act)

to provide a national policy that supports families in their efforts to strike a workable balance between the competing demands of the workplace and the home.

These demands have intensified over the last 25 years, as the nation has experienced dramatic social and economic changes affecting businesses, employees and

families alike. American businesses have confronted a changing world economy

marked by increasing competition, technological innovation and instability. Many

more women have entered the labor force. Many families’ caregiving needs are

now being met by family members who also are holding down jobs. This, in turn,

has fueled the rising need among employees for workplace policies that enable

them to meet the often competing demands of job and home.

In almost every family a time comes when some family member has a serious medical problem or a caregiving need that requires time off from work. Without the

availability of job-protected family and medical leave, employees often face the

difficult choice of returning to work prematurely, of giving up their jobs or of not

providing their families the care and support they need.

Prior to the Family and Medical Leave Act, employees had access to family and

medical leave in two ways: 1) voluntary or collectively bargained employer policies; and 2) policies required by state leave statutes. A quarter to a third of formal

employer policies matched FMLA requirements in the protections they offered.

Many voluntary policies did not provide leave for all the reasons offered by FMLA

- especially to care for a seriously ill parent, child or spouse, or to care for a newborn, newly-adopted or foster child. Leave was often handled on a case-by-case

basis, for a shorter duration, and health insurance and other benefits were not

necessarily maintained. In addition, the discretionary nature of many leave policies meant that leave-taking employees often did so at some risk to their job security.
xiv

A Workable Balance

State statutes, enacted in 34 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., expanded

unpaid, job-guaranteed leave options for some employees, especially in the area of

maternity leave, but very few were as comprehensive as the FMLA. The amount

of job-guaranteed leave that a worker could take varied widely in state law - from

16 hours to one year. Eligibility requirements also varied, and many of the laws

applied only to state employees. Most of the laws exempted certain small businesses. Five states and Puerto Rico also have Temporary Disability Insurance laws

(TDI) which pre-date FMLA and provide partial wage replacement during maternity-disability leave as well as other temporary disabilities.

Today, many more employers are providing family and medical leave policies through

their compliance with the new law, which requires employers with 50 employees

or more to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave a year to eligible

employees to care for a newborn, newly-adopted or foster child, a child, spouse or

parent with a serious health condition, or for the serious health condition of the

employee, including maternity-related disability. Employees are eligible to take

leave if they have worked for a covered employer for at least one year, and for 1,250

hours over the previous 12 months, and if there are at least 50 employees working

for their employer within a 75-mile radius of their worksite.

This report provides an initial assessment of family and medical leave policies in

general, and of FMLA in particular: are we approaching the workable balance envisioned by this nation’s lawmakers?

How the Commission Went About its Work

The Commission on Leave, which commenced in November 1993, was composed

of members who possessed the expertise and practical experience needed to evaluate family and medical leave issues. They included Congressional leaders, representatives of women and families, labor and the business community, including

small businesses and ex-officio Cabinet members from Federal agencies with direct

interest in family and medical leave issues. Following its formation, the Commission set about to meet a broad and ambitious legislative mandate by coordinating a

variety of research and information gathering efforts that together help to provide

comprehensive answers to all the questions posed by Congress.
xv

Executive Summary

The FMLA charges the Commission to study the following points: existing and

proposed mandatory and voluntary family and medical leave policies of both covered and non-covered employers; their costs, benefits and impact on productivity;

the possible differences to employers in costs, benefits and impact on productivity,

job creation and business growth based on size; the impact of family and medical

leave policies on the availability of benefits provided by covered and non-covered

employers; state enforcement of the FMLA with regard to special provisions pertaining to teachers; methods used by employers to reduce administrative costs of

policies; the ability of employers to recover health insurance costs from employees

who do not return to work; and the impact on employers and employees of temporary wage replacement policies.

The Commission, placing a high priority on hearing directly from businesses, employees and their families, held three public hearings in different sites across the

country. A broad cross-section of people testified and provided important insights

on a wide variety of topics related to family and medical leave.

In FY ’95, the Commission, through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, contracted

with two research organizations, Westat, Inc. and the Institute for Social Research,

Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, to conduct two major studies

- an Employer Survey and an Employee Survey. The Employer Survey, a national,

random sample survey, provides the first post-FMLA statistically valid data on private-sector employers of diverse sizes assessing their experience with the Family

and Medical Leave Act, as well as with family and medical leave policies in general. The Employee Survey is the first ever national, random sample survey on

employee leave-taking. The data, collected in 1995 and based on an 18-month

period commencing in January, 1994, provide important national estimates on the

need for and occurrence of taking leave from work for family and medical reasons.

In addition, the Commission requested several smaller studies to assist in answering the questions posed by Congress (see Chapter II).

Major Research Findings

The following data are based on results of the two nationally representative, random sample surveys described above.
xvi

A Workable Balance

A. Family and Medical Leave Policies Today

1. Coverage under FMLA

Approximately two-thirds (66.1 percent) of the U.S. labor force, including private

and public-sector employees, work for employers covered by the FMLA. Slightly

more than half (54.9 percent) of U.S. workers (and 46.5 percent of private-sector

workers) also meet the FMLA’s length of service and hours-related eligibility requirements.

Only one-tenth (10.8 percent) of private-sector U.S. worksites are covered by the

FMLA, but this relatively small proportion actually employs over half (59.5 percent) of the nation’s private-sector employees. Industries with the largest worksites,

such as manufacturing, also have a large number of eligible employees working in

a relatively small percentage of worksites. All public-sector employers are covered

by the FMLA without regard to the number of employees at a given worksite.

2. Overview of Employer Leave Practices

The FMLA has had a significant impact on covered employers’ leave practices and

especially on formal leave policies. Two-thirds of covered worksites have changed

some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the Act. The most common

change was to increase the reasons for which employees can take leave. For example, 69.3 percent of covered worksites changed their policies to provide leave

for fathers to care for seriously ill or newborn children.

There is a significant difference between the family and medical leave policies

provided by worksites that are and are not covered by the FMLA. Over 90 percent

of covered worksites now provide up to 12 weeks of leave for family and medical

reasons, whereas among non-covered worksites only 32.3 percent offer parental

leave and only 41.7 percent offer leave to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or

parent. Between 95 and 99 percent of covered worksites provide the different

types of leave provided by the FMLA with a job guarantee, while 84 to 87 percent

of non-covered worksites which offer leave provide a job guarantee with family

and medical leave.
xvii

Executive Summary

3. Knowledge of the FMLA

The great majority of covered employers (86.5 percent) know they are covered by

the FMLA. However, only 58.2 percent of employees working at covered worksites

have heard of the Act. Some groups of employees - salaried, union members and

those with higher educations - are more likely to know about the FMLA than are

others. Employees from all demographic groups are most likely to hear about the

FMLA through the media, but those in higher-paying jobs are comparatively more

likely to learn about the Act from their employers.

B. Employer Impact: Costs and Benefits of the FMLA

1. Ease of Administration

Most covered employers find it relatively easy to administer the FMLA. The vast

majority of worksites (over 90 percent) find it “very” or “somewhat easy” to determine whether the Act applies to them and to determine employee eligibility. A

significant majority also find other administrative responsibilities - additional recordkeeping, coordination with state and federal leave laws and other federal laws - to

be no trouble. Larger worksites find it somewhat more difficult to administer the

FMLA than do smaller covered worksites. Unlike other administrative activities,

management of intermittent leave presents an administrative difficulty for a significant minority of worksites (39.2 percent), but it represents a small proportion

of leave-taking overall (11.5 percent).

2. Costs and Cost-savings

For the great majority of worksites, compliance with the FMLA entails no costs or

only small costs. Between 89.2 and 98.5 percent of covered worksites report no

costs or small costs in each of four broad areas: general administrative costs; the

cost of continuing health benefits; costs associated with hiring and training replacements for leave-taking employees; and “other” costs. Again, larger employers

are most likely to experience an increase in costs. This, in part, is due to the fact

that they are more likely to have leave-takers and to have larger numbers of leavetakers. One large employer cited increased costs as the “unintended adverse consequences” resulting from implementation of the Act. However, only 1.3 percent

of employers report that they reduced benefits to offset costs associated with the

FMLA, giving further evidence that costs overall are minimal.
xviii

A Workable Balance

Very few covered worksites report cost savings resulting from the FMLA (2.5 percent). Interestingly though, the larger worksites (250 employees or more) that are

more likely to incur costs from the Act, also report slightly more cost savings (7.5

percent) than covered worksites as a whole. Some employers who testified at the

Commission’s public hearings report cost savings, particularly from reduced employee turnover. They also paint an overall picture of enhanced employee productivity, goodwill and willingness to “go the extra mile” resulting from employees’

ability to take leave.

3.The FMLA’s Effects on Business and Employee Performance

Most worksites report that the FMLA has no noticeable effect on business performance. Between 86.4 and 95.8 percent report no noticeable effect on productivity, profitability and growth. To the extent that employers do report an effect, it is

as likely to be positive as negative on business productivity and growth, and more

likely to be negative regarding profitability.

Most employers also find that the FMLA has no noticeable effect on employee

performance. There are significant positive effects in the areas of employee career

advancement and employee productivity. And it is noteworthy, in light of the

Act’s goals, that a third of employers note a positive effect on employees’ ability to

care for family members, and this number doubles for larger worksites.

4. Expectations of the Non-Covered

Small covered worksites1 have relatively benign experiences with the FMLA, reporting low costs and minimal effects on business and employee performance. Their

positive experiences contrast sharply with the negative expectations voiced by

many small non-covered sites. For example, between 8.2 percent and 15 percent

of non-covered sites expect negative effects on employees’ ability to care for family

members, career advancement and turnover, while less than one percent of covered sites experience negative effects in these areas. The expectations of noncovered employers are far more pessimistic than the experiences of covered sites in

general, and of the small covered sites in particular.

1 These worksites have fewer than 50 employees, but are considered “covered” because of the 75-mile

radius rule.
xix

Executive Summary

C. The Employee Experience

1. Employees’ Need for Leave and Utilization of the FMLA

About one-fifth of U.S. workers have a need for some form of leave covered under

the FMLA. The Employee Survey found that 16.8 percent of employees took

leave for a reason covered by the FMLA, and 3.4 percent of employees needed but

did not take leave. In addition, about 40 percent of all employees think they will

need to take leave for an FMLA reason at some time within the next five years.

The reason most frequently cited for future leave is care of a seriously ill parent.

More than two-thirds (70.9 percent) of employees agree that “every employee should

be able to have up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a year from work for family and

medical problems.”

Thus far, the rate of leave use designated by employees as FMLA leave is fairly low.

As reported in the Employee Survey, among the 16.8 percent of employees who

have taken some type of family and medical leave, about seven percent of that

group designate their leave as “FMLA leave” (about 1.2 percent of all employees).

Given that 55 of every 100 employed persons both work at a covered worksite and

are eligible to take leave under the Act, the FMLA utilization rate among these

employees is about two percent.2 The Employer Survey of private-sector covered

worksites found a slightly higher estimate of FMLA utilization (3.6 percent). Given

the statistical variability in these two estimates, the number of employees who

took FMLA leave in the period of both surveys ranges between one-and-a-half

million to just over three million.

A significant minority of employees (3.4 percent) - “leave-needers” - have expressed a need for leave that as yet remains unmet. Among employees who need

but do not take leave, fully 63.9 percent cannot afford the accompanying loss of

wages, underscoring the importance of wage replacement. Hourly workers, African Americans and employees with some college education are most likely to be

among those employees who need, but do not take leave.

2 This is a conservative estimate. See discussion in Chapter IV.
xx

A Workable Balance

2. Employees’ Experiences with Leave

Employees described in this section include all leave-takers, both those working at

covered and non-covered worksites, who take leave for a reason covered under the

FMLA. Only a portion of these employees (seven percent) designated the leave

that they took as “FMLA leave.”

a. The leave-takers

Leave-takers are as diverse as the American workforce. The demographic profile

of leave-takers generally resembles that of the overall employee population, with

some noteworthy distinctions. Employees aged 25 to 34 years are proportionately

more likely than younger or older employees to take leave. Employees between 35

and 49 years of age (the “sandwich generation”), are numerically the largest group

of leave-takers. Employees with one or more children, hourly employees and employees with family incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 per year are more likely to take

leave than are employees with higher family incomes.

b. Employees’ reasons for leave

Family leave to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or parent and medical leave for

one’s own health together account for almost 80 percent of all leave. About 59

percent of employees of all ages take leave because of their own serious health

problems (exclusive of women who take maternity-disability leave). About a quarter

of leave is taken by relatively young parents to care for their children at birth,

adoption or during a serious illness. A further ten percent of leave is taken by

somewhat older employees to care for ill parents or spouses.

In general, men take more leave for their own serious health condition. Women

(who alone take maternity leave) are somewhat more likely than men to need

leave, to take leave and to take longer periods of leave. Men, however, take comparable amounts of parental leave and are slightly more likely to take leave to care

for an ill spouse than women (some of this may be taking care of wives before or

after childbirth).

c. Lengths of leave

Most periods of leave are short. The great majority of all leave (almost 90 percent)

falls within the 12-week limit established by the FMLA. While the length of leave

tends to vary depending on the reason for the leave, the median length of leave for

all leave-takers is ten days.
xxi

Executive Summary

d. Methods used to cover the work of leave-taking employees

By far the most prevalent method that employers use to cover work is to assign it

temporarily to other co-workers (67.5 percent). Employers are least likely, however, to use work reassignment to cover work among highly-educated, higher-income employees - often the hardest to replace. Employers are most likely to find

permanent replacements to cover the work of the youngest leave-takers and those

with the lowest family income. Many employers also hire temporary replacement

workers to help cover the job duties of leave-takers.

e. Benefits, wage replacement and covering lost income during leave

The FMLA requires employers to continue health benefits during leave. Over 95

percent of covered employers report that they continue health benefits during FMLA

leave, and three percent of leave-takers at covered and non-covered worksites report losing health benefits during leave. Although wage replacement is not required by the FMLA, a significant proportion of leave-takers receive full wage

replacement (46.7 percent) or partial wage replacement (19.6 percent) during their

leave period. This is most likely to be sick pay, vacation pay or pay from a disability

insurance plan, benefits which pre-dated the FMLA. Wage replacement is more

likely to be available to employees who work at covered worksites. Salaried employees, more highly educated employees, unionized employees, men and those

with higher levels of household income are most likely to receive wage replacement; the employees least likely to receive wage replacement are the youngest and

oldest employees, non-salaried workers and non-union workers. Also, employees

who have never been married, those in the lowest income and education groups

and Latino employees are most likely to be unpaid during leave.

Not surprisingly, then, employees who fare best in covering for lost income during

leave-taking are employees with high family incomes, salaried employees, union

members, highly educated employees and white employees. These employees are

less likely than other leave-takers to borrow money, cut leave short or to go on

public assistance. Women and employees with annual family incomes of less than

$20,000 per year are more likely to need public assistance in order to deal with lost

income. Nine percent of leave-takers overall use public assistance to supplement

income during periods of leave, and 11.6 percent of women leave-takers use public

assistance for this reason.
xxii

A Workable Balance

f. Returning to work

The vast majority of leave-takers (84 percent) return to their same employer while

six percent do not, and ten percent remain on leave. Employees in low-wage jobs,

including jobs with no wage replacement, are least likely to return to their same

employer. Employees from households with incomes of less than $20,000 are far

less likely to return to work; women and employees from non-covered worksites

are also less likely to do so. Employees with high family income levels, unionized

workers and salaried employees are more likely to return to their same employer.

3. Employees’ assessment of their leave-taking experiences

Overall, employees’ experiences with family and medical leave policies, including

the FMLA, have been positive. The majority of employees who take family or

medical leave find it relatively easy to arrange, have few concerns about the jobrelated consequences of taking leave and are relatively satisfied with the amount

of leave they take.

To the extent that employees do have trouble arranging to take leave, express jobrelated concerns about taking leave or are dissatisfied with the amount of leave

they take, they are more likely to work in non-covered worksites. Women, nonwhites and non-salaried employees are particularly likely to report negative experiences on at least one of these measures. This finding is probably related to differences in wages and benefits among employees that existed in the labor market

prior to FMLA, and which the FMLA, by expanding minimum levels of protection

to all eligible employees, has helped to mitigate. Nonetheless, the majority of

employees in all demographic groups report positive leave-taking experiences.

Overall Impact of the FMLA

The Family and Medical Leave Act has had a positive impact on employees overall. It has succeeded in replacing the piecemeal nature of voluntary employer

leave policies and state leave statutes with a more consistent and uniform standard. The FMLA has not been the burden to business that some had feared. For

most employers, compliance is easy, the costs are non-existent or small and the

effects are minimal. Most periods of leave are short, most employees return to

work and reduced turnover seems to be a tangible positive effect. The FMLA, with

its signature features of guaranteed job protection and maintenance of health ben-
xxiii

Executive Summary

efits, begins to emerge, even now, as a significant step in helping a larger crosssection of working Americans meet their medical and family caregiving needs while

still maintaining their jobs and their economic security - achieving the workable

balance intended by Congress.
2
3 C H A P T E R I

Introduction

1 Recommitting the Workforce: Maximizing Employee Contribution in an Environment of Change, (Boston,

MA: Work/Family Directions, Inc., 1994), p. 13.

A. Families and Employers in a Changing Economy

“We’re in a period of frenetic change, with enormous pressures on people. A lot of

our people are dealing with the problems of child care, they’re dealing with the

problems of elderly and sometimes ill parents, they’re dealing with the everyday

demands of managing two-income families. In our work environment, with the

pressure we’re putting on people, we’ve got to be even better at helping them deal

with those issues. We need the very best people as the foundation on which we

build everything else, and we’ve got to be smart enough to figure out ways to address their requirements and their needs.”

Louis V. Gerstner, Chairman and CEO, IBM1

1. Businesses in Transition: Meeting the Demands of the Global Marketplace

Increasingly over the last twenty-five years, American businesses of all sizes, and in

all sectors, have been confronting a changing world economy and the unleashing

of powerful, competitive market forces for products and labor. The globalization of

commerce and the lifting of trade barriers have resulted in a much more competitive environment for U.S. employers. The trend toward deregulation and the fast

pace of technological advances used to produce new and improved goods have also

brought continual change and instability to the business environment.

To thrive or simply to survive in this environment, many companies have sought

to revamp their way of doing business. New methods increasingly focus on agility

and market responsiveness, with many employers seeking to improve efficiency,

quality and productivity through the introduction of new, flexible technologies

and/or some form of work reorganization. A productive workforce - one with the
4

A Workable Balance

necessary skills and work organization to meet the changing demands of the market - has also become integral to each company’s ability to succeed.

These changes have occurred simultaneously with two other trends - an increasing

number of employees working for smaller businesses, and an increasing number of

people working in service sector jobs, many of which are low-wage.2 Contracting-out

strategies have contributed to the growth of the business services sector, particularly in advertising, mailing and reproduction, services to buildings and management, and public relations.3

 The health services, business services, and government and defense sectors accounted for fully one-half of the total 18.8 million

non-agricultural jobs created in the United States between 1979 and 1989.4 Small

businesses have been responsible for much of the country’s economic growth and

job creation in recent years;5 however, some argue that the economic vitality of

small firms is strongly linked to that of large firms.6 At the same time, however,

many small firms experience difficulty in providing the same level of wages and

benefits that the larger scale employers have traditionally made available.7

Many responsible employers, as well as labor organizations and others, are seeking

feasible solutions to cushion the impact of global competition on American workers. They are asking society as a whole to consider a difficult set of questions: what

responsibilities do employers and workers have to each other? How can businesses

effectively compete in a global economy while ensuring adequate living standards

and benefits for their employees at home?

2. The Changing Workforce

The changing economy, which has brought new challenges to the American business community, has also wrought major transformations in the composition of the

2 Edward E. Potter and Judith A. Youngman, Keeping America Competitive: Employment Policy for the 21st

Century, (Lakewood, CO.: Glenbridge Publishing, 1995), p. 108 and William C. Dunkelberg, “Presidential

Address: Small Business and the U.S. Economy,” Business Economics, January 1995, Vol. 30, No. 1. 3 Lois M. Plunkert, “The 1980’s: A Decade of Job Growth and Industry Shifts,” Monthly Labor Review,

September 1990, p. 5.

4 Potter and Youngman, p. 108. 5 Dunkelberg, January 1995. 6 For example, in a study of small manufacturing firms in the state of New York, the most important customer

of more than half the small firms in the sample was a large corporation. The authors argue, “A main reason

for the development and success of small firms seems to be the niche they have found in serving large firms,

supplying them with custom goods on short notice under complex conditions.” See R. C. Young, J.E. Francis,

and C.H. Young, “Small Manufacturing Firms and Regional Business Networks,” Community Development:

Research Briefs and Case Studies, (Ithaca: Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute, 1993). 7 Potter and Youngman, p. 111, Chart 3-4 and Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein, The State of Working

America, 1994-95, (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1994), pp. 189-90, Table 3.55.
5

Introduction

American workforce. Families have been struggling to make ends meet in the only

ways available to them - by working longer hours and by sending more family

members, mainly women, into the labor force. First, individual workers have, on

average, been working more weeks, and more hours per week.8 Second, women

have been entering the country’s paid workforce in steadily increasing numbers.

Indeed, one-half of the total labor force are now workers who live in dual-earner

families.9

This increase in the number of women on the job, and in the length of their tenure, can be attributed to a number of factors. For most women, the financial needs

of their families are the key motivators spurring their entrance into the paid labor

force. For some women, entrance into the labor force is linked to pursuit of higher

education and their search for a fulfilling career. But increasingly, women entering

the workforce serve as sole providers for their families. Married-couple families,

though still predominant, make up a smaller share of families than they did in the

1950’s and 60’s.10 Approximately 23 percent of all workers with families have no

spouse in the household to share wage-earning or caregiving responsibilities - and

women now account for about 80 percent of that group.11 During the 1970’s and

80’s, some couples decided to delay marriage and some chose to have fewer children than in prior generations.12 As a result of all these factors, the years from

1970 to 1991 saw a dramatic surge of women - from 31-and-a-half million to 57

million - into the paid labor force. In 1994, women made up 46 percent of the

total civilian labor force, an increase of 38.1 percent from 1970.13

3. Living Standards and Employment Security

The security of having a regular wage earner is essential to the economic well-being

of all families; it is particularly crucial for the many low-income working families

whose small paychecks already fail to keep them out of poverty. Yet, since 1979,

there has been a significant expansion of workers earning low wages and a shrink8 Indeed, increases in annual earnings over the last 15 years have been largely the result of people

working more hours, rather than people earning higher hourly wages. See Ibid, p. 112 and Women’s

Bureau, US Department of Labor, 1993 Handbook on Women Workers: Trends and Issues, (Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 1994), p. 3.

9 Ellen Galinsky, James T. Bond, and Dana E. Friedman, The Changing Workforce: Highlights of the

National Study, (New York: Families and Work Institute, 1993), p. 60. 10 Mishel and Bernstein, p. 34. 11 Ibid, p. 34, Table 1.5. 12 Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, Trends and Issues, p. 10. 13 Ibid, p. 4, Table 2. and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, January 1995).
6

A Workable Balance

age in the share of workers, especially men, who earn mid-level wages.14 Many

working poor families have already “topped out” in terms of hours they are able to

put into a job, either because they are already dual-earner households, or because

the sole family provider is already working.

In fact, women single heads of household, including older women living alone,

face a number of difficulties securing a living wage, be it lack of access to training,

lack of access to capital to start their own business, or lack of child care and other

supports.15 While in 1993 women were found in almost every job and profession,

most women are still working in traditionally female, low-wage occupations.16

The youngest families, with household heads aged 25 to 34 years, have also fared

poorly in recent years. Many families in this group are likely to be bringing up

young children and trying to buy a home of their own.17

While employment may not eradicate the threat of living in poverty, it is nonetheless the single most important weapon against it. Whether employees hold full-time

or part-time jobs, whether they live in a one-income or dual-earner household,

stable employment is crucial to most families’ hopes for economic security.

4. Employment and Family: Caught in the Squeeze

The dramatic increase in dual-earner and single parent families has fueled the rising need among workers for access to more flexible hours and family-friendly policies, including leave from work to deal with family caregiving responsibilities. The

same needs and problems which families have always had - caring for each other,

14 Mishel and Bernstein, p. 127, Table 3.10 and Figure 3E. 15 The low wages earned by many women are due in part to a gender-based wage gap which, although

diminishing, is still 28 cents an hour, based on annual earnings. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income,

Poverty and Valuation of NonCash Benefits: 1994, (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995,

series P60-189), p. 20, Table A.

16 Almost 60 percent (57.4 percent) of the female workforce are in female-dominated clerical, sales and

service jobs; only 28 percent of women hold professional or managerial jobs. See Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Employment and Earnings, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, January 1994), Tables

20, 22 and 56.

In addition, 75 percent of all women still earn $25,000 per year or less. See U.S. Bureau of the Census,

Current Population Survey 1993, preliminary data Table 18, “Occupation of Longest Job in 1993 - Total

Money Earnings in 1993 of Persons 15 years and Older by Work Experience and Sex.”

17 Families with household heads aged 25 to 34 years in 1993 had incomes of $5,507 per year less than

their counterparts did in 1979 (in 1993 dollars). The incomes of these families eroded .5 percent per year

from 1979 to 1989 and 2.8 percent from 1989 to 1993, in stark contrast to the 2.5 percent annual

growth rate between 1967 and 1973. See Mishel and Bernstein, pp. 31-32, Table 1.3.
7

Introduction

their young, their sick and their old - still exist today. Now, as always, the family as

an institution must, and does, provide for its own caregiving needs - needs that

change with time and circumstances. Certainly, time off to care for children is

something that all parents at some time require. But it has intensified since the

late 1970’s, as more and more mothers with young children have begun working

outside the home. Indeed, recently, mothers with preschoolers and infants have

accounted for the greatest growth in labor force participation among women. In

1980, 39 percent of mothers with children under two years of age were in the labor

force. By 1992, 54 percent of mothers whose youngest child was one-year-old or

younger were in the labor force.18

There are also increasing numbers of working adults responsible for the care of

their aging parents and other close relatives - both providing and making arrangements for such care.19 As workers grow older, they will also more often be called

upon to care for the needs of seriously ill spouses, or to take time off for their own

serious medical conditions.

As family members’ time on the job has increased, so has the tension between job

and family. Historically, much of this caregiving has been carried out by women

working as homemakers - women who now, more often than not, are holding down

a full-time or part-time paid job. Single heads of families and working-poor dualearner families are most at risk in the job/family squeeze. When family demands or

emergencies arise that cannot be handled in “after work time,” the precariousness

of the balance is exposed. The problem is worst for low-income men or women

who cannot afford the services that make working and caring for a household more

manageable, such as adequate child care or eldercare.20

Employer policies and public policies that enable employees to combine paid work

and caregiving alleviate the kinds of pressures that cause stress and sap energy,

both at home and on the job. Recent studies have shown that women who work

18 Women’s Bureau, Department of Labor, Trends & Issues, pp. 10, 12, Tables 16 and 17. 19 Almost one-fifth (18 percent) of the U.S. workforce, men and women, expect to be providing care for an

aging relative in the next five years. See Galinsky, Bond and Friedman, p. 60.

20 They also pay a higher proportion of their monthly family income on child care (26.6 percent for women

in poverty, compared with 6.9 percent for women in families that are not in poverty). See Lynne M. Casper,

Mary Hawkins, and Martin O’Connell, Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Fall 1991,

(Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P70-36, 1994), p. 4.
8

A Workable Balance

outside the home feel positively about having multiple roles, and are less likely to

suffer from depression than women who are full-time homemakers.21

The availability (or lack) of workplace policies that support families affects men as

well as women. There is recent evidence that, as greater and greater numbers of

women have joined the paid labor force, men’s participation in household work

and caregiving has slowly been increasing.22 Indeed, according to the March 1995

Current Population Survey, there were two million children under 18 years of age

living only with their fathers or male guardians, comprising 3.2 percent of the

nation’s children. Men also have sick children and spouses, as well as elderly or

disabled relatives, whose caregiving is their responsibility.23 Working fathers, too,

find themselves risking their jobs or their career standings if they must take time

off, or even limit their overtime work, for family responsibilities. And men who do

take substantial periods of leave often face significant negative consequences and

stereotyping when they return to work.24

The situation is aggravated by the fact that, when women are forced to relinquish

their paychecks to provide care, it is often the man to whom the family must turn

for its sole support. These demands can cause stress, especially for low-income

families struggling to make ends meet, and all the more so if a family member is

suffering from a serious health condition, for which the continuation of the father’s

health insurance benefits becomes crucial. Men’s role as providers often leaves

them little time to provide their families with much-needed caregiving support.

5. Employment or Family: Making Choices, Meeting Needs

For many employees - especially those who are parents with young children or

those who have elderly or disabled family members - going to work involves careful

and often complicated alternative caregiving arrangements. In the life of any family, moreover, it is inevitable that, from time to time, some family member - or the

21 Rosalind C. Barnett, et al., “Positive Spillover Effects from Job to Home: A Closer Look,” Wellesley

College, Center for Research on Women, Working Paper Series, No. 222, 1991 and Rosalind C. Barnett

and Grace K. Baruch, “Women’s Involvement in Multiple Roles and Psychological Distress,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, Vol. 49, pp. 135-145. 22 Notwithstanding these new trends, women still bear the primary responsibility for child care. See Juliet

Schor, The Overworked American, (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1992), pp. 36-37 and Casper, Hawkins,

and O’Connell, p. 1.

23 For example, the percentage of preschoolers cared for by their fathers while their mothers were at work

increased from 15.1 percent in 1988 to 20 percent in 1990. See Casper, Hawkins, and O’Connell, p. 3.

24 Carol Lawson, “Baby Beckons: Why is Daddy at Work?,” New York Times, May 16, 1991, pp. C1,

C3.
9

Introduction

employee himself or herself - will have serious, perhaps unanticipated needs or

medical problems that will require time off from work. At these times, policies

that provide family leave and/or temporary medical leave become especially beneficial. For example:

* Many infants are born into homes where both parents work. The American

Academy of Pediatrics notes that infants (whether biological, adopted or foster

children) are particularly vulnerable during the first few months of life, and require

the active involvement of a parent or primary caregiver in the nurturing process.

An infant’s physical, cognitive and social development depend on establishing a

strong attachment to its parents or primary caregiver.25 For parents to fulfill these

important developmental needs, time off from work is often needed.

* Almost half (42 percent) of all wage and salaried workers have children under 18

living at home.26 As infants develop into toddlers, preschoolers and school-age

children, they are bound to develop some illnesses along the way. Most are

short-term, but some are chronic and a few are serious. A parent’s presence during

a child’s serious illness is particularly crucial to a child’s physical and emotional

well-being. The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that children have increased dependency needs when they are sick and require the unique warmth and

security that their parents can offer.27 Parental care and comfort for seriously ill

children is sound pediatric practice, often requiring time off from work or other

flexible, family-friendly arrangements.28

* Workers, primarily women, but increasingly men, are also the primary caregivers

for their aging parents and other ill or disabled relatives. Studies show that families and friends provide between 60 percent and 80 percent of the care older people

25 Testimony of The American Academy of Pediatrics at the Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on

Labor-Management Relations and the Subcommittee on Labor Standards of the Committee on Education and

Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 100th Congress, 1st session, February 25 and March 5, 1987, and

Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children, (New York: Carnegie Corporation, 1994),

pp. 6-9, 106.

26 Galinsky, Bond, and Friedman, p. 42. 27 Testimony of The American Academy of Pediatrics at the Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on

Labor-Management Relations and the Subcommittee on Labor Standards of the Committee on Education and

Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 100th Congress, 1st session, February 25 and March 5, 1987.

28 Although parents often feel that personally taking care of their sick children is very important, in fact,

workers miss very little work because of child care responsibilities. A national study found that in one threemonth period, workers with children under 13 years of age took less than one full day off, and less than one

day when they arrived at work late or left early, to attend to child care responsibilities. See Galinsky, et. al.,

p. 68.
10

A Workable Balance

receive.29 This translates into about ten to 15 percent of employed adults currently

providing assistance to an older relative, and another five to ten percent providing

assistance to a person under the age of 65 with a disability. To care for elders’ many

and changing needs, employed primary caregivers often put in long hours providing informal care on top of their work hours.30 They often rearrange their work

schedules, work fewer hours than they wish to, or take time off without pay. According to a 1989 survey of long-term care, 64.9 percent of employed caregivers

made at least one of these accommodations to manage conflict between work and

caregiving responsibilities.31

These caregiving responsibilities will grow as the age and size of the older population of the United States continues to climb. It is estimated that one out of five

Americans will be over 65 years of age by the year 2030.32 As medical science

helps people to live longer - most women who reach age 65 can be expected to live

to their middle 80’s and men’s life expectancy is projected to reach 75 by the year

201033 - elders will need care for longer periods of time.

* Many workers must also be temporarily absent from their jobs for their own

medical disability. In 1994, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that

3.1 percent of full-time wage and salaried workers 16 years and older had an absence from their job due to illness.34

* Many workers also must take time off from their jobs to care for seriously ill

spouses. According to analyses of the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households, 2.6 percent of Americans aged 34 to 49 and 4.6 percent aged 50 to 64 were

providing informal care to a disabled spouse.35 These numbers can also be expected to grow as the population continues to age and both men and women live

longer.

29 Women’s Bureau, Department of Labor, Trends and Issues, p. 156. 30 Mary Elizabeth Jackson, data presented at “The Changing Face of Informal Caregiving,” a conference

sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning, Department of Health and Human Services,

Berkeley Springs, WV, October 15, 1992.

31 The 1989 National Long-Term Care Survey and companion National Informal Caregivers Survey found

that, on average, employed caregivers provide 18 hours of informal assistance to disabled elderly relatives.

See Pamela Doty et al., “Informal Caregiving,” The Continuum of Long-Term Care: An Integrated Systems

Approach, Ed. Connie Evashwick. (Albany, N.Y.: Delmar, 1995), pp. 125-138. 32 Women’s Bureau, Department of Labor, Trends and Issues, p. 150, Figure 2. 33 Ibid, p. 149. 34 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1995. 35 Nadine Marks, “Caregiving Across the Lifespan: National Prevalence and Predictors,” Family Relations,

Volume 45, pp. 27-36, 1996.
11

Introduction

Without the availability of leave from work to give birth or to take care of family

responsibilities, employees - primarily women - are faced with the choice of returning to work prematurely or giving up their jobs. The economic cost of such a break

in employment can be high. For example, in one study, employment breaks for

childbirth and adoptions were estimated to cost women approximately $31 billion

in foregone wages annually.36

The long-term economic effects of the lack of job protection have a particularly

harsh impact on certain subgroups. Low-income and one-parent families experience the greatest difficulty in finding adequate infant and pre-school child care.

Both lower wages and job loss result in larger numbers of families in need of public

assistance and, consequently, in higher costs to taxpayers for Medicaid, food stamps

and income assistance programs.37

Older women generally have a more difficult time reentering the workforce after

losing a job than men, although it varies with skill and education level. When

frequent breaks in employment to provide family care result in job loss, it is difficult for both women and men to vest in a pension, to amass Social Security credits,

or maintain their health insurance coverage, exposing them to a greater risk of

poverty and the need for public assistance in old age.

6. Family and Medical Leave Policies

Employers, employees and the general public all have a stake in the development

of a highly productive American workforce and in families that raise healthy and

capable children. In recent years, the nation has become increasingly aware of the

severe problems employees often face in fulfilling both job and family obligations.

Some employers voluntarily have taken formal action to reduce this tension through

their own set of maternity, parental or family and medical leave policies before the

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed. Today, many more employers

are providing these kinds of policies through their compliance with the new law.

36 These costs resulted from lost earnings, experience and seniority, thereby contributing to the persistent

wage gap between men and women. See Roberta Spalter-Roth and Heidi I. Hartmann, Unnecessary

Losses: Costs to Americans of the Lack of Family and Medical Leave, (Washington, DC: Institute for

Women’s Policy Research, 1990), pp. 16-17, Table 4.

37 Ibid, p. 25, Table 9.
12

A Workable Balance

While employer policies are inevitably part of any solution to work and family

conflicts, the range and sufficiency of those policies must be considered in light of

society’s overall needs, both to families and to the business community. The FMLA,

which took almost a decade to work its way through Congress, was enacted to

provide a national policy that supports families and employers in their efforts to

strike a workable balance between the competing demands of job and home. This

report attempts an initial assessment of family and medical leave policies in general, and FMLA in particular: are we approaching the workable balance envisioned

by this nation’s lawmakers?

14
15 C H A P T E R I I

How the Commission Went About

Its Work

A. Mission of the Commission on Leave

In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA, or the Act),

which requires employers with 50 employees or more to provide up to 12 weeks of

unpaid, job-protected leave to employees for the following reasons: care of a newborn, newly-adopted or foster child; care of a child, spouse or parent with a serious

health condition; or the serious health condition of the employee, including maternity-related disability. Employees are eligible to take leave if they have worked

for a covered employer for at least one year, and for 1,250 hours over the previous

12 months, and if there are at least 50 employees working for their employer within

a 75-mile radius.

Title III of the FMLA established a bipartisan Commission on Leave (the Commission) to conduct a comprehensive study of mandatory and voluntary policies

relating to family leave and temporary medical leave and to submit a report of its

findings to Congress.

Specifically, the Family and Medical Leave Act charges the Commission to study

the following points:

“A) existing and proposed mandatory and voluntary policies relating to family and

temporary medical leave, including policies provided by employers not covered

under this Act;

B) the potential costs, benefits and impact on productivity, job creation and business growth of such policies on employers and employees;

C) possible differences in costs, benefits and impact on productivity, job creation

and business growth of such policies on employers based on business type and size;

D) the impact of family and medical leave policies on the availability of employee

Opposite: Top: Christie Sens and

son testifying at Commission on

Leave Public Hearing, Washington DC, August 4, 1995.

Bottom: Members of the

Commission on Leave at the

Commission on Leave Public

Hearing, Washington DC,

August 4, 1995. From left to

right: Leland B. Cross, Jr., Ellen

Bravo, Mary Tavenner, Donna

Lenhoff (Vice-Chair), Sen.

Christopher J. Dodd (Chair),

Lenore Miller, Richard Reinhardt

and Scottie Theresa Neece. (Not

shown: Sen. Larry E. Craig, Rep.

Patricia Schroeder, Rep. Steven

Gunderson, Pamela L. Egan,

Secretary Ronald H. Brown (exofficio), Philip Lader (ex-officio),

Secretary Robert B. Reich (exofficio) and Secretary Donna E.

Shalala (ex-officio). Above: Paul

Gill, CEO, Mousefeathers,

testifying at Commission on Leave

Public Hearing, San Francisco,

CA, June 26, 1995.
16

A Workable Balance

benefits provided by employers, including employers not covered under this Act;

E) alternate and equivalent State enforcement of Title I with respect to employees

described in Section 108(a);

F) methods used by employers to reduce administrative costs of implementing family and medical leave policies;

G) the ability of the employers to recover, under Section 104(c)(2), the premium

described in such section;

H) the impact on employers and employees of policies that provide temporary

wage replacement during periods of family and medical leave.”

Since its first meeting in November 1993, the Commission’s work focused on obtaining research that would provide responses to the above eight points. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive discussion and analysis of that

research, which includes a review of the literature, two commissioned surveys and

a number of other smaller studies, as well as three public hearings on the subject of

family and medical leave.

B. Organization of the Commission

The Family Leave Commission was well-positioned to assume the substantive challenge posed by Congress. Commission members possessed expertise and a broad

range of practical experience relevant to evaluating family and medical leave issues. Members included Congressional leaders from both political parties, representatives from labor and the business community, including small businesses and

ex-officio Cabinet members from the Federal agencies with the most direct responsibility for, and interest in, family and medical leave policies (See Biographical Sketches of Commission Members in Appendix).

The Commission held six meetings between November 10, 1993 and October 23,

1995. The meetings were well-attended. The Commission elected a Commission

Chair and Vice Chair, Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and Donna R. Lenhoff,

General Counsel of the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, respectively. A bipartisan

Technical Task Force of Commission members was also established, to operate as a

working sub-group of the whole Commission.1 The Technical Task Force held sub1 The four members of the Technical Task Force were Suzanne Day, staff for Commission Chair, Senator

Christopher Dodd; Donna Lenhoff, Commission Vice-Chair; Damon Tobias, staff for Senator Larry E. Craig;

and Mary Tavenner.
17

How the Commission Went About Its Work

group meetings and occasionally convened teleconferences with Commission members to advance the work of the Commission. Commission members remained

extremely involved throughout the entire process of fulfilling the Congressional

mandate.

During its first year of operation, the Commission was faced with the dilemma of a

broad and ambitious legislative mandate but no Congressional appropriation with

which to move ahead. The Commission also did not know whether money would

be appropriated at any time in the future. Without such funding, it was clear that

the Commission lacked the resources to authorize any research effort to obtain

new data to respond to the eight Congressionally-mandated questions. The first

year was thus devoted to the development of a work plan, relying, to the extent

possible, on Executive branch agency resources. The Commission knew that a

body of research on family and medical leave and related issues already existed,

some of which had potential as valuable data sources for its work.

Given the uncertainties concerning funding, the Commission members agreed early

on that a comprehensive assessment of existing data sources was needed, to determine: 1) what was already available that could be used to respond to the eight

questions posed in the statute; and 2) whether, and to what extent, there were gaps

in that data that needed to be supplemented by new research. It was clear that

even if funding did ultimately become available, such an assessment would be valuable in enabling the Commission to take advantage of all available data and avoid

replicating already-existing information.

C. Assessment of Existing Data Sources

In 1994, the Commission conducted a careful review of existing and potential data

sources on family and medical leave, specifically addressing the extent to which

existing data sources might be used to address each of the Commission’s eight questions.2

 The data sources fell into three main categories: 1) ongoing surveys by

2 Ellen Galinsky, et al., Report to the Executive Director of the Commission on Leave: Existing and Potential

Data Sources for Addressing FMLA Research Questions, (New York: Families and Work Institute, September

1994.)
18

A Workable Balance

government agencies3; 2) one-time studies by individual researchers4; and 3) onetime studies by benefits consulting firms and business trade organizations.5

The analysis was divided into the following topic headings which provided a useful

grid for plotting the Commission’s questions against existing sources: current and

proposed policies and practices; knowledge of FMLA; FMLA implementation and

compliance; FMLA impact on employers; FMLA impact on employees; and wage

replacement.

With respect to current policies and practices of employers (both covered and not

covered by the FMLA), the Employee Benefits Survey conducted by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics of a nationally representative sample of employers was found to

provide the best available information. The Employee Benefits Survey contains

information on the paid and unpaid family and medical leave policies of both public and private sector employers of all sizes. Other surveys of businesses were limited due to the scientifically non-representative nature of their samples.

With respect to FMLA implementation and compliance, the information about

the methods that employers were using to minimize the costs of implementing

family and medical leave policies was not available for nationally representative

samples of employers. However, FMLA compliance data was available from the

Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.

3 These included: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Characteristics of Business

Owners Survey; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey; U.S.

Department of Labor (DOL), Wage and Hour Division, DOL Enforcement Data; U.S. DOL, BLS, Employee

Benefits Survey; U.S. DOL, BLS, Employment Cost Index Survey; U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey; U.S. DOL, BLS, National

Longitudinal Study of Youth.

4 The Conference Board, Work-Family Roundtable: 1994; Roberta M. Spalter-Roth and Heidi I. Hartmann,

Unnecessary Losses: Costs to Americans of the Lack of Family and Medical Leave, (Washington, DC:

Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 1988); Jane Waldfogel, The Family Gap for Young Women in the US

and UK: Can Maternity Leave Make a Difference, (Cambridge, MA: Malcolm Wiener Center for Social

Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1994); William M. Mercer, Inc. and University

of California, Berkeley, Survey Results:Family and Medical Leave Act, (University of California, Berkeley,

1994.); National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Study of Early Child Care; Eileen

Trzcinski and William T. Alpert, Leave Policies in Small Business: Findings from the US Small Business

Administration Employee Leave Survey, (Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business Administration, 1990); James

T. Bond, Ellen Galinsky, et al, Beyond the Parental Leave Debate: The Impact of Laws in Four States, (New

York: Families and Work Institute, 1991); Wisconsin Maternity Leave and Health Project, University of

Wisconsin-Madison.

5 Studies in this category included: Employee Benefit Research Institute, Employee Benefit Research Institute

Poll, (Washington, DC: EBRI, 1993); Hewitt Associates, On Employee Benefits, Employer Responses to

Family and Medical Leave Legislation, (Lincolnshire, IL: Hewitt Associates, 1993); Steven W. Barnett, and

Gerald L. Musgrave, The Economic Impact of Mandated Family Leave on Small Businesses and Their

Employees, (Washington, DC: The National Federation of Independent Businesses Foundation, 1991).
19

How the Commission Went About Its Work

With respect to FMLA’s impact on employers, the assessment found that available

data, such as membership surveys by business associations and client surveys by

benefits consulting firms, provided a partial picture of what employers were doing

to implement more generous leave policies, or to extend FMLA-like leave benefits

to employees not eligible under the Act. It was determined, however, that additional research based on a nationally representative sample of employers would be

useful. There were no data sources that adequately and convincingly addressed

the question of whether employers reduced fringe benefits because of the FMLA.

It was also determined that the magnitude of direct and indirect costs and benefits

to employers of family and medical leave policies in general, and the FMLA in

particular, was limited. In general, there was some useful data on current employer

policies and practices, but virtually no data on access and usage of the new law.

In regard to FMLA impact on employees, it was found that existing data regarding

pre- and post-FMLA utilization of family and medical leave benefits was limited at

best, and that new research would be required to document the incidence and

length of family and medical leave for different purposes by different segments of

the labor force. Information about the costs and benefits of family and medical

leave for employees and their families was also inadequate.

Little research was found on the subject of wage replacement. The Families and

Work Institute’s State Parental Leave study, which covered four states, provided

some data on the subject, as one of the states studied mandated temporary disability insurance (TDI) coverage for maternity-disability leave. In addition, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research was developing estimates of the costs of partial

to full wage replacement for different types of family and medical leave.6

In sum, the assessment found some useful data on current employer policies and

practices; however, with the exception of the Employee Benefits Survey, the data

were not based on scientific samples representative of the entire business community. Employee data were more scarce, with virtually no representative random

sample survey data available. Moreover, none of the existing research provided

data on access, usage or impact of the new law per se. Consequently, it was determined that while some data sources already did exist to address parts of the ques6 Heidi Hartmann and Yoon Young-Hee, Expanding Social Insurance to Include Paid Family Care Leaves,

(Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 1995).
20

A Workable Balance

tions posed by the statute, new research would be needed to obtain accurate data

in order for the Commission to respond comprehensively to all the issues stipulated by the Commission’s legislative mandate.

D. Public Hearings

The Commission placed a high priority on hearing directly from the public. Specifically, the Commission believed that it was important to gain a first-hand look

at the effects of the FMLA, and of family and medical leave policies in general, on

businesses, on employees and on families. To do this, the Commission decided to

conduct public hearings in different sites across the country. The hearings enabled

the Commission to hear first-hand from the affected employers, employees and

their families.

Commission staff worked hard to reach a wide variety of people whose experiences

might not be fully captured by the research. Panels were arranged so as to provide

a broad cross-section of views and perspectives, including a case study of one

company’s experience, on all topics of relevance to family and medical leave, and

the FMLA. Panels discussed such topics as voluntary family and medical leave

policies, costs and benefits of leave policies to employers and employees, concerns

of small employers, employees’ experiences with leave-taking and wage replacement.

A broad cross-section of U.S. workers and employers, from different sectors of the

economy, different-sized worksites and with diverse perspectives, testified about

their own experiences with family and medical leave, and with the new Act. The

hearings gave the Commission the opportunity to hear from individuals - business

owners, workers, managers, spouses, parents and family members - about how the

issue of balancing work and family had affected them and their businesses directly,

and how they felt about utilizing and/or complying with the new law. Their testimony provided the Commission with important insights into the impact of family

and medical leave policies, and the FMLA. The hearings were held on May 8,

1995, in Chicago, Illinois; on June 26, 1995, in San Francisco, California; and on

August 4, 1995, in Washington, D.C.
21

How the Commission Went About Its Work

E. Commissioned Research

Based upon the review of existing data sources, it was clear to the Commission that

new research was needed to provide the kind of data that would allow comprehensive answers to all the mandated questions. In FY ’95, Senator Dodd, the

Commission’s Chair, secured a Congressional appropriation so that the Commission could do its work. The Congressional funding was supplemented by an additional allocation from the United States Department of Labor.

The Commission immediately proceeded with the task of commissioning the new

research in the form of two major studies - an Employer Survey and an Employee

Survey. As the existing data were focused on voluntary family and medical leave

policies prior to the passage of FMLA, the main focus of the new research was to

provide data on how employer policies were changing as a result of the new law;

the relative costs and benefits to employers of providing family and medical leave;

how employees were faring under the new law; and the nature of leave-taking for

employees in both covered and non-covered firms.

The Commission contacted the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which had previously completed contracts with two research organizations for the purpose of

filling task orders on specific survey research issues. The two research organizations were Westat, Inc., a social science research firm located in Rockville, Maryland, and The Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. Other clients who had used these same contracts included

the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS). Working with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Commission staff

wrote task orders under the BLS contract for Westat to conduct an Employer Survey and for Michigan to conduct an Employee Survey. In addition, the Commission decided to have Westat implement an “embedded” Employee Survey, focusing on a non-random sample of leave-takers from the firms responding to the Westat

Employer Survey. The FMLA projects were related to BLS research interests, because they would provide information about the performance of a new telephone

sampling design and the effectiveness of telephone interview procedures for establishment surveys.

The bipartisan Technical Task Force was formed in early 1995 to assist in the implementation of the studies. The Technical Task Force formulated questions designed

to elicit responses directly related to the study agenda mandated by the U.S. Con-
22

A Workable Balance

gress. Working with the Technical Task Force, the Westat and Michigan research

teams designed the survey instruments for the studies. Commission members were

consulted throughout the instrument design process and their recommendations

were used to improve the instruments.

Westat, Michigan and the U.S. Department of Labor took all steps possible to

assure that the data collected from the Employer Survey, the Employee Survey and

the “embedded” Employee Survey were kept confidential to the fullest extent allowed by law.

1. Employer Survey

This national, random sample Employer Survey, conducted by Westat, provides

the first statistically valid data on employers of diverse sizes assessing both their

experience with the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as family and medical

leave policies in general. The data provide national estimates for a number of

important issues: the extent of coverage of the new law; the impact of the Act on

FMLA-covered businesses, including costs and benefits; and the possible impact

the law would have if expanded to cover establishments that are not now covered

by the Act.7

The sample design that the Employer Survey used was a stratified, probability sample

of private-sector business establishments in the United States, with strata defined

by size of the establishment and major industrial classification (SIC) division. The

Dun & Bradstreet DUNS Market Services file (DMS) served as the sample frame.

DMS is one of the few commercially available lists of business establishments that

is reasonably comprehensive in coverage and that includes relevant size information necessary for designing effective worksite samples. Establishments were selected directly proportionate to the number of employees reported on the DMS

frame. The unit of analysis was the worksite, defined as a “single physical location

where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed.”8

 Government and quasi-governmental establishments (e.g., public schools,

universities and post offices) at all levels were excluded from the sample frame.9

7 For information on Westat’s description of the “Limitations of the Research,” see David Cantor, et al., The

Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers. (Rockville, MD.: Westat, Inc., 1995)

p.6-1.

8 The survey did not attempt an assessment of “covered companies,” but rather of “covered worksites.” This

is consistent with BLS practice for comparable employer surveys.

9 This population represents an additional 18 to 19 million workers.
23

How the Commission Went About Its Work

Project staff for the Employer Survey reviewed the Commission’s draft questionnaire, clarified with the Technical Task Force the purpose of each item and its

relationship to the Commission’s research objectives, then designed the instrument. Prior to initiating the actual survey, the Employer Survey staff extensively

pre-tested the survey instrument to evaluate and modify it for final use with the

chosen sample.

The Employer Survey was conducted in three steps. First, establishments drawn

from the DMS file were screened to ensure the eligibility of the establishment and

to obtain the name of the person at the worksite most knowledgeable about family

and medical leave policies. Second, that person was mailed an advance package of

materials, providing background about the project and informing him or her, through

a letter from Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich, that an interviewer would be

contacting him or her shortly by telephone. This step was included to encourage

the key informant to collect relevant information and to respond to questions based

on actual personnel files, rather than memory or estimates. Respondents were also

assured that all the data collected for the survey would be kept confidential to the

fullest extent allowed by the law.

The third step was the telephone interview. Data collection for the Employer

Survey lasted approximately six weeks, between June 15 and August 2, 1995. Respondents from a total of 1,206 worksites were interviewed. The response rate was

73.2 percent. A report on the findings, including some analysis of the data, was

submitted to the Commission in early October 1995.10

2. Employee Survey

The Employee Survey, conducted by the University of Michigan Survey Research

Center, represents the first national random sample survey of employees on their

leave-taking. To our knowledge, no comparable survey of employees has been

undertaken, although some data relevant to leave-taking exists in the Census

Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) and in the SBA data of employers regarding employee leave-taking. The data provide important national estimates on

the need for and occurrence of taking leave from work for reasons covered by the

Family and Medical Leave Act.

10 There were three components to the Employer Survey weighting process: first, a “base-weight” was

created by taking the inverse of the probability of selection; second, a non-response adjustment was made to

the base weight within categories of size and SIC classification; and third, a post-stratification adjustment

was made by size and industry classifications to the total that BLS publishes.
24

A Workable Balance

The Commission faced several difficult challenges in designing the Employee Survey. There was a deep interest not only in obtaining the lacking baseline data on

employees and their leave-taking patterns, but also on gaining new qualitative

data on the importance and value of leave-taking to employees and their families.

However, these goals were significantly constrained by the task of locating leavetakers from a national random sample telephone survey of households. They were

further constrained by the need to keep the interview brief and the difficulty of

collecting qualitative data on the telephone. It became clear that, because of the

Commission’s resource limitations, the focus would have to be on obtaining nationally representative, quantitative data on leave-taking patterns, with limited

attention to qualitative data. This choice was somewhat easier to make given the

decision of the Commission to hold three public hearings across the country, to

conduct a small number of case studies with leave-takers, and to use this qualitative information to supplement the survey findings.

The target population of the Employee Survey was employees aged 18 or older who

lived in the continental United States in a household with a telephone; and who

had been employed for pay (private or public sector) any time within approximately the last 18 months, between January 1, 1994 and the time of the interview,

in the Spring/Summer of 1995. The sample design allowed for more than one

respondent to be selected from a household. When a household was contacted, all

eligible residents were listed and screened for eligibility for one of the three categories listed below. To achieve fixed sample size allocations for each of the three

respondent categories, a category-specific subselection rate was applied for each

eligible person and the person was either selected for interview or subsampled out.

Following are the three categories into which the sample was divided:11

1) leave-takers: people who since January 1, 1994 had taken leave from work for

maternity disability; to care for a newborn, newly-adopted or new foster child; or

for their own serious health condition; or for the serious health condition of their

child, spouse or parent that lasted more than three days or required an overnight

hospital stay;

11 The actual number of people interviewed in each category include 1218 “leave-takers,” 206 “leaveneeders” and 928 “employed-only.”
25

How the Commission Went About Its Work

2) leave-needers: people who since January 1, 1994 needed, but did not take,

leave from work for the reasons listed above; and

3) employed-only: people who neither took leave nor needed to take leave in the

defined time period, but who were employed during the period from January 1994

up to the interview.

The Commission supplied questions it wanted to include in the Employee Survey,

and Employee Survey staff drafted and refined the instrument, with Commission

review and input. Resource constraints made it necessary to eliminate some questions the Commission would have liked to ask from the final instrument.12 The

Employee Survey team then conducted extensive pre-testing prior to implementing the survey in the field. The Employee Survey took about ten minutes per

leave-taking employee, five minutes per leave-needing employee, and three minutes per employed-only person.

All interviewers working on this study were part of the trained staff of the SRC

Survey Support Laboratory. The majority of interviewers were highly experienced,

with nearly 50 percent having between two and four years of experience and onethird having five years or more. All received the following study-specific training

to prepare them for the interviewing process:

Prior to the training, interviewers received a full set of study materials, along with

training and practice interview directories. These allowed interviewers to learn

about the nature of the project and to practice with the application prior to training. Training was conducted over the course of ten two-hour conference calls.

Following training, and prior to beginning production, each interviewer was required to conduct three taped and scripted practice interviews. The regional field

supervisors reviewed the tapes and scripts and provided immediate feedback. Once

competency was achieved, the interviewer was approved to begin production work.

Two weeks following the initial training, a follow-up mini-training was conducted.

12 For example, the Commission would have liked to have gathered information on personal income, not just

household income, and more data on occupation/skill level of employees. These data would be useful to

include in future research.
26

A Workable Balance

The survey was divided into four sections:

Section A was administered only to employees who actually took leave for a reason covered by the Act. The questions elicited details about the leave, covering

behavioral and attitudinal information.

Section B was given only to employees who needed to take leave for a reason

covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act, but did not take it. The questions

asked about their reason(s) for needing to take leave, their reasons for not taking

leave, and what they did instead to take care of their situation.

Section C, administered to all respondents, asked a variety of questions designed

to elicit information on employees’ attitudes and knowledge about the FMLA,

their anticipated need for leave in the future, and their eligibility for FMLA.

Section D asked a series of demographic questions, including marital status, race/

ethnicity, number of dependents, educational level and income. Age and gender

information had already been obtained through the household listing, prior to the

Employee Survey.

Employees responding to the Employee Survey were guaranteed confidentiality

and anonymity. During the field period, from June 1 through August 12, 1995,

Employee Survey staff screened 20,373 randomly selected telephone numbers, of

which 10,274 (50 percent) were determined to be working household telephone

numbers. The screening interview was completed for 8,492 of these sample households. Completed interviews were conducted with employees from 2,352 of these

households. The overall weighted response rate is the product of the screening

and interview response rates. The response rate was between 71 and 75 percent,

depending on respondent type (leave-taker, leave-needer or employed-only).13

3. Other Commissioned Research

In addition to the major Employee and Employer Surveys discussed above, the

Commission supplemented its core research effort with some additional studies to

13 The final weight is the product of three components: 1) a sample selection weight factor that is the

reciprocal of the probability that the respondent is included in the sample; 2) a screening non-response

adjustment factor that adjusts for differential screening response rates across 45 Census Divisions by

metropolitan status cells; and 3) an interview non-response adjustment factor that adjusts for different

response rates by sex and age group within each of the three categories of respondents - leave-takers, leaveneeders, and employed-only.
27

How the Commission Went About Its Work

fill specific remaining gaps in the information needed to provide answers to the

eight mandated questions. These studies included one survey based on a nationally representative random sample of businesses, and four other surveys based on

non-random, non-representative samples. A sixth report presented four case studies based on open-ended interviews with leave-takers. The seventh supplemental

study was a research paper consisting of an evaluative literature review on the

subject of wage replacement policies offered voluntarily by employers.

a. Census Bureau

The Bureau of the Census (Department of Commerce), conducts a Characteristics

of Business Owners (CBO) survey every five years in conjunction with its Economic Census. In support of the work of the Commission, and in order to meet the

Commission’s report deadline, the Census Bureau undertook a special early mailing of questions, including those pertaining to the FMLA, to a small sample of a

universe that includes sole proprietors, partnerships and subchapter S corporations,

who filed IRS forms 941 or 943 (excluding farms). All other corporations, sometimes referred to as C corporations, were excluded. The firms in this universe thus

tend to be smaller firms. There are about 3,000,000 companies that are represented by the final survey results. The sample reported on here included 1,350

businesses who filed form 941 or 943 tax returns with IRS for 1994. At the request

of the Commission on Leave, the Bureau of the Census and CBO sponsors (the

Small Business Administration and the Minority Business Development Administration (DOC)) agreed to include a series of questions specifically addressing FMLA

issues in its 1995 survey.

Although findings from this sample cannot be generalized to the universe of all

private-sector employers in the United States economy, the businesses in the sample

give us an important portrait of small employers in the U.S., a group that received

particular attention in the debate surrounding family and medical leave legislation. Only 3.5 percent of the firms in the Census sample have more than 50

employees and would be considered “covered” employers.

b. State Survey

State or local laws which provide more generous family or medical leave rights

than those established under the FMLA are not superseded by it. To identify which

states have their own family and medical leave laws, and to learn about their provisions, Commission staff developed a “state enforcement mini-survey.” The minisurvey contained ten questions concerning individual state family and medical

leave laws.
28

A Workable Balance

Three of the state mini-survey’s ten questions pertained to one of the Commission’s

specific mandates for study, the question of “alternate and equivalent State enforcement” of the Act with respect to teachers and educational support staff. Specifically, FMLA, Section 108 restricts teachers’ ability to take certain types of leave

ordinarily available under the Act. The restrictions pertain to intermittent or

reduced scheduled leave and leave near the conclusion of an academic term. Following are the three questions on the state mini-survey pertaining to teachers:

1) What family and medical leave provisions exist in your state law that relate

specifically to instructional persons (teachers)?;

2) How are these provisions enforced? By whom?; and

3) What problems, if any, exist for local school administrators if they have to report to both state and federal enforcement entities?

Commission staff contacted each state in order to identify the person with the

most knowledge about its family and medical leave policies. That person was sent

a copy of the questionnaire. The respondents from the 34 states (in addition to

Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) that had family and medical leave laws

were also provided a copy of their state’s policy, obtained from the Women’s Bureau.14 After allowing the respondent sufficient time to review the materials, an

eight to 12 minute interview was conducted by telephone.

c. Surveys to Education Professionals

As mentioned above, the FMLA limits the ability of teachers and educational

support staff to take certain kinds of leave generally available under the Act, and it

specifically charges the Commission to study alternate and equivalent state enforcement of Section 108 with respect to those workers. The Commission contacted major management and teacher organizations in the education field, inviting them to contribute their expertise to the research process. Specifically, the

Commission contacted the American Association of School Administrators, the

National School Board Association, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

and the National Education Association (NEA), the two AFL-CIO labor unions

representing teachers in the U.S. Of the various educational organizations contacted, only the AFT and the NEA responded affirmatively, each offering to conduct studies designed to shed light on the question posed to the Commission regarding the special conditions in the FMLA applicable to teachers. Neither of

these studies purports to be a scientific, random-sample survey.

14 Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, State Maternity/Family Leave Law, (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, 1993.)
29

How the Commission Went About Its Work

i. National Education Association

The National Education Association (NEA) represents 2.2 million members, the

vast majority of whom are teachers and educational support staff. The NEA survey

elicited information on the level of coverage, the extent of FMLA use, the impact

on the workplace and suggestions for further improvements in the FMLA. Thirtyfive state affiliate offices representing 30 different states responded to the NEA’s

two-page questionnaire.

ii. American Federation of Teachers

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) conducted a telephone survey of its

locals in Illinois and Texas to determine whether collective bargaining had any

bearing on the practical application of FMLA for members and their families. In

Illinois, leave-of-absence rules are negotiated in collective bargaining or provided

in state statute. In Texas, leave-of-absence rules are established by school boards.

AFT staff developed a questionnaire on various aspects of FMLA that were of

particular interest to the union. In cases where leave was granted, the questionnaire asked whether health care, paid leave and return-to-work rights were also

provided. The questionnaire also asked about the impact on teachers of special K12 leave provisions, as well as whether or not teachers were being asked to meet

the 1,250 hour work requirement to be eligible for FMLA protections.

The telephone survey was conducted between May 1, 1995 and June 7, 1995. All

locals in Illinois with at least 100 members, as well as several smaller locals, were

contacted - a total of 49 locals. Thirty-two of those locals (65 percent) responded

to the survey. The replying locals represent about 48,000 (84 percent) of AFT

members in Illinois. All 22 Texas locals were contacted, of those, nine local representatives (40 percent) responded. These nine locals represent 14,500 (88 percent) of AFT’s Texas members.

d. Catalyst

Catalyst, a research organization that works with businesses on issues relating to

women’s advancement in the labor force, conducted case studies of leave-taking

employees regarding family and medical leave. The purpose of these interviews

was to provide some qualitative data to enrich and to personalize the quantitative

information the Commission gathered through its two national scientific surveys.
30

A Workable Balance

A total of four case studies of leave-takers was included in Catalyst’s report to the

Commission. All four interviewees were employed by firms located in the Northeast. The leave-takers included two female managers at a pharmaceutical company who used the FMLA to extend their maternity leaves, a female professional

in the finance department of a pharmaceutical company who used the FMLA to

extend her maternity leave and a male professional at an insurance company who

used the FMLA to care for his dying mother.

e. Westat Embedded Employee Survey

In addition to the Employer Survey, Westat also conducted an “embedded” Employee Survey, focusing on a non-random sample of leave-takers from the firms of

respondents to the Employer Survey. Leave-taking employees were selected for

the embedded survey through a random process initiated by their employers. When

the total number of the respondent’s leave-taking employees was low (ten, for example), all leave-taking employees were included in the sample. When the total

number of respondent’s leave-taking employees was high (100, for example), a

random process was used to select which of the leave-taking employees would be

asked to participate. The contact person of the employing organization was asked

to distribute the questionnaires to the leave-taking employees chosen, who then

were asked to return the questionnaires directly to Westat in a postage-paid envelope.

The “embedded” Employee Survey includes questions similar to those in the Employee Survey, such as reason and length of leave, benefits lost, the employee’s

method of covering for lost wages, the nature of the position to which the employee returned and the way in which work was covered during the employee’s

absence. The questions also seek information about the employee’s attitudes toward and knowledge of family and medical leave.

Westat staff advised the Commission that, due to the low response rate they got to

this survey, as well as the non-representative nature of the sample, the data should

only be used as a supplement to the Employee Survey data set. It is not possible to

generalize the findings from the embedded survey to the population of U.S. employed persons.

f. Literature Review on Wage Replacement Policies

One of the eight questions which the Commission was mandated to study under

the FMLA was “the impact on employers and employees of policies that provide
31

How the Commission Went About Its Work

temporary wage replacement during periods of family and medical leave.” As the

FMLA is an unpaid leave law, the Commission needed assistance in assessing existing voluntary paid leave policies. The Commission contracted with researchers

at the Radcliffe Public Policy Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts to prepare a

“white paper” on wage replacement. The paper contains a literature review and a

comparative analysis of wage replacement policies found in other countries. It

concludes with a summary of issues and policy considerations, and recommendations for future research.

F. National Academy of Sciences Workshop

In order to assist the Commission with its review and interpretation of the new

data collected from the Employee Survey and the Employer Survey, the Commission consulted the Board on Children and Families, which offered to convene a

group of experts to provide an impartial discussion of the data. Created in 1993

under the joint auspices of the National Research Council’s Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (CBASSE) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Board on Children and Families provides a national focal point

for the nonpartisan analysis of child and family issues that center on policy decisions. Through this dual affiliation within the Academy complex (CBASSE/IOM),

the Board works to synthesize the views of health professionals and those working

in the social and behavioral sciences in the analysis of child and family issues.

On October 23 and 24, 1995, the Board held a one-and-a-half day workshop that

brought members of the Commission together with research, business and policy

experts on family leave issues to provide an informed discussion of the new data.

The principal investigators from the Employer Survey and Employee Survey presented an overview of their findings. Participants were able to ask questions and

offer their responses to the findings. The workshop format consisted of three panels - each with a lead presenter and two discussants. The first panel focused on

costs and benefits to employers. The second panel focused on costs and benefits to

families. The third panel discussed directions for future research. The panelists

were asked to reflect on the new data from their own disciplinary perspective, and

to offer suggestions about additional analysis needed for the Commission’s final

report. Brief presentations were followed by discussion among participants including Commissioners, panelists and invited guests, selected on the basis of their expertise on and practical experience with the issues under discussion.
32

A Workable Balance

G. Summary

As a result of these research efforts, the Commission now has new data which

together help to provide comprehensive answers to all the mandated questions

posed by Congress. Two new national scientific data sets provide important information concerning the costs and benefits of family and medical leave policies, and

the FMLA, to both employers and employees. Public hearings were held in different sites across the country to hear directly from workers and employers about

their experiences with family and medical leave policies, and the FMLA. An array

of research organizations with expertise in family leave issues assisted the Commission in its research.

The National Archives will house the records of the Commission. These records

will include all reports submitted to the Commission, as well as transcripts from

public hearings, transcripts from the National Academy of Sciences workshop and

transcripts of all the Commission meetings. In addition, copies of the data sets

collected by University of Michigan and Westat will be housed in the Office of

Compensation and Working Conditions at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

34
35 C H A P T E R I I I

Overview of Leave Policies Prior

to the Passage of the Family and

Medical Leave Act

Before examining current family and medical leave policies and how they have

changed since the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, a summary of

policies that existed before 1993 is needed to create a baseline for comparison.

Pre-existing leave policies essentially fall into two categories: first, voluntary leave

policies by businesses as part of their broader benefits package for employees; second, laws enacted on the state level that provide one or more of the kinds of leave

covered by the FMLA. For the most part, these voluntary policies and statutes

emerged in the 1980’s. This chapter will summarize what the research literature -

from government, academic and business sources - can tell us about the nature of

these laws and policies, and what we know about employee access and utilization

up to 1993.

A. Voluntary Leave Policies

Research studies from the 1980’s and early 1990’s help shed light on a number of

different questions regarding voluntary employer policies: 1) what types of leave

policies existed before FMLA?; 2) to what extent did employers provide leave with

job-protection and continuation of benefits?; 3) to what extent did employers provide leave with full or partial wage replacement?; and 4) what have been the costs

and benefits to employers of voluntarily providing leave?

1. Types of Voluntary Leave Policies

It is difficult to summarize the scope and nature of voluntary family and medical

leave policies before the Act for two reasons. First, there are several component

parts of family and medical leave - including traditional benefits like sick days and

maternity leave, as well as newer benefits like parental leave and family leave. The

specific combinations of these elements vary widely when adopted as formal policy,

and data are not always available for all types of leave. Second, the last decade has

been a period of tremendous innovation and experimentation in the employee
36

A Workable Balance

benefits field as employers try to accommodate the needs of a rapidly changing

workforce. This has meant that the type and prevalence of leave has been changing and expanding over the last decade - especially in the five years immediately

preceding the passage of the FMLA - making it difficult to keep track of the leave

policies of particular companies, no less the leave policies of firms in broader size

and industry groupings.

The best source of information on voluntary employer leave policies before the

FMLA are the routine surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

called the Employee Benefits Survey (EBS).1 The survey provides data on the

availability of maternity leave, paternity leave and sick leave.2 These surveys alternately cover small (fewer than 100 employees) and medium/large (with 100

employees or more) employers, and are based on representative samples for all

private sector, non-farm establishments. Additionally, these data are combined in

two-year increments in order to give an overall picture of access to leave for employees regardless of the size of firm for which they work.

Aggregated data is available for the two years prior to the passage of the Family and

Medical Leave Act. For the years 1992 to 1993, the EBS combined information

on all employees in private and public sector establishments of all sizes. At that

time, 37 percent of all employees had access to unpaid maternity leave and 28

percent had paternity leave.3 Paid parental leave was very rare, with only two

percent of employees having access to paid maternity leave, and only one percent

having access to paid paternity leave.

The Employee Benefits Survey shows that paid sick leave was much more common

than paid parental leave. According to the 1992-93 data for all private and public

sector employees, 56 percent of all employees had access to paid sick leave.

1 Before 1993, the EBS provided data on some, but not all, of the components of family and medical

leave. The survey was revised at the end of 1993 to reflect the new provisions of the FMLA. Before 1993,

the survey requested information on fully paid, partially paid, and unpaid days of paternity and maternity

leave. The current survey tabulates paid and unpaid parental leave separately and asks if leave may be

used for the birth of a child, adoption of a child, to care for a sick child, or to care for a sick adult relative.

See “BLS Employee Benefits Survey Revised to Account for New Family Leave Law,” Daily Labor Report,

(January 1, 1993).

2 The EBS survey defines parental leave as unpaid or paid maternity and paternity leave, for a mother or

father to care for a newborn/adopted child. It does not include maternity disability leave used for disability

surrounding pregnancy and childbirth. These provisions are separate from an employee’s other leave plans,

such as sick leave and paid vacation, which might also be used to care for a newborn child. The parental

leave described in the EBS is job-protected but continuation of benefits during leave is not guaranteed.

3 For private sector establishments, there were very similar percentages; 34 percent of employees had

maternity leave and 26 percent had paternity leave. However, in the public sector (state and local

governments), 56 percent of workers had access to maternity leave and 42 percent had paternity leave.
37

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

Interesting differences in access to parental and sick leave policies were evident

depending on size of firm and employees’ occupations. For example, the 1993

Employee Benefits Survey of medium and large firms shows that 59 percent of fulltime employees were eligible for unpaid maternity leave and 52 percent were eligible to take unpaid paternity leave.4

 In contrast, for employees working in small

establishments, 18 percent had unpaid maternity leave, and only eight percent

had unpaid paternity leave.5 In both small and larger establishments, paid maternity or paternity leave was very rare; only between one and three percent of employees had access to such a policy. The EBS further found that the length of time

employers permitted their workers to take parental leave varied quite a bit by size

of establishment, with smaller establishments offering less time off for these types

of leave.6

In medium to large establishments, professional and technical workers had a slightly

higher level of access to unpaid parental leave7 (63 percent had access to unpaid

maternity leave, while 55 percent had access to unpaid paternity leave) than clerical and sales workers (60 percent had access to maternity leave and 51 percent had

access to paternity leave) or blue-collar and service workers (59 percent had accesss

to maternity leave and 52 percent had access to paternity leave). Access to parental leave by occupational group was more varied in smaller establishments. According to the 1992 EBS on small establishments, 27 percent of professional and

technical workers had unpaid maternity leave available to them as opposed to only

13 percent of blue-collar and service employees, and 20 percent of clerical and

sales employees. Unpaid paternity leave was available to 13 percent of professional and technical workers in small establishments, while only six percent of

blue-collar and service workers, and nine percent of clerical and sales employees in

small establishments had access to unpaid paternity leave.

4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Private Establishments, 1993,

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, November 1994), Bulletin No. 2456, p. 22.

5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in Small Private Establishments, 1992, (Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Labor, May 1994), Bulletin No. 2441, p. 5.

6 In medium to large firms, the maximum allowable length of leave averaged 4.3 months. For small

establishments the average maximum allowable length of leave was 3.5 months. Differences in length of

maternity leave by size of worksite were evident as well. In medium and large firms, 15 percent of

employees had access to fewer than two months, an additional 41 percent of employees had leave that

was more than two months and up to three months. In contrast, 37 percent of employees in small firms only

had access to fewer than two months and an additional 25 percent had leave that was two to three months.

For paternity leave, the permitted time off was shorter than maternity leave in medium, large and small firms -

just over half had fewer than three months off.

7 Includes plans providing maternity leave only, paternity leave only and both maternity and paternity leave.
38

A Workable Balance

The Employee Benefits Survey data concerning the availability of sick leave provisions also showed differences in coverage by size of establishment and occupation.

According to the 1993 EBS, which covers medium and large establishments, 65

percent of full-time employees had access to a specified number of paid sick days

per year.8 However, 53 percent of all employees in small establishments had paid

sick leave. Annual sick days were available to more professional and technical

employees in larger establishments (85 percent) than clerical and sales employees

(80 percent) and blue-collar and service employees (45 percent).9 This pattern of

access to paid sick leave held true for smaller establishments as well, where 74

percent of professionals, 70 percent of clerical and sales workers and 35 percent of

blue-collar and service employees had paid sick leave.10

There are also studies on pre-FMLA voluntary leave policies conducted by business trade associations, industry-based membership associations and human resources consulting firms. While these studies provided useful insights into the

policies of particular subgroups of firms, usually the response rates were low and the

samples, especially those conducted with membership lists, were not representative of comparable private-sector firms in the United States.

For example, in December 1990 the National Association of Wholesalers surveyed

its 2,000 direct company members as well as its national association members which

represent all wholesale distribution commodity lines. In total 3,460 companies

were surveyed. Sixty-six percent of these companies employed fewer than 50 employees. The survey asked if the company offered any kind of policy which permitted employees to take either paid or unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a

child or the care of an ill child, including disability coverage. Fifty-four percent

said they did have such a policy.11

When the National Foundation of Women Business Owners (NFWBO) surveyed

its membership in 199212, 84 percent of firms offered one or more benefits to their

employees, including 95 percent of those with five employees or more and 59 percent of those with fewer than five employees.13 In the NFWBO survey, 48 percent

8 Employee Benefits Survey, November 1994, p. 8. 9 Employee Benefits Survey, November 1994, p. 8 10 Employee Benefits Survey, May 1994, p. 5. 11 National Association of Wholesalers, Employee Benefits Survey, (Washington DC: National Association

of Wholesalers, October, 1990).

12 National Foundation for Women Business Owners, Employee Benefits Offered by Women-Owned

Businesses: A Framework for Compassion, (Washington, DC: The National Foundation for Women Business

Owners, 1994).

13 These businesses represented a portion of the total membership of the National Association of Women

Business Owners and are not representative of all women business owners.
39

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

offered health benefits, 36 percent offered unpaid family and medical leave opportunities, seven percent offered paid maternity leave and two percent offered paid

paternity leave.

As is evident from these brief descriptions of business association surveys, it is

difficult to make any generalizations based on their findings. The statistics from

government surveys indicate a greater prevalence of some types of family and medical

leave, such as parental leave, than the business surveys indicate. By and large, the

medium and large companies seemed more likely to have provided family and

medical leave and to have provided more comprehensive policies. For full-time

workers in those firms, paid sick days were accessible to three-quarters of the

workforce, maternity and paternity leave to a little less than two-thirds of the

workforce. For workers in small firms or who work part-time, these benefits were

less likely, especially parental leave, maternity and paternity leave. Family leave

appeared uncommon across firm size categories, but there is so little data available,

it is difficult to make an assessment.

2. Job Protection and Continuation of Benefits

In addition to the type and length of family and medical leave, another important

aspect of leave policies is whether they include a job-guarantee provision, and if

health benefits are continued while the employee is taking leave. The availability

of these provisions has implications for employees’ ability to actually take advantage of leave policies when they are voluntarily provided. Determining whether

companies offered leave with some level of job protection and continuation of

health benefits is complicated by how companies define family and medical leave,

and by the limited data that has been collected on these elements of leave policies.

Scientific data concerning job guarantees and benefits during leave is found in the

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Employee Leave Survey commissioned

in 1988.14 This survey provided representative data from 1,730 businesses on the

extent of coverage of family and medical leave, including length of leave, benefits

and job guarantees provided during leave and the costs of leave to firms. The

survey was a national random sample of firms and looked at leave taken by managers and non-manager employees in firms of various sizes. Data was broken down

14 Eileen Trzcinski and William T. Alpert, Leave Policies in Small Business Findings from the U.S. Small

Business Administration Employee Leave Survey, (Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business Administration,

1990).
40

A Workable Balance

into four firm size categories, firms with one to 15 employees, 16 to 49, 50 to 99

and 100 employees or more.15

The SBA study collected data on job guarantee and continuation of health benefits for three types of leave: a) unpaid sick leave, b) paid sick leave, and c) paid or

unpaid maternity leave, defined as leave for pregnancy or childbirth-related disabilities. Data about the incidence of job guarantee and health benefits continuation for parental leave, that is, care of a newborn or newly-adopted child was not

collected.

Unpaid sick leave: In the smallest firm size category, almost 40 percent of employers reported providing unpaid sick leave with a job guarantee for employees.

The proportion rose to more than 60 percent for all firm sizes greater than 15

employers reaching a maximum of 69.7 percent in the second largest firm size.

The same pattern occurred for the continuance of health insurance payments. For

example, 26 percent of firms with one to 15 employees continued to pay health

insurance during leave. In contrast, almost 62 percent of those firms with 50 to 99

employees offered this provision.

Paid sick leave: Among employers offering paid sick leave, the incidence of job

guarantee and continuation of health benefits was smaller than in firms where the

leave was unpaid, and this was true among all firm sizes. In particular, in the

smallest firm size category, less than one-quarter of employees received paid sick

leave with job protection. In firms of 50 to 99, the percentage who offered job

protection with paid sick leave rose to 59 percent but was still lower than the 70

percent of firms that offered unpaid leave. Health insurance continuation for employees who received paid sick leave was also lower in all firm size categories than

for employees who only had unpaid sick leave.

Paid or unpaid maternity leave: According to the SBA study, very small numbers

of firms had separate maternity leave policies.16 The data show that even when

firms offered a separate maternity leave policy, very few provided job guarantees, or

health insurance continuance as part of the leave provision. Less than five percent

of the smallest firms surveyed offered their employees a separate maternity leave

15 A random sample of 10,000 firms was obtained from the Small Business Administration’s Small Business

Data Base which covered 3.8 million businesses and represented 93 percent of private employment in the

United States.

16 Leave for mothers to care for a newborn child.
41

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

plan with either a job guarantee or continuance of health insurance while on leave.

In the largest firm size category, those with 100 employees or more, only 16.8 percent of firms offered a job guarantee with maternity leave and only 11.4 percent

continued to pay health insurance when a leave-taker was away.

In sum, the data show that a substantial percentage of firms (between 35 and 70

percent), who provided sick and maternity leave did so without providing a job

guarantee and without providing for health benefit continuation. In most cases, as

firm size increased, the likelihood of employees having access to job-protected leave

with continuation of health care benefits increased, but was still less than 70 percent. There were no significant differences in the availability of job and health

care insurance protections to manager and non-manager employees.

3. Paid and Unpaid Leave Policies

It is difficult to capture an overall picture of what was available before the FMLA

in terms of paid leave policies. As was discussed above, several major types of leave

are combined in the concept of family and medical leave, and some are traditionally associated with wage replacement while others are not. In addition, there was

little systematic data collection on the national level. Pre-1993 studies varied in

quality and showed a range of estimates concerning the availability of paid leave.

This section will review data on three separate types of leave - sick leave, maternity and paternity leave - and look at what was known about wage replacement

provisions for these types of leave.17 Even though estimates of the availability of

paid leave vary widely, it is clear that sick leave and maternity leave were the most

likely kinds of leave to involve some wage replacement, while leave to take care of

newborn children by a mother or father or to take care of an ill family member was

paid only very rarely.

Data show that paid sick leave was the most common form of paid leave and was

available to most workers. Referred to earlier, the Employee Benefits Survey (EBS),

conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is one of the best sources of information regarding voluntary employer policies. According to the 1993 EBS data, 65

percent of employees were allowed a fixed number of sick days per year. (Sick

17 This subsection uses the same definitions for these leave categories as the Employee Benefits Survey (EBS).

Maternity and paternity leave is time off for mothers or fathers to care for a newborn or adopted child.

Maternity leave does not include time off for childbirth or pregnancy-related disabilities.
42

A Workable Balance

leave usually provides 100 percent of a worker’s normal earnings for a fixed period

of time.) The survey also shows that professional employees were slightly more

likely than clerical and sales employees to have paid sick leave and twice as likely

as blue-collar and service employees to have paid sick leave provisions.18 For example, in 1989-90, 78 percent of white-collar, private-sector employees had paid

sick leave compared with 36 percent of blue-collar workers.19

Consistent estimates of the provision of paid time-off for pregnancy and maternity

leave are hard to find. For example, a 1987 study of 357 firms conducted by the

American Society of Personnel Administrators found that 65 percent of responding companies had some sort of formal maternity leave, of which five percent offered paid leave.20 Similarly, another study found that two percent of companies

with fewer than 100 employees offered paid maternity leave, compared with three

percent of firms with 100 employees or more.21 In contrast, a large survey conducted by the National Conference of Jewish Women, covering almost 4,000 firms

of different sizes, found that 38 percent of those respondents who had formal leave

policies said they offered some sort of wage replacement.22 Finally, a benefits survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1985 found that among the

smaller and medium-sized companies in its sample, only 19 percent claimed to

have formal pregnancy or maternal leave plans, and, of that 19 percent, about a

quarter stated that the leave was paid.23

Information concerning the number of employees who were covered by paid maternity leave also showed low levels of coverage. The Bureau of Labor Statistics

reports that in 1991 and 1992 paid maternity leave was available to one percent of

all employees, two percent of private sector employees, one percent of public sector workers, two percent of full-time employees and less than one percent of

part-time employees. Paid paternity leave was also only available to a small percentage of workers.24 To the extent that it is possible to generalize across the public and private sectors, it appears that paid maternity leave was more available to

18 Employee Benefits Survey, November, 1994, p. 8. 19 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits Survey, A BLS Reader, (Washington, DC: U.S Department of

Labor, 1995), p. 14, Table 1.

20 American Society of Personnel Administrators, The Resource Survey of Membership, (Alexandria, VA:

American Society of Personnel Administrators, 1987).

21 Cynthia Costello and Anne Stone, Ed.s, The American Woman 1994-1995, (New York: Norton, 1994). 22 National Council on Jewish Women, Center for the Child, Medical and Family Leave: Benefits Available

to Female Workers in the United States (New York: National Council of Jewish Women, 1987). 23 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1985 Employee Benefits Survey, (Washington, DC: U.S. Chamber of

Commerce Research Center, Economic Policy Division, 1986).

24 Ann C. Foster, “Employee Benefits in the United States, 1991-92” in Employee Benefits Survey: A BLS

Reader, (Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 1995), p. 9.
43

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

employees with relatively high levels of skills and incomes. In 1993, only one

percent of full-time blue-collar and service employees in medium and large establishments had access to paid maternity leave compared with four percent of professional and administrative employees.25

In sum, maternity leave and leave for personal illness were the most likely types of

leave to be accompanied by at least some wage replacement. Full wage replacement was offered most commonly for sick leave, while fully-paid maternity leave

was available to a very small number of employees. It also seems that employees

with higher skill and income levels had greater access to paid leave policies. Paying employees while they were on leave to take care of sick family members was

rare even among the largest and most “family-friendly” companies.

4. Costs, Cost Savings and Benefits

Many of the studies assessing the costs and benefits of providing voluntary leave

policies were based on the experience of single companies or the members of an

industry sub-group. However, the Small Business Administration survey described

above, which was based on a nationally representative sample of firms, provides

useful data on this issue.26

In the SBA study, firms reported that the cost of covering for a worker on leave was

roughly equal to the sum of wages and benefits of the worker on leave. Differences

in cost by firm size were not statistically significant. The SBA survey also found

that these leave policies had an overall cost savings effect for firms, because termination rates were substantially lower for firms providing job-guaranteed, unpaid

medical leave.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) commissioned a study

of small businesses.27 Utilizing data collected by Gallup in 1991 from a random

sample of NFIB’s membership of 600,000 businesses, stratified to insure representation of larger employers, the study found that workers would bear the brunt of

changes if family and medical leave legislation were enacted because costs would

25 Employee Benefits Survey, November, 1994, p. 8. 26 For a full description of the SBA sample, please see section 2 - Job Protection and Continuation of

Benefits.

27 Steven W. Barnett and Gerald L. Musgrave, The Economic Impact of Mandated Family Leave on Small

Businesses and Their Employees, (Washington, DC: The National Federation of Independent Businesses

Survey, 1991).
44

A Workable Balance

be passed on to them. It was projected that such a law would also reduce the

number of jobs for low-skilled workers, and employers would be more reluctant to

hire women, especially of childbearing age. NFIB concluded that employers would

view a federal family and medical leave standard as increasing the cost of women

employees relative to men, and that employers would pay women less, or hire fewer

women as a result.

In contrast, most other studies on cost supported the thrust of the SBA study. In

January 1993, Hewitt Associates, a consulting firm, surveyed 524 benefits managers about their companies’ experience with family and medical leave (and their

reaction to the anticipated passage of FMLA law).28 The companies in this survey

were large; 96 percent had more than 500 employees. The survey found that the

majority of companies already had some type of unpaid family or medical leave

policy in place. Sixty percent indicated that less than one percent of their employees took unpaid family or medical leave in a year, typically for less than 12 weeks.

Seventy percent perceived the cost of providing leave as insignificant, and the

benefits of providing leave included creating goodwill (93 percent), boosting morale (59 percent) and decreasing turnover (54 percent). Companies had concerns

that once FMLA was enacted, paid leave would be the next step (64 percent), and

they were also concerned about the cost of continuing health insurance (46 percent) and covering the work of employees on leave (44 percent).

In March 1993, Towers Perrin conducted a survey of its readership, including 701

medium and large employers from 44 states, 69 percent of whom offered some form

of family and medical leave voluntarily.29 Over 90 percent of the employers who

offered some form of family leave said costs of providing family and medical leave

were not significant, even though 50 percent continued health benefits while employees were on leave. Most employers found that providing leave brought about

benefits to their companies. Almost all (97 percent) said their leave program had

met key objectives. It had improved employee morale, enhanced loyalty to the

company and improved the retention rate of experienced employees.

28 Hewitt Associates, “Employer Response to Family and Medical Leave Legislation,” On Employee Benefits,

(Lincolnshire, IL: Hewitt Associates, February, 1993).

29 Towers Perrin, Family and Medical Leave Programs:Before and After the New Federal Law, (New York:

Towers Perrin, July 1993). Although 69 percent said they had family and medical leave policies, only 15

percent said they were already in compliance with the proposed federal statute.
45

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

In a state-level study on parental leave,30 the Families and Work Institute found

that the majority of employers reported no increase in cost for training (71 percent), administration (55 percent), health insurance costs (73 percent) or unemployment insurance (81 percent) related to compliance with legislation. Only a

small minority reported significant cost increases in training (four percent), administration (six percent), or unemployment insurance (two percent). “On closer

analysis the employer perception of these increased costs, reflect, in part, general

cost increases, rather than new costs associated with leave statutes.”31

Data on the experience of AEtna Life Insurance Company, collected by the consulting firm Work/Family Directions, shows that there were quantifiable benefits

for the company starting from the time the company introduced a family-leave

policy in 1987. AEtna offered parental and family leave of up to six months, including benefits, but without pay. It found that the return rate for women after

childbirth jumped from 77 percent in 1986 to between 88 and 91 percent in the

five years following their maternity leave. By allowing employees to meet both

work and family demands, AEtna found that its employees were less stressed, which

in turn lowered company health care costs and increased productivity.32

B. State Statutes

By the time of the enactment of FMLA, thirty-four states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., had enacted some type of maternity/family leave law. Sources show

the diversity of state level initiatives - most more narrow in coverage than the

proposed federal statute, and some broader - as well as how the earlier laws enacted

differed from those enacted closer to the passage of FMLA itself. Pressures to provide such job protections had been building in a number of states, leading to enactment of these laws.

The most complete information on state laws is found in the Women’s Legal Defense Fund’s publication, State Laws and Regulations Guaranteeing Employees Their

30 John T. Bond, Ellen Galinsky, et al., Beyond the Parental Leave Debate: The Impact of Laws in Four States,

(New York: Families and Work Institute, 1991). Only one of the four states included in the study had a

leave law co-extensive with the FMLA.

31 Ibid, Executive Summary, p. iii. 32 Work Family Directions, Recommitting the Work Force: Maximizing Employee Contribution in an

Environment of Constant Change, (Boston:Work/Family Direction, Inc., 1993) p. 43.
46

A Workable Balance

Jobs After Family and Medical Leaves,33 and the Women’s Bureau’s 1993 publication

State Maternity and Family Leave Law.34

1. Provisions of State Leave Laws35

By early 1993, twenty-three states had leave laws covering both private and state

employees, while in 11 the law only covered state workers. The early state statutes

provided leave primarily for pregnancy and childbirth, but in later statutes the

reasons for leave were broadened to include care of newborn and newly-adopted

infants, elderly parents or other relatives.

The amount of leave a worker could take varied widely in state law - from 16 hours

to one year. Some states only required a “reasonable period,” while in others the

amount was not specified. Eligibility requirements, related to number of hours

worked and length of service, also varied. In most cases, employees were eligible

for leave when they had worked full-time for a year without a break in service.

However, there were states that allowed much lower levels of hours and service

and still provided leave benefits. For example, Colorado’s leave law covered both

state and private sector employees and there was no length of service requirement.

And in Oklahoma, a state employee only had to have six months of continuous

service to be eligible to take family leave.36

Most of the laws exempted small businesses, but “small” was defined in a variety of

ways. In three states the threshold for covered employers was set high - including

only companies with more than 100 employees - while in Colorado and Montana

companies with just one employee were covered. Firm size exemptions tended to

be the lowest in states with very narrowly specified leave laws.37 States also adopted

different policies concerning the utilization of other types of leave, such as sick

leave, to provide pay for unpaid family leave. The definitions of “family,” which

affected the number of relatives covered by family leave provisions, also varied

33 Women’s Legal Defense Fund, State Laws and Regulations Guaranteeing Employees Their Jobs After

Family and Medical Leaves, (Washington, DC: Women’s Legal Defense Fund, 1993). 34 Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, State Maternity/Family Leave Law, (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, June, 1993).

35 The discussion of state statutes in this section covers the pre-FMLA period, however, these statutes still exist

today and the FMLA statute specifies that more generous state laws cannot be superseded by the provisions

of the FMLA.

36 Ibid. 37 Eileen Trzcinski, “The Use and Abuse of Neoclassical Theory in the Political Arena: The Example of Family

and Medical Leave in the United States,” in Out of the Margin: Feminist Perspectives on Economics, Edith

Kuiper and Jolan Sap, (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 233.
47

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

state-by-state. There were further differences regarding the continuation of benefits, particularly health insurance. In Vermont and Rhode Island, for example,

employees were entitled to the same or comparable jobs, at the same level of compensation, employment benefits and seniority when they returned to work, and

the employer was required to continue health benefits. However, in Minnesota

employers were not required to pay the cost of insurance or health care during

leave, and in Oregon, unless otherwise specified under an agreement between the

employer and the employee, a collective bargaining agreement, or an employer

policy, benefits were not required to continue during the leave.

2. Provisions of State Temporary Disability Insurance Laws

In 1978, an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed called the

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). It required employers to treat the disability of an employee resulting from pregnancy or childbirth in the same manner as

they would treat any other disability. The PDA further specified that if an employer voluntarily provided temporary disability leave, they must allow employees

to use this leave for pregnancy or childbirth-related disabilities. However, this

only affected those employees whose companies already voluntarily provided this

type of leave.

Five states (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Hawaii)38 and

Puerto Rico had their own Temporary Disability Insurance laws (TDI) that covered all employers with at least one employee. Employee eligibility for these plans

varied from state to state. In most cases, an employee must have worked at least 14

to 20 weeks for a covered employer, although in New York employees were only

required to have worked four consecutive weeks to be eligible for TDI.39 These

laws provided partial salary replacement for any worker with a non-work related

disability, including women who had pregnancy- and childbirth-related disabilities. TDI laws complement Workers Compensation (applicable to persons with

work-related illnesses and injuries) and Unemployment Compensation (applicable

to persons who are laid-off and available for work).

38 It should be noted that approximately 20 percent of the U.S. population resides in New York, New Jersey,

and California (according to 1995 Census Bureau population data).

39 Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Research in Brief: What is Temporary Disability Insurance?

(Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, May 1993).
48

A Workable Balance

These state laws have extended the universe of employees who have access to paid

parental leave, however, they did not provide for job reinstatement. Wage replacement rates were based on the employee’s salary, although minimum and maximum benefit levels were set in all the states. The percentage of salary paid varied

from 50 to 65 percent of an employee’s weekly wages, and the duration of disability

pay varied from 26 to 52 weeks.40 Data from a 1989 study by the Institute for

Women’s Policy Research showed that the average duration of claims was between

five and 13 weeks and the average weekly benefit to employees was between $170

and $200.41 TDI programs operated (and continue to operate) in the black, generally with low overhead rates. The research also indicates that TDI plans covered a

wide range of workers at a relatively low cost for both employers and employees.42

3. Impact of State Laws on Employers and Employees

Several studies attempted to evaluate the impact of state family and medical leave

mandates pre-FMLA. For example, in 1988, the Families and Work Institute (FWI)

conducted a state level study called “Beyond the Parental Leave Debate: The Impact of Laws in Four States,”43 with random samples of employers and employees in

four states that had enacted their own parental leave laws two to three years before

data collection: Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Apart from the

leave policies in the four states, Rhode Island also had mandated wage replacement by TDI coverage for most employees.

The survey found that the majority of the employers surveyed reported “no increases” in the cost of training (71 percent), administration (55 percent), health

insurance costs (73 percent) or unemployment insurance (81 percent) because of

compliance with the state legislation. The survey also found that the state legislation in the four states had no effect on the proportion of mothers taking maternity

leave (78.6 percent took leave before the enactment and 78.4 percent after the

enactment) or on the length of such leave (12.6 weeks before and 12.1 weeks

after). Also, lower-income women tended to take shorter leaves. But in Rhode

Island, which also provided partial wage replacement, the proportion of women in

low-income households who took less than six weeks of leave fell to zero percent

40 Women’s Bureau, State Maternity/Family Leave Law. 41 Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Research in Brief: What is Temporary Disability Insurance? 42 More recent research by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research which estimates the cost of replicating

TDI plans in five additional states modelling several different levels of eligibility requirements and benefits

confirms that TDI plans are cost-effective. See Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Expanding Social

Insurance to Include Paid Family Care Leaves, (Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research,

1995).

43 Bond, Galinsky, et al.
49

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

after enactment of the legislation in July 1990, compared with 19 percent of lowerincome women who took less than six weeks in the other three states studied.

Leave taken by fathers for newborns increased slightly after enactment of the laws

(from 70 percent before to 75 percent after), and the amount of leave they took

also increased slightly (3.7 days before to 4.7 days after).

Several other studies have attempted to evaluate the impact of leave statutes in a

single state. For example, the New Jersey Business and Industry Association conducted a survey of 200 of its members to assess the costs related to New Jersey’s

family leave law.44 Sixty-five percent of the respondents were employers with fewer

than 500 employees. In about half the firms, less than one percent of the employees were on leave, and another 40 percent had one to three percent of their employees on leave. This study also pointed out the low cost of implementing leave

policies and found a low level of post-leave turnover, which employers viewed as a

positive.

The Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of California at Berkeley

and William M. Mercer, Inc., an international benefits consulting firm, conducted

a survey from Mercer’s client list to assess employer experience with the California

leave law and the potential impact of FMLA.45 They obtained 299 responses (a

30.5 percent response rate). Two-thirds of the employers said that less than one

percent of their workers had taken leave under the California law, while only 6.7

percent reported utilization rates of more than two percent. More than half the

respondents reported that costs associated with the mandated state law were insignificant, only seven percent reported moderate to major costs.

C. Employee Utilization and Experience

Again, there are a small number of statistically valid data sources on employee

utilization. The best sources appear to be government surveys, such as the Employee Benefits Survey and the Small Business Administration survey, and two

studies based on secondary data analysis of representative longitudinal data sets.

There is, in addition, a nationally representative survey of employees done by the

44 M.H. McSweeney, Costing State Family Leave Legislation: The Case of New Jersey Small Business,

unpublished manuscript. (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University, August 1993).

45 William M. Mercer, Inc. and University of California, Berkeley, Survey Results: Family and Medical Leave

Act, (San Francisco, CA and Berkeley, CA: William M. Mercer, Inc., and University of California, 1994).
50

A Workable Balance

Families and Work Institute called the “National Study of the Changing Work

Force.” Each of these illuminates an important aspect of employees’ experience

with leave before the FMLA.

1. Extent of Employee Utilization of Leave

As discussed earlier, in 1988 the Small Business Administration46 conducted a random sample survey of firms that covered nearly five million establishments, and

represented 93 percent of private employment in the U.S. Findings included a

higher incidence of family and medical leave utilization in the following types of

firms: firms with a formal unpaid leave policy; firms that included pay or continuation of health benefits during leave; and firms with a higher proportion of female

workers between the ages of 14 and 44, or workers 55 or older. In the 12 months

prior to the survey, less than one percent of employees had taken parental leave -

0.73 percent of managers and 0.34 percent of non-managers. Non-managers were

more likely than managers to take leave that was unpaid. Industry, firm size and

sales volume were not found to affect the amount of leave-taking.

In 1990, the Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale University commissioned a study by Trzcinski and Stevenson to evaluate employees’ utilization of leave in the state of Connecticut.47 This study surveyed 1,900 Connecticut firms about the extent of parental leave-taking among their employees.

The main finding was that the level of utilization of leave was low - between one

percent and three percent of employees for maternity and similar rates for disability leave. In firms with fewer than 50 employees, utilization of maternity leave was

the lowest, at 1.3 percent, while only two percent of employees used sick leave.

The highest rate of maternity leave utilization was in firms of 100 to 499 workers,

where 2.6 percent of employees used this leave, and 2.8 percent used sick leave.

For the largest firms (more than 500 workers), 2.2 percent of employees took maternity leave and 2.7 percent used sick leave. A 1993 survey of family leave policies among readers of the Towers Perrin Monitor, described above (see part 4 of

section A), also focused on utilization.48 The survey found that the level of utilization of leave was low. Over half the firms offering leave found they had fewer than

46 Trzcinski and Alpert. 47 Eileen Trzcinski and M. Finn-Stevenson, “A response to Arguments Against Parental Leave: Findings From

the Connecticut Survey of Parental Leave Policies,” Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol 52:3, pp. 445-60. 48 Towers Perrin, Family and Medical Leave Programs: Before and After the New Federal Law, (New York:

Towers Perrin, July 1993).
51

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

ten leave-takers per year, and 20 percent of the firms had fewer than two leave-takers.

Eighty-five percent of the leave-takers were women, and childbirth was by far the

most common reason for taking leave.

2. Differences in Employee Access to Leave

The “National Study of the Changing Workforce,” conducted by the Families and

Work Institute, is scheduled to be done every four years. The first survey was

conducted in 1992 based on a nationally representative sample of almost 3,000

wage and salaried workers, in addition to self-employed workers and women who

were voluntarily out of the paid workforce raising children. The findings from this

survey which are relevant to leave utilization show that about 45 percent of employees were eligible for family and medical leave at the time data was collected.

The survey found some important differences in access among different groups of

employees. For example, men had greater access to leave than women; older workers had greater access than younger workers; better educated workers had greater

access than less educated workers; and workers in professional and managerial occupations had greater access than other workers. In a paper discussing these findings,49 report co-author James T. Bond offers a variety of explanations related to

the ways in which the labor market is structured around differential rewards to

employees on the basis of gender, education, skill and so on.

Similar findings have been reported by the authors of the 1990 National Child

Care Survey.50 They reported that lower-income individuals were less likely to

take parental leave, were less likely to be paid during their periods of leave and

were less likely to keep their health insurance during leave than workers with higher

incomes.

3. Gender and the Economic Impact of Leave

Several studies have attempted to evaluate the particular effect of leave policies on

women workers, given that women are the bearers of children and still the primary

caretakers of children, elders and other family members.

49 James T. Bond, Access to Leave Benefits Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, unpublished

paper, (New York: Families and Work Institute, April 1995).

50 S. L. Hofferth, et al., National Child Care Survey, 1990. (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1990),

Report 91-5.
52

A Workable Balance

A 1987 study by the National Council for Jewish Women found that women whose

employers offered parental leave and other personal and family accommodations

were more satisfied with their jobs, took fewer sick days and were more likely to

return to their jobs than other workers without access to such policies.51 Additional analyses of these data showed that particular policies such as health insurance, paid sick days and job-protected leave all had a positive effect on how long

pregnant women remained at work, their plans to return to work and job satisfaction. For example, 80 percent of women with paid sick leave days worked into

their ninth month of pregnancy compared with 52 percent of women without such

a benefit. And those who had job-protected leave stopped work later and planned

to return to work sooner than those women without job-protected leave.52

In 1988, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) conducted a study

using data from a longitudinal study by the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan (1974 to 1988 Panel Study of Income Dynamics). The sample of

nearly 7,000 households provides annual data on labor force participation, hours

worked, absences from work, earnings, other sources of income and basic demographic information. IWPR looked at the costs to workers of not having family

and medical leave and found that the cost to women was indeed high.53 Specifically, they estimated that employed women who did not have some form of leave

beyond vacation days, had substantially lower annual earnings when they returned

to work after childbirth or adoption compared with women who had leave. For

example, in the three-year period after childbirth, women who did not have leave

lost an estimated $9,279 compared with a loss of $8,191 for women who had leave.

These additional losses occurred because those without any form of leave experienced more unemployment and lower relative wages when they returned to work

after childbirth. In addition, IWPR estimated that tax payers paid more than $4

billion annually for programs such as welfare, unemployment compensation, food

stamps and Medicaid to support workers who lost jobs because they did not have

job-protected family and medical leave.

51 National Council for Jewish Women, Medical and Family Leave: Benefits Available to Female Workers in

the United States. (New York: National Council of Jewish Women, 1987). 52 National Council for Jewish Women, The Experience of Childbearing Women in the Workplace: The

Impact of Family Friendly Policies and Practices, (Report prepared for the Women’s Bureau: U.S. Department

of Labor, February 1993).

53 Roberta Spalter-Roth and Heidi Hartmann, Unnecessary Losses: Costs to Americans of the Lack of Family

and Medical Leave, (Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 1988).
53

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

Recently Jane Waldfogel, a scholar from Columbia University, used data from the

National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NYSL)54 to investigate the persistent gender gap in pay in both United States and the United Kingdom.55 This investigation led her to an analysis of differences in work patterns between the genders due

to having and caring for children. Waldfogel concluded that there was not simply

one factor causing the gender gap in wages. She hypothesized that one-third to

one-half of the gap was the result of mothers taking more time out of the labor

market and receiving lower returns to work than did other women or men. Jobprotected maternity leave was found to have a large positive effect for mothers in

both the U.S. and U.K. because it allowed mothers to keep their job while taking

needed time away from the workforce. Waldfogel calculated that if women who

severed their ties to the paid labor market due to childbirth took job-protected

maternity leave in the future, the returns would be substantial. She estimated that

it would close an estimated 43 percent of the gender gap for affected women in the

U.S. and 37 percent in the U.K.

4. Impact of Leave-Taking on Children and Families

Two important studies focus on the effect of parental leave, (an aspect of family

and medical leave), on children and families. These studies were started before

the passage of FMLA and are on-going. Over time they will provide a unique

opportunity to understand patterns of leave-taking among working families with

young children and their impact on family well-being.

The National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) Study of Early

Child Care56 is a ten-site longitudinal study that began in January, 1991. The

study is based on a non-random sample of 1,267 children, 53 percent of whom had

mothers who planned to go back to work full-time (30+ hours per week), 23 percent of whom had mothers who planned to go back to work part-time (20 to 30

hours per week) and 24 percent of whom had mothers who planned to stay home

for the child’s first year of life. Children will be assessed at one , six, 15, 24 and 36

54 The NLSY provides a national, representative sample of 12,686 young men and women who were 14 to

22 years of age in 1979 (first survey). This survey has been conducted every year and is useful for data on

women taking leave for children and parenting.

55 Waldfogel found that women earned 88 percent of what men earned at age 21, but only 82 percent by

age 30. While women without children earned 95 percent of men’s pay at age 30, women with children

earned only 75 percent. Jane Waldfogel, The Family Gap for Young Women in the U.S. and UK: Can

Maternity Leave Make a Difference, (Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,

May 1994).

56 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Study of Early Child Care (January, 1991 -

on going).
54

A Workable Balance

months. Although the sample is not representative, it will provide data for examining the impact of different work and leave-taking patterns on children’s development and on parents’ well-being.57

Finally, the Wisconsin Maternity Leave and Health Project is a longitudinal study

of women, their families and the maternity leave experience. Based on a

non-representative sample of 570 women and 550 of their husbands/partners, this

study’s interviews and observations provide extensive demographic information

and employment data, as well as data on child development and parent/child interaction.58 The first wave of data collection took place in 1990-91.

The study found that, on average, mothers took nine weeks of leave and 71 percent of women had returned to work by 12 weeks. The majority of women (66

percent) said the leave they took was too short, but they could not afford additional unpaid leave. Fathers, on average, took five days off at the time of birth and

used vacation or sick days to gain paid leave. The data also showed that short

maternity leave (six weeks or less) was a risk factor, when combined with another

risk factor, such as a troubled marriage, for elevated levels of depression four months

postpartum. Additionally, at four months after birth women who worked full-time

showed elevated levels of anxiety compared to those who worked part-time or

were full-time homemakers. The authors concluded that this was probably due to

role overload.

D. Summary

The picture of family and medical leave policies before the passage of the FMLA is

difficult to draw with great accuracy, because systematic data gathering was rare

and/or was done only for particular aspects of leave. The best data available - on

public and private sector employees across all firm sizes - concerns the provision of

sick leave. It was provided to a small majority of employees (56 percent) and was

usually paid. There was fairly good data on maternity and paternity leave. Maternity leave was available to about 37 percent of employees and paternity leave to 28

percent of employees. However, data indicated that it was very rarely paid; estimates of wage replacement for this type of leave fell in the one to two percent

57 A study summarizing the findings to date is due out in the summer of 1996. 58 Janet Hyde and Marilyn Essex, Wisconsin Maternity Leave and Health Project, Wisconsin Study of

Families and Work, (University of Wisconsin, 1993).
55

Overview of Leave Policies Prior to the Passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act

range. The provisions of job guarantee and continuation of health benefits were

common for sick leave, but much less common for maternity, paternity and parental leave, especially for employees in small establishments. Finally, data on family

leave was highly anecdotal and the availability of family leave appeared rare.

Overall estimates of employee utilization of leave, other than traditional sick leave,

were low, usually in the one to three percent range, although these estimates did

not usually differentiate utilization by type of leave. There were few reliable studies of the cost and benefits of voluntary leave policies. Among those companies

who did such an evaluation, most reported that costs were low, with the exception

of one study, and a few even reported cost savings. Of those employers who reported benefits due to the provision of leave policies, they associated their policies

with low turnover (cited several times), good will, enhanced loyalty and morale

and increased retention of experienced workers.

State statutes appear to have expanded leave options for some employees, especially in the area of maternity and parental leave. However, even in those states

the employee eligibility restrictions and employer exemptions meant that employees in small establishments and those who had short service and/or work part-time

were still left without many leave options. Most state leave laws provide for unpaid forms of leave, except for state TDI laws, which provided partial wage replacement for maternity disability leave for biological mothers and disability leave

for employees’ own temporary disability.

In sum, a minority of employers and states provided all the kinds of leave covered

by the FMLA or the degree of job protection and continuation of benefits required

by the FMLA. Best estimates suggest that perhaps one-quarter to one-third of

full-time private and public sector employees had the kind of leave options provided by the FMLA available to them before 1993, while perhaps less than 20

percent of employees in small establishments had access to these kinds of leave

policies. Approximately another third of employees had access to only one or two

kinds of leave (sick leave and maternity leave), and usually without pay, continuation of benefits or job protection. In general, the extent of leave available to

employees prior to 1993 increased with firm size and for employees with higher

levels of skill and income.
56
57 C H A P T E R I V

Access to Family and Medical Leave

Since the Passage of the FMLA: Coverage,

Knowledge and Use of the New Law

A. Introduction

1. Data Sources

Most of the information in the following four chapters is based on new data from

the Employer Survey and the Employee Survey. In addition, the Commission has

scientific data from the FMLA questions on the Census Bureau’s survey to supplement the understanding of small “covered” employers and “non-covered employers.” Data derived from other sources will be cited accordingly.1

2. Definitions of Employer and Employee Coverage under the FMLA

The Act defines “employer” as any person who has 50 employees or more on his or

her payroll anywhere within the continental United States. By that definition, an

employer with no more than one employee in each of the 50 states is still an “employer” under the Act. It is possible, however, to be a “covered employer” but not

have any “covered employees.” This is because the Act has complicated employee

eligibility criteria which set minimum size requirements not only for the employee’s

own worksite, but also for the worksites in close proximity to where the employee

works. These employee eligibility criteria provide that an employee is covered

under the Act if there are 50 employees or more either at the employee s worksite,

or within a 75-mile radius of the worksite.

In addition to working in a “covered” worksite, employee eligibility depends on

issues related to the employee’s length of service and hours worked. An employee

must also have been employed for at least 12 months and have worked at least

1,250 hours with that employer during the previous 12-month period to be eligible

for job-protected leave.

1 See Chapter II for a description of the three samples.
58

A Workable Balance

Only those employers with employees who meet all the Act’s employee eligibility

requirements are actually involved in providing leave to their employees under the

Act. In order to focus the Commission’s resources on employers with practical

responsibility for eligible workers, the Employer Survey uses the worksite as the

unit upon which to base an analysis of employers’ and employees’ experience under the Act and with family and medical leave policies generally. Specifically, the

Employer Survey applies the definition of the DMS file, which defines a worksite

as “a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or

industrial operations are performed.” It should be noted that the Employer Survey,

like the DMS, uses the term “business establishment” as a synonym for the single

“worksite.” Thus, throughout the Employer Survey, the term “business establishment” is intended to refer to a specific work location. In this report, however, the

term “worksite” will be used rather than “establishment” and should not be substituted for the word “company,” which was not the unit of analysis used in the Employer Survey.

B. New Data on Extent of the FMLA Coverage

1. Coverage of Worksites and Employers

In order to find out which worksites are covered under FMLA, the Employer Survey included two questions. The first question asked how many employees worked

at the site. If the answer is at least 50, then the worksite is classified as being

covered by the FMLA. If the answer is fewer than 50 employees, then a follow-up

question asked how many people worked within a 75-mile radius of the worksite

location. If that number was at least 50, then the respondent’s worksite is classified

as covered under FMLA.

The Employer Survey estimates that 10.8 percent of all private-sector U.S. worksites

are covered by the Act (see Table 4.1). This relatively small proportion of U.S.

worksites actually employs more than half (59.5 percent) of the nation’s privatesector employees, most of whom work for the country’s largest employers. Indeed,

almost half of the nation’s employees work in covered worksites with more than

250 employees, even though those worksites comprise a tiny proportion (4.6 percent) of all covered worksites. Of those employees working for covered employers, 90.2 percent work at the small proportion (39.1 percent) of worksites that

employ at least 50 employees, and the remaining 9.8 percent of employees work at
59

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

the remaining 60.9 percent of smaller worksites that qualify because of the 75-

mile radius rule.

In Table 4.1, which shows FMLA-covered employers by industry (Standard Industrial Classification), industries with the largest worksites, such as manufacturing,

also have a large number of employees working in a relatively small percentage of

T A B L E 4 . 1

Coverage of Worksites and Employees

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

Worksites All

Employees

FMLA-covered worksites 10.8% 59.5%

FMLA-non-covered worksites 89.2% 40.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

FMLA-COVERED WORKSITES

Number of Employees at Worksites

At least 50 employees at worksites 39.1% 90.2%

At least 50 employees within a 75-mile

 radius of worksite 60.9% 9.8%

50 to 250 employees 95.4% 53.9%

More than 250 employees 4.6% 46.1%

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION

Manufacturing 9.4% 24.5%

Retail 27.7% 15.7%

Services 26.2% 34.1%

All other industries 36.8% 25.7%
60

A Workable Balance

covered worksites. Thus, only about 9.4 percent of FMLA-covered worksites are

in manufacturing, but those worksites employ 24.5 percent of all employees. Onequarter of FMLA-covered worksites are within the services sector, which employs

34.1 percent of employees. Another 27.7 percent of FMLA-covered worksites,

employing 15.7 percent of employees, are in the retail sectors; and the remaining

36.8 percent of worksites are in the residual category.

It should be noted that the demographic profile of employees at large worksites is

different in some respects than the demographic profile of employees at small

worksites. For example, research shows that larger worksites have somewhat higher

numbers of males, African Americans, highly educated employees, union members, and married employees. Smaller worksites have somewhat higher numbers of

young employees, women, non-union and less educated employees.2 Given the

fact that employee coverage under the FMLA is based in part on the size of the

worksite, these pre-existing differences in the types of workers who tend to work in

large and medium versus small firms, is reproduced in the demographics of employee coverage, as discussed below.

2. Extent of Employees’ Coverage

This section discusses which employees in the United States are actually eligible

to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Both the Employer Survey

and the Employee Survey offer data concerning the extent of employees’ FMLA

coverage. The Employer Survey provides data based on a sample of all privatesector U.S. employers and their employees. The Employee Survey provides data

on a more inclusive sample, consisting of all U.S. employees working in both the

private-sector and the public-sector. The inclusion of public sector employees in

the Employee Survey sample results in a higher percentage of employees working

for covered employers and a higher percentage of employees eligible to take leave

under the Act.3

2 See Charles Brown et. al, Employers Large and Small, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1990)., Walter Y. Oi, Low Wages and Small Firms in Research in Labor Economics, 1991, Volume 12, pp.

1-39, and especially p. 9, Table 1, and Todd L. Idson, et al., A Selectivity Model of Employer-Size Wage

Differentials, in Journal of Labor Economics, January 1990, Volume 8, Number 1, Part 1, p. 99. 3 While the Employee Survey numbers are larger than the Employer Survey numbers because of the

inclusion of public sector workers, it should be noted that the Employee Survey totals may be slightly inflated

for two reasons. First, the Employee Survey data is based on the employed household population with

telephones, which means that it is a slightly more affluent group than the total employed population including

households with no telephones. As higher-income workers tend to work at covered worksites, the number of

those working at covered worksites may be slightly elevated. Another reason the Employee Survey data

may be inflated is that it includes anyone employed over an 18-month period, while the Employer Survey is

based on a single point in time.
61

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

The Employer Survey finds

that 59.5 percent of private-sector employees in

the U.S. work for covered

employers, while the Employee Survey finds that

66.1 percent of employees

work for covered employers, including private and

public sector worksites.

Applying the Act’s employee eligibility criteria,

the Employer Survey finds

that slightly less than one

half (46.5 percent) of all

private-sector employees

are eligible to take leave

under the Act4, compared

to slightly more than half

(54.9 percent) of all employees eligible to take

leave under the Act in the

Employee Survey. It is significant that the difference

between the fraction of

employees in covered worksites and the fraction of employees that are eligible is

roughly the same across both surveys - 11 to 13 percent5 (see Figure 4.1).

4 The question on the Employer Survey used to measure the number of employees eligible for the Act was

“How many employees at this location worked at least 1,250 hours for your organization in the past 12

months?” This question is not entirely congruent with the law, which defines employee eligibility as those

who have worked at least a year and at least 1,250 hours. The estimates provided above, therefore are

slight overestimates of the percent eligible because they include those persons who have worked at least

1,250 hours, but may not have worked at least 12 months for the company. See David Cantor, et al., The

Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers, (Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc., 1995),

p. 3-2.

5 Findings from a study by the Families and Work Institute, Access to Leave Benefits Under the Family and

Medical Leave Act of 1993, reveal the overall number of employees eligible to take leave under the Act to

be at the same level as the Employer Survey. Their study was based on a 1992 survey of a national

representative sample of 2,958 employees (National Study of the Changing Workforce, discussed in

Chapter III).

F I G U R E 4 . 1

Demographic Profile of Employees

by Coverage Status under FMLA

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995

Covered &

Eligible

NonCoveredCovered

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

33.9%

66.1%

54.9%
62

A Workable Balance

 3. The Demographics of Employee Coverage

Who are the employees who work for covered employers and who are the employees who can take leave under the Act? Demographic profiles of employees surveyed reveal some interesting differences between those working at covered

worksites as compared to those working at sites that are not covered, and clarifies

what kinds of employees are most likely to have access to the FMLA on the basis of

employee eligibility requirements.

The Employee Survey is based on a nationally representative sample of employed

persons 18 and over and thus reflects the demographic profile of the American

Workforce (see Table 4.2). For example, men are somewhat more heavily represented in the labor force (and thus in this sample) than women (about 54 percent

compared with 46 percent). The largest age group of employees is between 35 and

49 years old. With respect to race and ethnicity, over 80 percent of the sample is

white and non-Latino. By far the largest group of employees is married; a majority

have no children. Only about eight percent of the employees have less than a high

school education, with the remainder roughly evenly distributed in the three higher

education categories. Regarding family income, the single largest group is in the

category earning between $30,000 and $50,000 a year. About half the employees

are hourly workers, and almost 40 percent are salaried. Finally, 16.3 percent of the

employees are members of unions.

There are some demographic differences between employees who work at covered

and non-covered worksites (See Appendix E, Table 4.A). These differences are

largely related to differences in the workforce composition of worksites in different

size categories, as discussed above.6 Those most likely to work at non-covered

worksites include the youngest and the oldest employees (those under 25 and over

49 years old), Latinos, employees whose annual family income is less than $20,000,

those who are neither salaried nor hourly (that is, who are compensated by piecework rates or commission, for instance) and non-union employees. On the other

hand, African Americans and union members are more likely than whites or Latinos

or non-union employees to work for covered employers.

6 Multi-variate analysis regarding the clustering of certain demographic variables and the variable of firm

size was presented at the National Academy of Sciences Workshop by the Institute for Social Research,

Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.
63

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

T A B L E 4 . 2

Demographic Profile of Employees Sample

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 122,000,000

100.0%

GENDER

Male 53.7%

Female 46.3%

AGE

18-24 13.8%

25-34 22.8%

35-49 41.5%

50-64 18.7%

65 or over 3.2%

RACE

Latino 7.0%

African American 8.8%

Non-Latino White 82.2%

Other 2.0%

MARITAL STATUS

Married 65.1%

Living w/ Partner 4.0%

Separated 1.5%

Divorced 9.7%

Widowed 2.3%

Never been Married 17.4%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 56.8%

One or more 43.2%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 7.7%

High School Graduate 29.2%

Some College 28.9%

Four Years of College or more 34.1%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 15.4%

$20–30,000 12.4%

$30–50,000 24.3%

$50–75,000 11.3%

$75,000 or more 11.0%

Unknown 25.5%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 37.7%

Hourly 50.9%

Other 11.4%

UNION STATUS

Union 83.7%

Non-union 16.3%

Note: The “unknown” or “no answer” responses accounted for less than 2% of total responses in all catagories except

income, where they have been included in the table.

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF

EMPLOYEES, 1995.
64

A Workable Balance

The Employee Survey also reveals some differences between employees who work

for a covered employer, and employees who, in addition, are eligible to take leave

under the Act (see Appendix E, Table 4.A). Overall, 66.1 percent of the employees surveyed work at sites that are covered by the FMLA, but only about 54.9

percent are eligible to take advantage of the Act. Women are more likely to work

at covered sites, while women and men are almost equally likely to be eligible to

take leave under the Act.

Employees between 25 and 49 years old are especially likely to be working for

covered employers (about 68 percent), and to be eligible to take leave under the

Act (about 60 percent). By contrast, employees in the youngest and oldest age

groups (18 to 24 and 65 years or older) are especially unlikely to be eligible (34.4

percent and 40.3 percent).

African American employees are particularly likely to be both covered (81.9 percent) and eligible (74.1 percent), while Latino employees are relatively less likely

to be either covered or eligible (59.4 percent and 48.5 percent).

The two largest categories of marital status are “married” and “never married.”

Interestingly, divorced employees are more likely than married employees to be

covered (70.2 percent compared with 65.0 percent) and eligible (61 percent compared with 56.7 percent). However, employees who have never been married are

less likely to be both covered and eligible (40.8 percent). (The relatively small

number of employees who are “separated” are also especially likely to be covered

and eligible.) Those with at least one child under 18 are more likely than those

without these dependents to be both covered and eligible (58.3 percent compared

with 52.3 percent).

The patterns with respect to education and annual family income are similar. In

general, the likelihood of being covered, and of being both covered and eligible,

rises as income and education levels increase. Thus, for instance, 47 percent of

those with less than a high school education, and only 42.8 percent of employees

with less than $20,000 a year in family income, are covered and eligible. This

compares with 57.6 percent of those with at least four years of college or more and

over 60 percent of those with an annual family income of $30,000 or more, who

are covered and eligible.
65

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

As to job characteristics, employees who are covered and eligible are more likely to

be salaried. For instance, almost 69.3 percent of salaried employees work at a

covered worksite, and 61.7 percent are eligible and covered by the Act. By contrast, while 71.3 percent of hourly employees are covered, only 56.5 percent are

covered and eligible. Employees compensated in some other way, that is, on the

basis of piece work or commission, are far less likely to be covered or eligible than

either salaried or hourly employees.

However, unionized employees - who are most likely to be paid by the hour - are far

more likely to be covered and to be both covered and eligible than non-union

employees. For example, 89.8 percent of unionized employees are covered, compared with 61.7 percent of non-union employees; 81.3 percent of unionized employees are both covered and eligible, compared with just under 50 percent of nonunion employees.

In sum, while almost two-thirds of employees work for employers that are covered

by the Act, only about 55 percent are both covered and eligible to take leave under

the FMLA. Those most likely to work for covered employers are women, 25 to 34

year olds, African Americans, employees who are separated, divorced or widowed,

those with at least one child under 18, employees with higher levels of education

and income, and unionized employees. The profile of employees who are most

likely to be both covered and eligible to take leave under the Act looks similar to

those who are covered. The disparity between the extent to which employees are

“covered” versus “covered and eligible” is greatest for three subgroups of workers:

those 18 to 24 years old, those who have never been married, and those with annual incomes of $20,000 or less.

4. Number of Businesses and Employees Not Covered

Among private-sector worksites in the U.S., 89.2 percent are non-covered, accounting for 40.5 percent of the nation’s employees (see Table 4.1). Among the

companies in the Census small business sample, which are generally synonymous

with worksites, 91.3 percent are non-covered - accounting for 52.8 percent of the

employees in that business sector.
66

A Workable Balance

C. Changes in Employer Leave Policies Since the FMLA

Chapter III of this report discusses various studies and surveys that assess the nature and extent of voluntary leave policies and state statutes that existed prior to

the Act’s passage. The Employer Survey did not ask employers questions about

their leave policies prior to the Act. It did, however, survey employers about when

their organization first established its family and medical leave policies and what

changes they have made in their family and medical leave policies since the FMLA

was enacted. Consequently, the existing studies of pre-Act policies discussed in

Chapter III, combined with the Employer Survey data on the date of starting leave

policies and changes in leave policies following the Act’s passage, provide a good

picture of changes that employers have made in family and medical leave policies

as a result of the passage of the FMLA.

1. Extent of Changes in Leave Policies as a Result of the FMLA

The passage of the FMLA has had a substantial impact on employer leave policies.

According to the Employer Survey, two-thirds of worksites (66.5 percent) covered

by the Act have changed some aspect of their policy in order to comply with the

law.7 In other words, prior to the Act, one-third of covered employers were voluntarily offering leave policies consistent with, or more generous than, the FMLA.

Among those covered worksites that have made changes, the most common change

(76.9 percent) is to increase the number of reasons for which employees can take

leave (see Figure 4.2). The reason most likely to have been added (made by 69.3

percent) is granting male employees time off to care for seriously ill or newborn

children. Another common change (made by 66.4 percent of covered worksites)

is allowing leave to be taken for a longer period of time. Over half of the covered

worksites that have made changes have done so by making the leave job-guaranteed, and by expanding health insurance benefits (either continuing them during

leave, or for a longer period). Almost half of the covered worksites that have made

changes (46.7 percent) have eased employee eligibility requirements (see Appendix E, Table 4.B).

7 David Cantor, et al., The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers, (Rockville,

MD: Westat, Inc., 1995) p. 4-2.
67

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

The Census survey8 finds that among “covered” employers that are privately, not

publicly owned 66.4 percent did not have to make leave-related policy or practice

changes as a result of the Act.9 At least one policy change was necessary in 31.7

percent of the covered worksites. Those worksites that made changes did so for

the following reasons: 29.6 percent to accommodate fathers’ care of newborn children; 26.3 percent for newly-adopted or foster children; 24.0 percent for a seriously

ill child, spouse or parent; 19.7 percent for maternity-related issues; and 18.3 percent for personal health conditions.

8 See Chapter II, Section C for more information on the CBO sample used for the Census Survey. 9 These findings on the extent of policy changes among FMLA-covered worksites cannot be compared to

findings on the same topic from the Employer Survey because of differences in the way the question was

asked and differences in the survey sample universe.

F I G U R E 4 . 2

Percentage of Worksites Changing Family and

Medical Leave Policies by Type of Change(1)

LEAVE IS

NOW JOBGUARANTEED

HEALTH

INSURANCE

CONTINUED

DURING

LEAVE

LEAVE CAN

BE TAKEN

FOR MORE

REASONS

LEAVE CAN BE

TAKEN FOR

LONGER

TIME

MALES CAN

TAKE LEAVE

TO CARE FOR

ILL/

NEWBORN

CHILDREN

ELIGIBILITY

REQUIREMENTS

EASED

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages in table refer to FMLA-covered worksites whose policies changed due to FMLA.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

54.8% 52.9%

76.9%

66.4% 69.3%

46.7%
68

A Workable Balance

The Employer Survey also finds that among covered employers with family and

medical leave policies that provide job-guaranteed leave, 38.7 percent established

their policies before 1993, and approximately 43 percent did so during or after

1993 (see Figure 4.3). Roughly nine percent of covered worksites report having no

FMLA policies established. Worksites with more than 25 employees are more

likely to have had family and medical leave policies in place prior to 1993. Almost

one-fifth (17.4 percent) of non-covered employers had family and medical leave

policies before 1993, and an additional 5.4 percent adopted family and medical

leave polices in or after 1993 (see Appendix E, Table 4.C).

F I G U R E 4 . 3

Date of Establishment of Family and Medical Leave Policies:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

BEFORE 1993 IN 1993 AFTER 1993 NO POLICIES DON’T KNOW

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

FMLACOVERED

FMLA-NONCOVERED

38.7%

17.4%

40.0%

4.5% 3.3% 0.9%

8.8%

73.5%

9.1%

3.7%
69

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

10 The only worksite respondents queried about health benefits and job guarantee are those who answered

“yes” to the question about whether they provided 12 weeks of leave.

2. Leave Policies of Covered and Non-Covered Employers

The Employer Survey asked both covered and non-covered employers a number of

questions about the types of benefits currently available under their family and

medical leave policies. The questions asked about the following benefits: availability of up to 12 weeks of leave, including all the reasons specified in the Act;

continuation of health benefits during leave; and job guarantee upon return from

leave.10 Respondents were also asked whether they offer any additional leave beyond that required by the Act. The data show that over 90 percent of the covered

worksites provide up to 12 weeks of leave for family and medical reasons. They

F I G U R E 4 . 4

Availability of Up to 12 Weeks of Leave:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites

EMPLOYEE’S

OWN SERIOUS

HEALTH

CONDITION

MATERNITYDISABILITY

PARENTS TO

CARE FOR A

NEWBORN

PARENTS TO

CARE FOR

ADOPTED OR

FOSTER CHILD

CARE OF ILL

CHILD, SPOUSE,

OR PARENT

ALL

OF THE FMLA

REASONS

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FMLACovered

NonCovered

92.6%

45.7%

96.6%

42.3%

92.5%

32.3%

91.3%

29.0%

94.2%

41.7%

88.0%

20.7%
70

A Workable Balance

also continue health benefits, and guarantee a job upon return from leave for the

reasons specified in the Act. A review of the data shows some considerable differences between the policies of covered and non-covered employers.

Availability of 12 weeks of leave: The FMLA requires that covered employers

provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the reasons specified by the Act (see

Figure 4.4, previous page). The vast majority of FMLA-covered worksites do that.

For each of the FMLA-specified reasons, the percentage of covered worksites that

report offering a 12-week period of leave exceeds 90 percent. By contrast, less than

one-half of the non-covered worksites offer 12 weeks of leave for family and medical reasons. Non-covered worksites are less likely to offer leave for the care of a

newborn child, or a child recently adopted or placed with the employee for foster

care (see Appendix E, Table 4.D).

Relatively few worksites offer family and medical leave for reasons not included in

the Act, although those that do are usually FMLA-covered worksites. The most

frequent “other” reason that these worksites give is leave for bereavement/death in

the family. Most worksites that add other reasons, however, do so under “personal

leave” policies which allow leave for multiple reasons pending supervisory approval.

Among covered worksites, larger worksites with more than 250 employees are only

slightly more likely to offer leave than the worksites with 250 employees or fewer.11

As mentioned above, more than 90 percent of covered worksites make up to 12

weeks available for the various listed reasons, with differences of only a few percentage points between worksites with more than 250 and those with fewer than

250 employees. The greatest difference between the two sizes is that the larger

worksites are more likely to offer family and medical leave for more reasons than

the ones included in the Act.

Among the non-covered worksites, there are significant differences in the availability of 12 weeks of leave.12 Worksites with more than ten, but fewer than 50

employees, are much more likely to offer 12 weeks of leave for each of the reasons

under the Act than are worksites with ten employees or fewer. Worksites with ten

employees or fewer are especially unlikely to offer parental leave to care for newborns and for adoption or foster care placement. All non-covered worksites, how11 David Cantor, et al., The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers, (Rockville,

MD: Westat, Inc., 1995)p. 3-9, Table 3-5.

12 Ibid.
71

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

ever, appear equally likely to decide whether to grant family and medical leave on

an informal, case-by-case basis.

Overall, there are no substantial industry-based differences in the types of family

and medical leave offered to employees.

Continuation of health benefits: A second requirement of FMLA is that the employer continue health benefits for the leave-taking employee and that employer

and employee contributions to the health plan remain the same as they were before the leave (see Figure 4.5). Of those worksites (covered and non-covered) that

offer health benefits, most that provide 12 weeks of leave also continue these health

F I G U R E 4 . 5

Continuation of Health Benefits During Leave:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites (1)

EMPLOYEE’S OWN

SERIOUS HEALTH

CONDITION

MATERNITYDISABILITY

PARENTS TO CARE

FOR A NEWBORN

PARENTS TO CARE

FOR ADOPTED OR

FOSTER CHILD

CARE OF ILL CHILD,

SPOUSE, OR PARENT

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages refer to establishments that make up to 12 weeks of leave available (or that it depends on circumstances).

Note: Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% FMLA

Covered

NonCovered

93.5%

77.9%

96.3%

86.3%

95.7%

72.5%

95.8%

75.9%

95.2%

69.0%

-
72

A Workable Balance

benefits during leave. Differences related to type of leave are insignificant among

covered worksites, while the most common type of leave with continued health

benefits among the non-covered worksites is maternity-disability leave.

FMLA-covered worksites are significantly more likely to continue health benefits

than are non-covered worksites. Over 90 percent of covered worksites offering 12

weeks of leave continue health benefits while employees are on leave for all the

reasons required under the Act. By contrast, the percentage of non-covered

worksites that continue health benefits changes with each reason for leave, ranging from 69 percent (for care of a family member with a serious health condition)

to 86 percent (for maternity-disability reasons). Between 73 and 78 percent of

EMPLOYEE’S OWN

SERIOUS HEALTH

CONDITION

MATERNITY-

 DISABILITY (2)

PARENTS TO

CARE FOR A

NEWBORN (2)

PARENTS TO CARE

FOR ADOPTED OR

FOSTER CHILD (2)

CARE OF ILL

CHILD, SPOUSE,

OR PARENT (2)

F I G U R E 4 . 6

Are Employees Guaranteed Jobs Upon Return From Leave?

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites (1)

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages in table refer to worksites that make up to 12 weeks of leave available (or that it depends on circumstances).

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% FMLACovered

NonCovered

94.7%

86.8%

99.2%

87.3%

99.2%

83.8%

99.0%

85.5%

98.9%

86.0%
73

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

non-covered worksites continue health coverage while employees are on leave for

their own serious health condition, to care for a newborn and to care for an adopted

or foster child. Non-covered worksites are more likely to decide on a case-by-case

basis whether to continue health benefits (see Appendix E, Table 4.E).

Guarantee of job upon return from leave: The FMLA also requires employers to

provide leave-takers with the same or equivalent position upon their return to

work. A substantial majority of both covered and non-covered worksites who offer

12 weeks of leave do guarantee employees their jobs for each of the reasons specified in the Act (see Figure 4.6).

Worksites covered by FMLA are somewhat more likely to do so than are those

not covered by the Act. Thus, a minimum of 95 percent of covered worksites

that offer 12 weeks of leave guarantee

jobs upon their employees’ return for

each of the specified reasons, compared

with at least 84 percent of non-covered

worksites. Again, non-covered

worksites are more likely to make this

decision on a case-by-case basis (see

Appendix E, Table 4.F).

Additional leave offered: One-quarter

of the worksites in the Employer Survey offer more than the 12 weeks of

job-guaranteed leave required by the

Act (see Figure 4.7). More than half

(58.2 percent) of the covered worksites

report that they provide no more than

12 weeks of leave time, compared with

43.2 percent of non-covered worksites,

although this leave is not necessarily

job-protected. Non-covered worksites

are more likely than covered worksites

(31.2 percent compared with 16.3 percent) to say that they make the determination on a case-by-case basis (see

Appendix E, Table 4.G).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

FMLACovered

NonCovered

25.5% 25.6%

37.3%

25.9%

31.1% 33.0%

F I G U R E 4 . 7

Additional Family and Medical Leave Benefits

Provided to Employees: FMLA-Covered and

Non-Covered Worksites (1)

FOR MORE THAN

12 WEEKS A YEAR(2)

FOR

EMPLOYEES WHO

HAVE WORKED

LESS THAN 12

MONTHS (3)

FOR

EMPLOYEES WHO

HAVE LESS THAN

1,250 HOURS/

YEAR (2)

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages refer to worksites that make up to 12 weeks of job-guaranteed leave available (or

that depends on circumstances) for at least one of the reasons listed in Appendix E, Table 4.D.

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.

(3) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .10.

Job-guaranteed leave
74

A Workable Balance

A slightly higher percentage of covered than non-covered worksites (37.3 percent

compared with 25.9 percent) offer leave to employees who have worked less than

the 12 months required for eligibility under the Act. This difference can be attributed primarily to non-covered worksites’ more frequent practice of making these

decisions on a case-by-case basis (15.5 percent compared with 27.5 percent). About

the same proportion of FMLA-covered

and non-covered worksites say they do

not have more generous eligibility requirements (47.2 percent compared

with 46.7 percent, respectively)(see

Appendix E, Table 4.G).

About one-third of both covered and

non-covered worksites that offer jobguaranteed leave make that leave available to employees who have worked

less than 1,250 hours. Non-covered

worksites are more likely to make those

leave decisions, as well, on a case-bycase basis.

Worksites with up to 250 employees are

somewhat less likely than larger organizations to offer more than 12 weeks

of job-guaranteed leave (25 percent

compared with 34 percent)(see Figure

4.8). They are also somewhat less likely

to offer leave benefits to employees

with less than 12 months tenure (37

percent compared with 43 percent), or

who have worked less than 1,250 hours

in the previous year (31 percent compared with 40 percent)(see Appendix

E, Table 4.H).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Up to 250

Employees

More than

250

Employees

25.0%

34.1%

37.0%

43.2%

30.6%

40.4%

FOR MORE THAN 12

WEEKS A YEAR (2)

FOR EMPLOYEES

WHO HAVE

WORKED

LESS THAN 12

MONTHS (3)

FOR EMPLOYEES

WHO HAVE

WORKED

LESS THAN 1,250

HOURS/YEAR (2)

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages refer to worksites that make up to 12 weeks of job-guaranteed leave available (or

that it depends on circumstances) for at least one of the reasons listed in Appendix E, Table 4.D.

(2) Difference between the worksite sizes of FMLA-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.

(3) Difference between the worksite sizes of FMLA-covered worksites is significant at p< .10.

F I G U R E 4 . 8

Additional Family and Medical Leave Benefits

Provided to Employees, by Size of Worksite

(FMLA-COVERED WORKSITES ONLY)(1)

Job-guaranteed leave
75

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

Continuation of pay and benefits, other than health insurance, during leave:

Worksites covered by the Act are also more likely to offer paid time off such as for

sickness (or vacation) than non-covered worksites (85 percent compared with 53.8

percent)(see Figure 4.9). Of those worksites that offer pension or retirement plans,

covered worksites are also more likely to continue these contributions (62.6 percent compared with 38.1 percent) than non-covered worksites. A similar pattern

exists for making contributions to employees’ life insurance plans and disability

(see Appendix E, Table 4.I).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FMLACovered

Non-Covered

85.0%

53.8%

62.6%

38.1%

84.7%

50.4%

87.6%

55.7%

F I G U R E 4 . 9

Continuation of Pay and Benefits During Leave:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites

PAID

LEAVE, SICK OR

VACATION

LEAVE, OR

DISABILITY

INSURANCE

CONTINUES

PENSION

OR RETIREMENT

PLAN

CONTRIBUTIONS

CONTINUES LIFE

INSURANCE

 CONTRIBUTIONS (1)

CONTINUES

DISABILITY

INSURANCE

 CONTRIBUTIONS (1)

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Difference between FMLA-covered and FMLA-non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.
76

A Workable Balance

For FMLA-covered worksites, the size of the worksite does not have a big effect on

the granting of paid leave (such as sick or vacation pay), or continuation of pension, life insurance and disability insurance during periods of leave. Thus, of those

worksites with 50 to 250 employees, between 62.2 and 88 percent continue pay

and benefits during leave, depending on the particular benefit. Among those

worksites with more than 250 employees, the percentage that continue particular

pay and benefits ranges from 68 to 90 percent (see Appendix E, Table 4.J).

In sum, the data show that more than 90 percent of the covered worksites provide

up to 12 weeks of job-guaranteed leave for family and medical reasons. Of that

group, 95 to 96 percent continue health benefits, and 95 to 99 percent guarantee a

job upon return from leave for the reasons specified in the Act. The proportion of

non-covered worksites that offer these benefits on a uniform basis is much lower -

between 21 to 46 percent make up to 12 weeks of leave available, depending on

the reason for leave. Of that group, between 69 and 86 percent continue health

benefits (depending on the reason for leave), and approximately 85 percent offer a

job-guarantee upon return from leave, regardless of the reason.

While the vast majority of covered employers are in compliance with the FMLA,

approximately ten percent of covered employers appear to be failing to meet all, or

some part, of their obligations under the Act. Further research on this employer

minority is needed over time to learn the cause of that apparent non-compliance

and the extent to which it may be due to not having eligible employees, lack of

knowledge of the new law, unintentional non-compliance or intentional violations of the Act. The fact that about ten percent of employers do not know whether

they are covered indicates that knowledge (or lack of it) may be a significant factor, as discussed below.

D. Knowledge of the New Law

To educate the public about the FMLA, the Department of Labor has initiated an

extensive outreach campaign. From August 5, 1993 to September 30, 1995, Department of Labor staff presented more than 1,400 speeches, seminars and media

events, responded to 270,000 telephone inquiries, and distributed public service

announcements to all major markets. While this has been a well-organized public

education effort, the following data from the Employer and Employee Surveys show

that more education is needed overall, especially among employees.
77

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

1. Employers’ Knowledge of the FMLA

Section 109 of the FMLA makes employers responsible for notifying employees

about their rights under the Act by posting a notice which sets forth the FMLA’s

pertinent provisions. Since employees are technically dependent on the employer

to be informed about the law, employer knowledge is an important indicator of

how far the law has penetrated the U.S. labor market, and is important in its own

right. To assess employers’ knowledge of the law, the Employer Survey directly

asked the respondent if he or she believes that his or her worksite is covered under

the FMLA. The result was that 86.5 percent of the employers whose worksites are

classified as “covered” by the Act (that is, they report 50 employees or more at the

worksite or within a 75-

mile radius) know that the

FMLA applies to their location and 12.3 percent of

the covered employers do

not know if their worksite

is covered. A tiny portion

(1.2 percent) of employers at covered worksites

incorrectly believe that

FMLA does not apply to

their location (see Table

4.3).13

Worksites that are not

classified as “covered” by

the Act due to their size

are less knowledgeable

about the law. Of those,

more than half (56.5 percent) do not know

whether they are covered, 8.3 percent incorrectly think they are covered and 35.2

percent know they are not covered.14

13 Employer knowledge of the FMLA and whether it applies to the worksite surveyed may be somewhat

overstated since a letter from Westat, Inc. regarding the Commission’s research on FMLA was mailed before

the telephone interview was conducted for the Employer Survey.

14 Since the employer coverage and employee eligibility requirements of the FMLA are different, and

relatively complicated, it is not surprising that there is some confusion about coverage, especially among

worksites that are not covered.

FMLACovered Non-Covered Total

Yes 86.5% 8.3% 16.8%

No 1.2% 35.2% 31.5%

Don’t Know 12.3% 56.5% 51.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

T A B L E 4 . 3

Self-Report of Whether the Family and Medical

Leave Act Applies to Worksite by FMLA Coverage Status(1)

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) A worksite is considered “covered” if there are 50 employees or more at one worksite surveyed

or within a 75-mile radius of that worksite.

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p<.05.

DOES THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE

ACT APPLY TO THIS LOCATION? (2)
78

A Workable Balance

Worksites that either are incorrect about their coverage or do not appear to understand whether they are covered by the FMLA tend to be small (fewer than 50

employees). In fact, of those employers who are either incorrect or uncertain about

their coverage status, 79.3 percent are worksites with ten employees or fewer. In

addition, two-thirds of the group of employers that were unsure or incorrect about

their coverage status qualify as covered only because of the 75-mile radius rule. In

other words, they do not have 50 employees or more at the surveyed worksite, but

they do have 50 employees or more within a 75-mile radius of the surveyed worksite.

These findings suggest that outreach to small businesses about the 75-mile radius

rule might alleviate some of the current confusion among employers about their

coverage status.

Worksites which reported that they were covered by the FMLA (whether correctly

or incorrectly) were asked how they learned about the Act. The majority of

F I G U R E 4 . 1 0

How Employers Learned About FMLA

U.S.

DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR

MEDIA TRADE OR

BUSINESS

GROUP

ATTORNEY/

CONSULTANT

UNION THEIR

EMPLOYEES

OTHER

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

48.5%

61.0%

54.5%

44.6%

2.6%

7.4%

17.8%

SOURCE: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.
79

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

worksites learned about the FMLA either through the media (61 percent) or through

trade and business associations (54.5 percent). Slightly less than one-half of these

worksites learned about the FMLA through the U.S. Department of Labor (48.5

percent) or through attorneys/consultants (44.6 percent) (see Figure 4.10).

The Census Survey, in contrast to the Employer Survey, finds that a smaller number of the covered employers know they are covered by FMLA (69.2 percent) and

a larger percentage believe they are not covered (15.8 percent). About the same

percentage in both surveys do not know if the law applies to them. The results on

knowledge of the law among the non-covered worksites is roughly the same as the

Employer Survey findings. Roughly half do not know if the law applies to them or

have never heard of it at all, 43 percent know that they are not covered and 7.7

percent incorrectly believe they are covered.

Testimony of covered employers from the Commission hearings indicates that

“knowledge” of the Act means more than just learning about its existence and

understanding its basic provisions.15 Catherine A. Morris, the corporate human

resources manager at Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) - whose worksite has

“postings on the bulletin board,” a “benefits handbook [with a] section on family

medical leave” and a “new-hire orientation program [which has] incorporated the

information” on FMLA - concluded that the “Act already goes pretty far to make

sure that employees are aware of the benefits....”16 Elizabeth Pedrick Sartain, a

Southwest Airlines vice president, however, noted that while she has been able to

study the law, educate her peers and train the companies’ supervisors on the law,

many “small compan[ies] haven’t done that, because they don’t know where to get

access to it [and] they don’t understand it when they read it. It is extremely complex.”17 Diane Duval, the corporate benefits manager from Lotus Development

Corporation, believes that it is “crucial” to educate individual managers about the

Act, because “[n]ot only must managers understand and support the benefits themselves, they must be able to manage the impact of such programs on the employees’

immediate workgroup.”18 A number of employees also testified that their employers do not have knowledge (see below).

15 The Commission on Family and Medical Leave conducted three public hearings: in San Francisco, CA,

Washington, D.C. and Chicago, IL. Footnotes will designate the location, page, and, where appropriate,

the source.

16 Testimony of Catherine A. Morris, Corporate Human Resources Benefits Manager, ARCO at San

Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 102.

17 Testimony of Elizabeth Pedrick Sartain, Vice President People Dept.,Southwest Airlines, at Chicago, IL

Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 99-100.

18 Testimony of Diane Duval, Corporate Benefits Manager, Lotus Development Corporation at Washington,

D.C. Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 25.
80

A Workable Balance

2. Employees’ Knowledge of the FMLA

Employees, in general, are far less informed than employers about the FMLA, as

well as about their individual eligibility for job-protected leave. Overall, 55.5 percent of employees have heard of the FMLA. This includes 58.2 of employees

working at FMLA-covered worksites and 48.5 percent of employees at non-covered worksites.19

The Employee Survey finds that salaried employees are more likely than hourly

employees, or employees paid by commission or piecework to have learned about

the FMLA (see Appendix E, Table 4.K). Thus, 63.3 percent of salaried employees

F I G U R E 4 . 1 1

How Employees Learned About FMLA

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. 54,921,448 respondents are not included in this table

because they report no knowledge of the FMLA.

MEDIA COWORKERS EMPLOYER FAMILY MEMBER UNION UNKNOWN

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% 67.5%

4.8%

23.3%

2.0% 0.8% 1.5%

19 Katherine A. McGonagle, et al. Commission on Leave Survey of Employees on the Impact of the Family

and Medical Leave Act, (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of

Michigan, October 1995), p. 25, Table 6.2.2a.
81

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

have heard of the Act, compared with 50 percent of hourly wage employees and

42.9 percent of employees paid by piecework or on commission. Union members

are also more likely to have heard of the Act, with 60.3 percent of union members

having heard of the FMLA, compared with 54.7 percent of non-union members.

Employees with higher educational levels are also more likely to have heard of the

Act. Specifically, 70.4 percent of employees with four years of college or more

have heard of the Act, compared with 59.1 percent with some college education,

41.7 percent of high school graduates and 27.2 percent of employees with less than

a high school education.

The Employee Survey finds that employees from all demographic groups are most

likely to have learned about the FMLA through the media, and the next most

likely source of information on the Act is their employers (See Figure 4.11). A

greater proportion of employees who are leave-takers (who took leave for a reason

covered by the Act), (27.5 percent) have heard about the FMLA through their

employers than did other employees in the sample. Leave-takers are comparatively less likely (61.1 percent compared with 69 percent for other employees) to

have heard of the Act through the media (see Appendix E, Table 4.L).

In sum, the media is the chief source of information for employees about the Act.

The employer serves as the second most important source, although this source of

information is significantly less important than the media. Only a very small number of employees have heard of the Act through their co-workers, their union or a

family member.

The hearing testimony corroborates the findings from the Employee Survey that

while some employees learned about the FMLA and their eligibility for leave through

their employer,20 others learned about it through other sources, such as the news,21

their spouse22 or their union.23 Employee Velma Parness testified that she was able

20 Testimony of Walter Fish at Washington DC Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public

Hearing Transcript, p.40; Testimony of Ann Daniels at San Francisco, CA, Hearing, June 26, U.S.

Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 24-25; Testimony of Lori Solberg at Chicago, IL,

Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 135.

21 Testimony of Kenneth Weaver at Chicago, IL Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public

Hearing Transcript, p. 38.

22 Testimony of Christie Sens at Washington, DC Hearing, August 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave

Public Hearing Transcript, p. 36.

23 Testimony of Carol Griffin at San Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave

Public Hearing Transcript, p. 84; Testimony of Albert R. Burns at Chicago, IL Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S.

Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 78-9; Testimony of Patricia O’ Connell, at Chicago, IL,

Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 38.
82

A Workable Balance

to obtain a copy of the Act from her personnel manager, but “the university is such

a huge bureaucracy that nobody was willing to take responsibility for giving [her]

an answer.” As a result, she “did it on [her] own.”24 Employee Patricia Connell

noted: “In the past when I had requested unpaid time from my job, it had been

given reluctantly and with a concern that [the employer] might be setting a bad

precedent.” This time, however, “[a]rmed with the [Act], I approached my employer and asked for periodic leave to allow me to travel back and forth to Pennsylvania once a month” to assist her mother with chemotherapy sessions. This time,

Ms. Connell recounted, she had “nothing to fear.” 25 Employee Kevin Knussman

said that there were no postings of FMLA benefits26 and that he experienced difficulty in obtaining information about the benefits to which he may have been entitled. Mr. Knussman believes that increased efforts are needed to educate responsible parties, such as personnel managers and attorneys, “on the benefits guaranteed under the FMLA legislation.”27

Other testifying employees reported that their employers did inform them about

the FMLA, and that they assisted them in using it. Joseph Tully recalled that

when he needed time off to care for his hospitalized mother, he called his department director and asked if there “was any way I could have some excused unpaid

time off from work. He then told me about the FMLA and [the employer’s] policy.

When he mentioned it, I remembered reading the memo from human resources

about it, and I remember seeing the poster in the lunch room. However, until [the

department director] reminded me of it, I hadn’t fully realized it would apply to my

own situation. Therefore, I was greatly relieved to learn that FMLA would allow

me to do what I felt in my heart was the right thing to do.” 28 In general, many

employees may not even investigate their leave options until they have a concrete

need to do so.

24 Testimony of Velma Parness at San Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave

Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 20, 55-6.

25 Connell, pp. 19-20. 26 Testimony of Kevin Knussman at Washington, DC Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave

Public Hearing Transcript, p. 106.

27 Ibid, p. 109 28 Testimony of Joseph Tully at Chicago, IL Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public

Hearing Transcript, p. 139.
83

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

E. Rate of Utilization of the FMLA

Both the Employer Survey and the Employee Survey included questions designed

to estimate the number of employees who have actually taken leave “under the

FMLA” (as distinct from any employee who took leave for a reason covered by the

Act, but might or might not have designated it as “FMLA leave”). The two surveys arrive at fairly similar utilization rates.29 The Employer Survey finds that 3.6

per every 100 employees at covered private-sector worksites took leave under the

FMLA, compared with two per every 100 covered and eligible employees at covered public and private-sector worksites who took leave under the FMLA according to the Employee Survey.30

Based on the estimate from the Employe Survey, one to two million employees

almost certainly took leave under the FMLA in the 18 months covered by the

survey. These were workers who met the eligibility criteria in the law and believed

they had indeed taken their leave under the Act. Furthermore, there are others

who probably took leave under the FMLA. They include employees in covered

firms who, while not eligible for one reason or another, were allowed to take leave

under the Act; or employees in covered firms who, whether eligible or not, were

given leave under the FMLA and did not know it. Information from the Employer

Survey, which covered the same 18 months, indicates that an additional 600,000

to 1.3 million workers, just from the private-sector, might have taken leave under

the Act. Thus, in total, it is likely that somewhere between one to just over three

million employees took leave during the period covered by both surveys.

1. Data on Utilization of the FMLA from Employers’ Experience31

The Employer Survey finding that 3.6 percent of employees took leave under the

FMLA, means that somewhere between 1.75 and 2.5 million private-sector employees took leave during the 18-month period of the survey. This estimate varies

somewhat by both the size of the organization, as well as by type of industry (the

SIC category).32 Workers employed at smaller covered worksites with fewer than

29 While the methods used in the Employer and Employee Surveys are quite different - each with their own

strengths and weaknesses - it is interesting that the difference in their estimates of utilization is relatively small.

30 See McGonagle, et al., p. 18 and Cantor, et al., pp. 3-5 31 The Census Survey questions on utilization differ from those asked in the Employer Survey in terms of the

time period covered and the type of leave included. The Census Survey found that almost 20 percent of

firms reported that their employees took some type of leave for a family or medical reason and that the

proportion did not change between 1992 and 1994.

32 Cantor, et al., pp. 3-6, Table 3-3.
84

A Workable Balance

250 employees are less likely to have used FMLA than those at the larger worksites

(2.4 percent compared with 5.3 percent). Employees in the manufacturing sector

are more likely to have used FMLA than those in the retail industries. Thus, 4.4

percent of covered employees in manufacturing took leave, compared with two

percent of retail employees, 3.7 percent of service employees and 3.6 percent of

employees in all other industries.

2. Data on Utilization of the FMLA from Employees’ Experience

The Employee Survey finds that of the household members who had been employed within the 18 months prior to the interview, 16.8 percent had taken leave

for a reason covered by FMLA and an additional 3.4 percent needed to take a leave

but did not.33 The rest neither took leave nor needed to take leave. Of the 16.8

percent of all employees who took leave, about seven percent of that group report

that the leave they took was, in fact, under the FMLA. This seven percent group

of FMLA leave-takers makes up almost 1.2 percent of all employees 18 years and

older who had been employed from January 1, 1994 until the survey interview.

Given that 55 percent of persons in the employee population are employed by

worksites covered by the FMLA and eligible to take leave under the Act, the FMLA

utilization rate among this group of employees is about two percent.34 The Employee Survey reports that the group of leave-takers that can be most definitively

characterized as having taken leave under the FMLA - called “FMLA-users” - are

those who report working for an FMLA-covered employer, report that they personally meet the eligibility requirements, report having heard of the FMLA and

report that they designated their leave as “FMLA leave.” This strict definition of

FMLA-users therefore probably results in a conservative estimate of FMLA use.

Given the statistical variability in this estimate, the number of public and privatesector employees who took FMLA leave falls somewhere between one and two

million according to the Employee Survey.

33 McGonagle, et al., p. 17. 34 Ibid, p. 18.
85

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

F. Compliance Under the FMLA

It is clear from the data concerning employer knowledge of the law and current

employer family and medical leave policies that the great majority of covered employers are knowledgeable about FMLA, and report that they are meeting their

obligations under the Act. The data also show, however, that between one and 12

percent of covered employers are not providing leave for each of the reasons specified in the Act, either due to lack of knowledge or some other reason. The Wage

and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for the

government’s efforts to ensure employer compliance under the Act. This section

provides data from the Wage and Hour Division concerning their activities in

enforcing compliance with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

1. Complaints Made to the Department of Labor

Between August 5, 1993 (effective date of the FMLA) and September 30, 1995

(the end of the fiscal year) the Wage and Hour Division received 3,833 complaints

and has completed compliance actions on a total of 3,650 complaints against employers for alleged failure to comply with the FMLA. More than half the complaints (59 percent) constituted valid complaints where apparent violations of the

FMLA existed. Forty-one percent of the complaints were situations which were

not covered by, or which did not violate, the FMLA.

Of the total number of cases (3,650) acted on by the Wage and Hour Division,

2,897 (79 percent) were handled by conciliation and 753 (21 percent) by investigation. The Wage and Hour Division found that 1,501 cases had no violations:

the employer was not covered (seven percent); the employee was not eligible (16

percent); the complaint was not valid (74 percent); or the case was not valid for

other reasons (three percent).

A total of 2,149 violations was found. The Department of Labor has successfully

resolved 90 percent of the complaints with FMLA violations. As of March 1,

1996, the Department has filed lawsuits in various courts against eight employers

for alleged FMLA violations. Two of those cases were settled, in one case the court

found there were no violations after a full trial and the remaining five cases are

pending. (This does not reflect private action taken by individuals without Department of Labor participation. Employees have the right to private action, and

many private lawsuits have been filed without Department of Labor participation.)
86

A Workable Balance

Of the valid complaints regarding the FMLA, the majority were due to employers

refusing to reinstate leave-takers to their same or equivalent position (see Figure

4.12)

F I G U R E 4 . 1 2

FMLA-Related Complaints Received by

U.S. Department of Labor1

Employer refusal to reinstate employee to same or equivalent position 61%

Employer refusal to grant FMLA leave 19 %

Employer interference with or discrimination against

an employee who has used FMLA leave 13%

Employer refusal to maintain a leave-taking

employee’s group health benefits 7%

Other less than 1%

2. Resolution of Complaints

The Wage and Hour Division was able to successfully resolve the vast majority of

complaints without any type of litigation. For those cases successfully resolved (a

total of 1,934), FMLA leave was granted for 21 percent, adverse action was dropped

for 14 percent, benefits were restored for seven percent (for a total of $93,543),

back-wage payment without job restoration was accomplished for 14 percent (for a

total of $944,898), jobs were restored for 24 percent and jobs were restored with

pay/benefits for 19 percent (for a total of $746,636).

For unresolved cases (a total of 215), job restoration was sought for 92 percent (for

a total of $1,282,463), granting of FMLA leave was sought for five percent, dropping of adverse action was sought for one percent and restoration of health benefits was sought for one percent (for a total of $4,680). Many of these cases are

under review for potential litigation by the U.S. Department of Labor.

1

 These complaints were received between August 5, 1993 and September 30, 1995.
87

Access to Family and Medical Leave Since the Passage of the FMLA

G. Summary

Working for a covered employer: Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. labor

force works for covered employers. Certain sub-groups of America’s labor force

are more likely than others to be among those workers employed at worksites

which are large enough to be covered by the Act. Employees with higher levels of

education and income enjoy the greatest proportion of coverage. Differences also

exist depending on one’s racial or ethnic background, with African Americans

having the greatest proportion of workers employed at covered worksites. Unionized workers are also more likely to work at covered worksites. By contrast, employees from households with the lowest family income levels, employees with

the lowest levels of education, those in the youngest age categories, as well as

Latino employees are the least likely to work for worksites covered by the Act.

Meeting the eligibility requirements: Due to the Act’s employee eligibility requirements concerning length of tenure and number of hours worked, as well as

the Acts requirements on worksite size, only slightly more than half of U.S. workers are actually eligible to take leave under the Act. Not quite one-half of private-sector workers meet the Act’s eligibility requirements. The groups most likely

to lose access to leave because of service and hours-related eligibility requirements are young workers, low-income workers and “never-married” workers.

While only about ten percent of all private-sector U.S. worksites are covered by

the Act, this relatively small proportion actually employs more than half of the

nation’s private-sector employees. Industries with the largest worksites, such as

manufacturing, also have a large number of eligible employees working in a relatively small percentage of worksites.

Employer leave policies: The passage of FMLA has had a substantial impact on

employer leave policy, with two-thirds of covered worksites initiating a policy or

changing some aspect of their policy in order to comply with the Act. Over 90

percent of employers at covered worksites provide up to 12 weeks of leave for

family and medical reasons. The majority of this group also continues health

benefits, and guarantees a job upon return from leave for the reasons specified in

the Act. The proportion of non-covered worksites that offer these benefits on a

uniform basis is much lower. Employers at non-covered worksites are more likely

to offer leave for the employee’s own serious health condition and for maternity
88

A Workable Balance

leave, and less likely to offer paternity leave or leave to care for a family member

with a serious health condition.

Knowledge of FMLA: The employer community is far more knowledgeable about

the law than are employees. Eighty-six and one-half percent of the employers

whose worksites are classified as “covered” by the Act know that the FMLA applies to their location. In contrast, only 58 percent of employees working at covered worksites have heard of the FMLA. Salaried employees and union members

are more likely to have heard of the Act than hourly employees and non-union

members. The media is the key source of employee information.

Utilization: The Employer Survey finds that at covered worksites, the ratio of

employees taking leave under FMLA was 3.6 for every 100 employees. This ratio

varied somewhat by both the size of the organization, as well as by type of industry.

Employees in the manufacturing sector (4.4 percent) are more likely to have used

the Act than are employees in the retail industries, and employees at worksites

with more than 250 employees (5.3 percent) are more likely to use the Act than

are employees at smaller worksites.

The Employee Survey finds that of the household members who had been employed within the 18 months prior to the interview, 16.8 percent had taken leave

for a reason covered by FMLA and approximately 3.4 percent needed to take leave

but did not. Of that 16.8 percent who took leave, approximately seven percent of

that group took leave under the FMLA. Given that roughly 60 percent of all

employees work for covered employers, this means that the overall utilization rate

among employees is two percent. This is a conservative estimate.

Compliance: The vast majority of covered employers are knowledgeable about

FMLA, and are apparently meeting their obligations under the Act. However,

between one and 12 percent of covered employers are still not providing leave for

each of the reasons specified in the Act, either due to lack of knowledge or some

other reason. Further research is needed to ascertain the causes of non-compliance.

90
91 C H A P T E R V

Employers’ and Employees’

Experiences with Leave Since

Enactment of the FMLA

A. Introduction

This chapter discusses patterns of leave-taking based on data from the Employer

and Employee Surveys,1 and from employers’ and employees’ testimony at public

hearings held by the Commission on Leave. The chapter starts with a section that

describes the reasons for which workers took leave and the length of the leave they

took, as well as the needs of employees who wanted to take leave but did not do so.

The next section discusses how the job duties of employees on leave were covered

for the duration of their leave, and the attitudes of employees toward their coworkers who took leave. This is followed by a section on employees’ benefits while

on leave, access to wage replacement, and how leave-takers dealt with lost wages if

their leave was partially paid or unpaid. The last section examines the degree to

which leave-takers returned to their jobs and is followed by a brief chapter summary.

It should be noted that a broad definition of leave-taking is used here, covering not

only absences designated by the employer and employee as leave taken “under the

FMLA,” but also leave taken for reasons covered by the FMLA but possibly designated as sick leave, personal leave, or vacation. In other words, the types of leavetaking reported on in this chapter reflect a combination of leave that is covered by

the FMLA and other voluntary leave policies.

B. Who Needs and Takes Leave?

The Employee Survey shows significant demand for the kinds of leave covered by

the FMLA. Nearly 17 percent of employees surveyed took leave for reasons cov1 See Chapter II for descriptions of the two samples, which are representative, and can be generalized to

the population as a whole.
92

A Workable Balance

ered by the Act between January 1, 1994 and the summer of 1995.2 An additional

3.4 percent stated that they needed but, for a variety of reasons discussed below,

did not take leave. In other words, about 20 percent of the employees surveyed in

both covered and non-covered

worksites either took or needed to take

leave for serious personal medical conditions or family caregiving reasons (see

Figure 5.1).

The demographic profile of leave-takers generally resembles that of the overall employee sample (see Appendix E,

Table 5.A). Nevertheless, there are

some noteworthy contrasts between

the overall survey population and the

leave-taker population. For example,

women are more likely to take leave

than men (58.2 percent compared with

41.8 percent), reflecting in large part

the facts that men do not bear children

and (as discussed below) women are

somewhat more likely to care for infants and some seriously ill family members than men.

In absolute numbers, the largest group of leave-takers is between 35 and 49 years

old (about 40 percent of all leave-takers). However, relative to their representation in the employed population (22.8 percent), employees in the 25-to-34 yearold age group are more likely than other employees to take leave (29.6 percent).

As will be discussed below, this in large part reflects the fact that many employees

who take leave do so to care for young children, and that those in their 20’s, 30’s

and 40’s are most likely to have children who may need care.

2 As discussed in Chapter IV, seven percent of this group are considered “FMLA-users,” that is, they took

their leave under the guidelines of the Act and designated it as such. As the overall number of cases of

FMLA users is small, (n=138) they are not analyzed separately from the leave-taker group. However, their

patterns of leave-taking are comparable to the leave-taker group as a whole in terms of their reasons for

leave, length of leave and extent of pay during leave. see Katherine A. McGonagle, et al. Commission on

Leave Survey of Employees on Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for

Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, October 1995), Tables 6.2.2 (c), (d), and

(e).

F I G U R E 5 . 1

Employee Surveyed by Leave Status

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

EMPLOYED-ONLY

Leave-Needers

Employed-only

Leave-Takers

LeaveNeeders

Employedonly

LeaveTakers

16.8%

79.8%

LEAVE-TAKERS

3.4% LEAVE-NEEDERS

LeaveTakers

LeaveNeeders
93

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

African American and Latino employees have a higher probability of taking leave

than whites. However, this finding does not control for multiple socio-demographic

characteristics, such as education, income and family size. For example, leave is

also more likely to be taken by employees with one or more children than employees without dependents.

There does not seem to be any particular relationship between educational level

and the likelihood of taking leave. Differences in annual family income, however,

are notable: employees with annual family incomes of $20 to 30,000 are more

likely to take leave relative to their representation in the employed population

than employees in other income categories. It is not surprising, then, that hourly

employees (whose incomes tend to be lower than those of salaried employees) are

also more likely to take leave than salaried workers- even though they are less

likely to be covered by the Act.

C. Reasons for Taking Leave

The FMLA covers two major types of leave: medical leave which includes leave

for one’s own serious health condition (excluding maternity-disabilities); and family leave, which includes (a) leave to care for a newborn, a newly-adopted or new

foster child (parental leave)3 and (b) leave to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or

parent. In addition, there is another type of leave which crosses these two major

categories - maternity-disability leave. When taken before childbirth, it is a second type of medical leave. When taken after childbirth, it may combine physical

recovery from a serious health condition and care of a newborn.

Reasons for leave-taking by employees at non-covered worksites closely resemble

those of employees working at covered worksites.4 This suggests that the need for

leave is to a great extent independent of the availability of mandated, job-protected family and medical leave.

Figure 5.2 offers an overall picture of the reasons why employees take leave, including both leave-takers at covered worksites and those employed at non-covered

3 Throughout, leave to care for a newborn child as a category is collapsed with leave to care for a newlyadopted or new foster child, since the incidence of the latter two types of leave is extremely small and

resembles closely that of the former.

4 As noted in Chapter IV, covered worksites are more likely to offer leave for each of the FMLA reasons

than non-covered sites.
94

A Workable Balance

worksites.There is no statistically significant difference regarding the reasons for

taking leave between these two groups of employees. Fifty-nine percent of those

who take leave do so because of their own serious health problems.5 Leave-taking

for one’s own serious health condition is least prevalent among those aged 25 to

34, and more prevalent among workers with relatively lower levels of education,

lower levels of annual family income (especially for employees in the less than

5 It is important to keep in mind that the data do not distinguish between “serious health condition” leaves

taken as regular sick leave - such as the sick days many companies offered before the FMLA was passed -

and “FMLA leave” taken after regular sick days have been exhausted, or in lieu of sick days. See Katherine

A. McGonagle, et al. Commission on Leave Survey of Employees on Impact of the Family and Medical

Leave Act, (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan,

October, 1995), p. 19.

F I G U R E 5 . 2

Leave-Takers at FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered

Worsites, by Reason for Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.

OWN

HEALTH

MATERNITYDISABILITYNEWBORN,

ADOPTED,

FOSTER

CHILD

CARE FOR

ILL CHILD

CARE FOR

ILL SPOUSE

CARE FOR

ILL PARENT

CARE FOR

ILL RELATIVE

OR OTHER

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

FMLA

Covered

Non-Covered

60.0%

56.1%

3.8%

6.9%

13.3% 14.7%

7.6%

10.0%

3.7% 2.6%

8.6%

4.1% 3.1%

5.7%
95

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

$20,000 per year category) and among unionized employees. Hourly employees

are more likely to take leave for their own serious health condition than salaried

workers. Men are more likely than women to take leave for their own serious

health conditions and employees in their 50’s and 60’s are more likely than younger

employees to take leave for this reason (see Appendix E, Tables 5.B and 5.C).

Men and women are taking comparable amounts of parental leave. In addition,

some portion of women’s care of newborns is probably included in their designation of maternity-disability leave. Men are more likely to take spousal care leave

than women, some of which is probably care of their wives before or after childbirth. Women are more likely to care for seriously ill children or parents.6

About one-fourth of leave taken appears to be used by relatively young parents to

care for their children. More specifically, almost one-fifth of all leave taken is

taken by parents caring for newborn, adopted or foster children, and by women as

maternity-disability leave. These two types of leave are taken by 17.1 percent of

employees at covered worksites and 21.6 percent of employees at non-covered

worksites. An additional eight percent of leave is taken by employees needing to

care for their seriously ill children. This category of family leave is taken by 7.6

percent of employees at covered worksites and ten percent of employees at noncovered worksites.

Leave to care for a seriously ill child is most likely to be taken by employees between the ages of 25 and 34, and next most likely to taken by employees in the 18-

to-24 and 35-to-49 age groups. Maternity-disability leave and leave to care for a

newborn child are, not surprisingly, more often taken by married than unmarried

employees. Approximately ten percent of leave is taken by employees who are

typically somewhat older in order to care for seriously ill adult family members.

For example, leave is taken by around three percent of employees in covered and

non-covered worksites to care for seriously ill spouses. About nine percent of leavetakers at covered worksites, and about four percent of employees at non-covered

worksites take leave to care for a seriously ill parent.

Women are somewhat more likely than men to need leave and to take leave, in

large part because only women take leave in order to bear children, and because

6 There is no statistically significant relationship between reason for leave and race/ethnicity. See

McGonagle, et al., p. 20.
96

A Workable Balance

women are more likely than men to take most kinds of family leave. On the other

hand, when men and women take leave, they take comparable amounts of parental leave, and men take more leave to care for a seriously ill spouse - some of which

may be care of their wife before or after childbirth.

D. Length of Leave

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows for unpaid leave of up to 12 weeks. The

great majority of all leave falls within the 12-week period established by the Act.7

7 It should be noted that it is impossible to interpret precisely what employees mean when they report a

certain number of days of leave-taking. Some employees may think of a weeks leave in terms of seven

days, while others may think of five days (the work week) as a weeks leave. For the purposes of this report,

84 days (12 times seven days) means 12 weeks of leave.

F I G U R E 5 . 3

Leave-Takers at FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered

Worksites, by Length of Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

1-7 DAYS 8-14 DAYS 15-28 DAYS 29-84 DAYS 85+ DAYS

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

FMLACovered

NonCovered

40.8%

44.6%

16.8%

13.6%

8.9% 9.1%

21.6%

14.6%

12.5%

19.1%
97

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

The median length of leave for all leave-takers was ten days, with a mean of 37

days. Ten percent of leave-takers were on leave for one to three days; 75 percent

were off the job for fewer than 35 days.8

As shown in Figure 5.3, leave taken by workers in non-covered worksites has a

different distribution than that taken by workers at covered worksites. For example, 30.5 percent of leave-takers at covered worksites were off the job for somewhere between two weeks (15 days) and 12 weeks (84 days), compared with 23.7

percent of leave-takers at non-covered worksites. In addition, periods of leave

that lasted more than 12 weeks were taken by 12.5 percent of employees at covered worksites and 19.1 percent of employees at non-covered worksites.

There are some noteworthy differences in length of leave associated with different

reasons for leave (see Appendix E, Tables 5.D and 5.E). Of those taking leave for

their own serious health problem (excluding maternity-disability), about 51.6 percent of covered employees were on leave for 14 days or fewer, while 53.8 percent of

non-covered employees were on leave for 14 days or fewer. Only 13.6 percent of

covered employees and 20.4 percent of non-covered employees took leave for their

own serious health condition that lasted longer than 12 weeks.

Maternity-disability leave, which represents only four to seven percent of all leave

taken, tends to be longer. For employees in covered worksites, over 40 percent of

such leaves last more than 12 weeks (85 days or more), and for employees at noncovered worksites about 45 percent of leave lasts more than 12 weeks (85 days or

more). This type of leave may cover some time before the birth of a child, as well

as post-partum recovery. Most leave to care for newborns is less than 12 weeks,

with a significant proportion less than one week. Approximately half of both

covered and non-covered employees who took leave to care for a newborn were off

the job for less than a month (28 days), and more than one-third of non-covered

employees took seven days or fewer (37.1 percent).

Most family leave to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, or parent lasts 14 days or

fewer. For example, 90 percent of covered and non-covered employees take 14

days or fewer to care for seriously ill children, as did 80 percent of leave-takers who

are caring for seriously ill parents. Of employees who take leave to care for a

seriously ill spouse, around 80 percent of covered employees take leave that lasts

8 McGonagle et al., p. 19.
98

A Workable Balance

14 days or fewer, and almost 90 percent of non-covered employees take leave that

lasts fewer than 14 days.

The data also reveal some distinctive variations in length of leave among leavetakers (see Appendix E, Table 5.F). Women, as noted above, take longer periods

of leave (with a median length of 15 days, and a mean of 41, as opposed to 10 days

and 33 days, respectively, for men). This is not surprising, given that only women

bear children, and that women are still more likely than men to be responsible for

most kinds of family care. Men, however, take longer periods of leave for their own

serious health conditions. Hourly (as opposed to salaried) workers, and by those

with relatively lower levels of education are more likely to take leave lasting over

28 days.

Length of leave does not appear to vary significantly by income level. However,

salaried employees are more likely to take shorter leave - up to seven days - (47.2

percent) compared with employees who are paid by the hour (39.5 percent).

In sum, most periods of leave are short. The majority of leave to care for a seriously ill child, parent or spouse) lasts fewer than 14 days, as does roughly half of

leave taken to recover from one’s own serious health condition. Parental leave

and maternity-disability leave lasts longer.

E. Employees Who Needed but Did Not Take Leave

According to the Employee Survey, 3.4 percent of employees said that they needed

leave for a reason covered by the FMLA, but did not take it. As noted above (see

Appendix E, Table 5.A), these leave-needers who did not take leave are especially

likely to be African American, to be hourly workers, to have one or more children,

to have low levels of family income and to have some college education, but less

than a four-year degree.

The leave-needers surveyed are most likely to need leave for their own serious

health condition or to care for a sick child, parent or spouse - over 40 percent in

both categories (see Figure 5.4). Almost none of the workers in this sub-sample

needed, but did not take, maternity-disability leave. In addition, almost ten percent of leave-needers report they wanted to take parental leave but did not. Despite demographic variations among leave-needers, it is not possible to link demographic variables on the particular patterns of need, given the small sub-sample
99

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

sizes (see Appendix E,

Table 5.G).

The importance of wage

replacement to leave-takers is underscored by the

finding that among the

employees who needed

but did not take leave,

fully 63.9 percent were

unable to take leave because they could not afford

the associated loss of wages

(see Figure 5.5, next page).

This was far more frequently cited than any

other reason given for not

taking leave by those who

needed leave (see Appendix E, Table 5.H)9.

The fact that almost twothirds of those who needed

but did not take leave cite

financial constraints as a

reason for not taking leave

is consistent with other research in thisarea. For instance, evidence regarding the impact of wage replacement on leave-taking is found

in a study of state parental leave laws. In Rhode Island, which had both Temporary Disability Insurance(TDI) and a new leave law, the population of women with

household incomes under $20,000 per year who took less than six weeks of leave

after childbirth dropped to zero percent. This compared with an average of 19

percent for similarly-situated women in three states with no TDI coverage (that is,

9 It is also noteworthy that only nine percent of males reported that their employer denied their leave

request, while 19 percent of female leave-needers cited this as a reason for not taking leave. While this subpopulation is too small to allow for inferences of statistical significance, the Employee Survey notes the need

for further research to determine whether there is a significant relationship between sex and being denied a

leave request. McGonagle, et al., p. 23.

F I G U R E 5 . 4

Reason for Needing Leave Among Employees

Who Needed but Did Not Take Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.

OWN

HEALTH

MATERNITY CARE FOR

NEWBORN

ADOPTED,

FOSTER CHILD

CARE FOR

ILL CHILD,

SPOUSE, OR

PARENT

CARE FOR ILL

RELATIVE OR

OTHER

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

43.7%

0.5%

8.4%

44.7%

10.2%
100

A Workable Balance

no temporary wage replacement) for maternity-disability leave.10 In other words,

having at least partial wage replacement plays an important role in making it possible - especially for low-income women - to take maternity disability leave at all,

and to take longer periods of leave.

10 James T. Bond et al., Beyond the Parental Leave Debate: The Impact of Laws in Four States, (New York:

Families and Work Institute, 1991).

F I G U R E 5 . 5

Reasons for Not Taking Leave Among All Leave-Needers(1)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.

(1)Leave-needers constitute 3.4% of the employee sample, see Appendix E, Table 5.A.

MIGHT

LOSE JOB

MIGHT

HURT

JOB

ADVANCEMENT

MIGHT

LOSE

SENIORITY

NOT

ELIGIBLE

EMPLOYER

DENIED

REQUEST

COULDN’T

AFFORD

WANTED

TO SAVE

LEAVE TIME

WORK TOO

IMPORTANT

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

29.2%

22.0%

14.1% 13.9%

9.9%

63.9%

27.5%

39.4%
101

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

F. Expectations of Needing Leave Within the Next Five Years

As noted above, over 16 percent of employees surveyed took leave for a reason

covered by the FMLA within the year-and- a-half period covered by the Employee

Survey. However, as shown in Figure 5.6, about forty percent of all the employees

state they are “very likely”

or “somewhat likely” to

need to take leave for an

FMLA reason sometime

within the next five years

(15.4 percent of men and

20.8 percent of women

thought it “very likely;

19.6 percent of men and

23.7 percent of women

said it was “somewhat

likely”). Combining the

categories “very likely”

and “somewhat likely” to

need leave, the projected

need for leave appears to

be somewhat greater for

women than men. (see

Appendix E, Table 5.I).

To the extent that employees who project a need for

leave within the next five

years are able to attach reasons for which they would need leave, three noteworthy

patterns emerged (see Appendix E, Table 5.J). First, not surprisingly, the proportion of employees projecting a need for leave for their own serious health condition increaseswith age; those over 65 years old are about four times as likely as the

total population to project needing leave within the next five years for this reason.

Second, notwithstanding the fact that parental leave (to care for a newborn) is

taken in about equal proportions by men and women leave-takers, women are

about twice as likely as men to project needing leave for this reason within the

next five years. Third, the most frequently cited reason for a projected need for

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

F I G U R E 5 . 6

Likelihood of Needing Leave Over the Next

Five Years Among All Employees

SOMEWHAT LIKELY

Very Likely

Somewhat Likely

Somewhat Unlikely

Very Unlikely

Very Likely

Somewhat

Likely

Somewhat

Unlikely

Very

Unlikely

17.9%

21.5%

34.6%

26.0%

VERY UNLIKELY

VERY LIKELY

SOMEWHAT

UNLIKELY
102

A Workable Balance

leave in the future is to care for a seriously ill parent. Moreover, the projected need

for eldercare leave differs across demographic categories. Women are more likely

than men to project a need for eldercare leave. Finally, employees in the highest

education and income categories are more likely than those with less education

and income to project needing leave to care for seriously ill parents.

G. Methods Used To Cover Work

In trying to understand the patterns of leave-taking among employed Americans,

it is important to consider what is happening in the workplaces of leave-takers

while they are away from their jobs. Both employers and employees have raised

concerns about how and whether the work of leave-takers would be covered during their absences. Both the Employee and Employer Surveys provide data that

illuminate this issue.

1. The Employee Perspective

The Employee Survey suggests that by

far the most prevalent method used by

employers to cover the work of employees who took leave is to assign their

work temporarily to their co-workers.

Figure 5.7 shows the percentage of

leave-takersciting different methods of

covering their work while they were on

leave. The prevalence of assigning the

work of leave-takers to other workers

holds across all demographic variables

(see Appendix E, Table 5.K).

Women are twice as likely as men to

have their work covered by temporary

replacements (20.7 percent compared

with 9.1 percent). African American

leave-takers are more likely than those

in the other racial groups to have their

work covered by temporary replaceF I G U R E 5 . 7

Methods Used to Cover Work of Leave-Takers While They

Were Off the Job (As Reported by Employees)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

OTHER

METHODS

OTHER

EMPLOYEES

TEMPORARY

REPLACEMENT

PERMANENT

REPLACEMENT

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% 67.5%

15.8%

5.9%

11.4%
103

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

ments while they are on leave. Employees between 18 and 34 years old are more

likely to have their work covered by permanent replacements (10.9 percent and

7.3 percent, compared with two to five percent of employees of other ages).

Those in the highest family income category ($75,000 or more per year) and those

with the highest levels of education (BA or more) are least likely to have their

work covered by co-workers, and most likely to cite “other” methods of work coverage. This is not surprising in light of the fact that high levels of income and

education are positively correlated with

the likelihood of holding managerial or

professional positions. These employees

are less likely to have co-workers who can

cover their work, and are harder to replace

either temporarily or permanently. These

employees are also more expensive to replace, given that the training of new employees for higher-skilled positions takes

longer and is more costly than training

employees for lower-skilled positions. Not

surprisingly, then, salaried employees are

less likely than hourly workers to have

their work assigned to other employees

while they are on leave, or to be permanently replaced by their employers.

Employees in the lowest income category

(family income below $20,000 per year)

are most likely to state that permanent

replacements were hired to cover their

work. This probablyreflects the fact that

lower-income workers are likely to be

lower-skilled as well, thus easier and less

costly to replace.

Despite the fact that the most common

method of covering the work of leave-takers is to assign work to co-workers, as illustrated by Figure 5.8, the attitude of nonleave-taking employees toward leave is

F I G U R E 5 . 8

Attitudes of Employees Concerning

the Family and Medical Leave Act

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: The employees who were asked these questions are all non-leave-taking employees.

Every employee should be

able to have up to 12

weeks of unpaid leave in a

year from work for family

and medical problems

Having to provide

employees with up to 12

weeks of unpaid leave in a

year for family and medical

problems is an unfair

burden to employees’

coworkers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Agree

Disagree

70.9%

29.1%

45.3%

54.7%
104

A Workable Balance

generally positive. A slight majority of employees who did not take leave (55

percent) feel that having up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave available to

all employees would not pose “an unfair burden” on the co-workers of employees

taking leave. More than two-thirds (70.9 percent) of employees agreed that “every employee should be able to have up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a year from

work for family and medical problems.” That is, while employees clearly feel some

concern about the possibility of having their own workloads increase as a result of

their co-workers taking leave, most favor having 12 weeks of leave available to all

employees for family and medical reasons.

2. The Employer Perspective

The Employer Survey results also suggest that assigning work to other employees is the most common method of covering

leave-takers’ job responsibilities (see Figure 5.9).

About 70 percent of employers report having used

this method. The Employer Survey suggests a

higher incidence of hiring

of temporary replacements

for leave-taking workers

than does the Employee

Survey (37.4 percent). A

significant percentage also

report that leave-taking

employees worked at

home (20.1 percent).

The Employer Survey reveals some notable differences acrossindustrial sectors as to methods used to cover leave-takers work while

they are on leave (see Appendix E, Table 5.L). Fully 87.5 percent of employers in

F I G U R E 5 . 9

Method Used to Cover the Work of Leave-Takers

While They Were off the Job (As Reported by Worksites)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.

OTHER

EMPLOYEES

TEMPORARY

REPLACEMENT

PERMANENT

REPLACEMENT

PUT WORK

ON HOLD

EMPLOYEE

WORK AT

HOME

OTHER

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

69.4%

37.4%

9.1%

32.9%

20.1%

2.6%
105

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

manufacturing, but only 61 percent of those in services, state that they use other

employees to cover the work of leave-takers. Employers from the retail sector are

most likely to cite the use of permanent replacements, and those in manufacturing

are especially likely to “put work on hold.”

Size differences also emerge in the results of the Employer Survey with regard to

how worksites cover the work of leave-takers (see Appendix E, Table 5.M). For

instance, while only 61.8 percent of sites with fewer than ten employees use other

employees to cover the work of leave-takers, between 96 and 99 percent of larger

employers (those with 50 employees or more) do so. (A smaller number of employees may make it harder to spread around the work of leave-takers.) Also noteworthy is the fact that in worksites with 50 employees or more, the use of temporary replacements is especially prevalent. Finally, the smallest employers - with

fewer than ten employees - are the most likely to put work on hold.

H. Continuation of Benefits and Wage Replacement During Leave

1. Continuation of Benefits

The Family and Medical Leave Act requires employers to continue health insurance (but not other benefits) during periods of leave for family or medical reasons.

Both the Employer and Employee Surveys queried respondents on their practices

and experiences with the continuation of benefits.

Over 95 percent of covered worksites report the continuation of health benefits

during employee leave for FMLA reasons (see Figure 5.10, next page).11 The percentage of non-coveredworksites that continue health benefits is lower across the

board. For example, 86.3 percent of non-covered worksites continued health benefits for maternity-disability reasons while 69 percent continued health benefits

for family leave (see Appendix E, Table 5.N).

While a large majority of leave-taking employees report that their benefits were

continued, nine percent state they lost some form of benefit.12 Of those losing

11 The fact that this figure is not 100 percent probably reflects a combination of employer non-compliance

and the fact that some employees at covered worksites do not meet the eligibility requirements of FMLA and

therefore are not guaranteed health insurance if they take leave.

12 McGonagle, et al., p. 21.
106

A Workable Balance

benefits, one-third lost their health insurance, which covered employers are required to provide for eligible employees during periods of leave. These findings

mirror fairly closely what covered worksites report in the Employer Survey (see

Appendix E, Table 4.E).

Non-whites, those with one or more children and non-salaried employees are especially likely to report having lost benefits.13 Salaried employees and employees

with partial or full wage replacement are comparatively unlikely to lose benefits.

13 Robert Groves and Katherine McGonagle, “Talk on the FMLA Employee Survey,” Presentation at the

Workshop on Family Leave, sponsered by the Board on Children and Families, National Academy of

Sciences, October 23, 1995, p. 50 of handout.

F I G U R E 5 . 1 0

Continuation of Health Benefits During Leave:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites (1)

SOURCE: WESTAT, INC. TABUATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages in table refer to worksites that make up to 12 weeks of leave available (or that it depends on circumstances).

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.

OWN HEALTH(2) MATERNITYDISABILITY(2)CARE FOR A

 NEWBORN (2)

CARE FOR

ADOPTED OR

 FOSTER CHILD(2)

CARE FOR ILL

CHILD, SPOUSE,

OR PARENT (2)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FMLACovered

NonCovered

95.3%

77.9%

96.3%

86.3%

95.7%

72.5%

95.8%

75.9%

95.2%

69.0%
107

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

Employees who took leave for maternity-disability and infant care are less likely to

lose benefits while on leave than those who took leave for other reasons.14

2. Wage replacement

While the FMLA does provide leave with full job protection, aimed at ensuring

employment security for covered employees, the Act does not require employers to

replace any of the wages lost by a leave-taker. However, an eligible employee may

elect, or an employer may require an employee, to substitute accrued paid leave

(i.e. vacation leave, personal leave or sick leave) for any portion of the 12 weeks of

unpaid FMLA leave. This section presents data from both the Employer and Employee Surveys on various measures to replace some or all of the wages of leavetaking employees. It also presents data on how leave-taking workers cover their

lostincome, to the extent that they lose income while they are on leave.

To interpret the findings correctly, it is important to reiterate that neither survey

distinguished between wage replacement specifically for family and medical leave,

on the one hand, and pay for personal leave, sick leave or vacation, on the other

hand. Thus, it must be inferred that the wage replacement reported in both surveys in large measure reflects personal, sick and vacation pay (traditional and longstanding employee benefits in many companies), as opposed to pay specifically

designated for newer types of leave, such as parental and family leave (provided by

the FMLA). Further research is needed to clarify the specific sources and types of

voluntary wage replacement received by some FMLA leave-takers.15

a) Extent of Wage Replacement

A significant percentage of leave-taking employees (46.7 percent) report that they

received full wage replacement, and an additional 19.6 percent report they received partial pay during their leave. Here, as in other dimensions of comparison,

worksite coverage by the Act may make a difference (see Figure 5.11, next page).

Fully 51.9 percent of those working in covered worksites received full pay while on

leave, and 21.5 percent received partial wage replacement16 (See Appendix E, Tables

5.O and 5.P). The remaining 26.6 percent report that they received no wage

14 Ibid. 15 See Kirsten S. Wever, Assessing Temporary Wage Replacement for Family and Medical Leave (Report

commissioned by The Commission on Leave, October 1995) for a discussion of the extent of voluntary

wage replacement before the Act’s passage.

16 As noted in the Employee Survey, the relationship between working for a covered employer and receiving

some wage replacement is statistically significant.
108

A Workable Balance

replacement whatsoever. By contrast, over half of the employees working at noncovered sites received no wage replacement at all. The difference in the availability of wage replacement to employees working in covered and non-covered worksites

holds true across different reasons for leave-taking.

Those at covered worksites taking leave for their ownserious health condition are

most likely to have had full or partial wage replacement (probably in large measure

sick pay). There is a statistically significant relationship between the reason for

taking leave and the likelihood of receiving wage replacement: maternity-disability leave tends to be unpaid or partially paid, while all other types of leave are

significantly more likely to be fully paid.17 While the source of wage replacement

17 McGonagle et al., p. 21.

F I G U R E 5 . 1 1

Leave-Takers: Extent to Which Leave Was Paid

(FMLA-COVERED AND NON-COVERED WORKSITES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

PAID FULLY PAID PARTIALLY UNPAID

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

51.9%%

32.6%

14.4%

21.5%

53.0%

26.6%

FMLACovered

NonCovered

FULLY PAID PARTIALLY PAID UNPAID
109

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

for most kinds of leave is probably either sick pay, vacation days or both, the source

of wage replacement for maternity-disability leave-takers is probably either state

Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) (available in five states, including the populous states of California, New York and New Jersey) or a disability insurance plan

voluntarily provided by some private sector employers.18

Given that the Act does not require employers to replace leave-taking workers’

wages, at first glance it appears surprising that a significant proportion of those

taking parental and family leave receive some wage replacement. However, as

noted, some - possibly most - of this wage replacement is in the form of sick, personal or vacation pay applied during periods of family and parental leave.19 In

some cases, employees are able to work with their employers to put together “packages” that combine FMLA and other sorts of leave with some wage replacement

measures.

There are some noteworthy demographic variations as to the likelihood that a

leave-taker will receive wage replacement (see Appendix E, Table 5.Q). Over 75

percent of salaried employees receive full wage replacement. Unionized employees, those with the highest levels of household income and education and those

between 50 and 64 years of age are also especially likely to receive wage replacement. Close to half the youngest employees and those with annual family incomes

of less than $20,000 received no pay. This is alsotrue for between 42 and 46 percent (depending on the group) of Latinos, hourly employees and those with no

college education.

The most striking difference as to employees’ level of wage replacement while on

leave is found with respect to education. The likelihood of an employee’s having

received full or partial wage replacement increases sharply as education level rises.

While about one-third of leave-takers with a high school education or less are fully

paid during leave, 63.7 percent of those with a college degree or more are fully paid

during leave.

18 The Employee Benefits Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,

distinguishes between long-term disability insurance plans provided to 26 percent of employees, and

sickness and accident insurance plans provided to 26 percent of full-time employees in small private-sector

establishments and 44 percent of full-time employees in medium and large private-sector establishments.

19 For example, some state governments and many “family-friendly” companies allow employees to use up

their own sick and/or vacation time and pay in order to care for ill family members.
110

A Workable Balance

The relationship between the level of wage replacement and income closely parallels the findings with respect to education. While 79 percent of those with household incomes of $75,000 per year or more received full or partial wage replacement, fully 50 percent of employees with incomes of $20,000 per year or less received any pay during their leave. In other words, lower- skilled, poorer workers

are far less likely to have wage replacement. Consistent with this is the finding

that hourly employees, who are more likely to have lower incomes and lower levels

of education, are four times as likely as salaried leave-takers to report receiving no

pay during their leaves.

Several other noteworthy differences emerge with regard to wage replacement.

Men are more likely to receive full pay during their leave than women (53.5 percent of men, compared with 41.7 percent of female leave-takers). Older workers

(those 50 to 64 years old) are also more likely than younger employees (those 18 to

24 years old) to receive full or partial wage replacement(81.6 percent compared

with 50.9 percent).20 As noted, Latino leave-takers are less likely than those in all

other racial/ethnic categories to receive full orpartial wage replacement while on

leave.

b) Measures Used to Cover Lost Income During Leave-Taking

As the previous section makes clear, while most leave-takers receive some wage

replacement while on leave, many, and in some demographic groups, most, do not.

This raises the question of how these employees make ends meet on significantly

reduced budgets during periods of leave. Figure 5.12 shows that “limiting extras”

and reliance on savings are the methods most commonly used by leave-takers who

are partially paid or unpaid to cover lost wages.

Not surprisingly, differences in family income are the most reliable predictor of

differences in how employees cope with the loss of income during periods of leave

(see Appendix E, Table 5.R). Employees with higher family incomes are much less

likely than low-income leave-takers to borrow money, to go on public assistance,

to limit “extras,” or to put off paying bills. Those with family incomes of $20,000

per year or less are at least four times more likely than those with higher incomes to

20 This makes sense in light of the fact that men and older employees are more likely to have higher levels of

income and education, more likely to be salaried employees, and more likely to take leave for a serious

health condition.
111

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

go on public assistance in order to deal with lost income (20.9 percent compared

with about five percent or less in all other income categories).21

As education rises, it becomes easier for leave-takers to cover lost wages. For instance, those with at least four years of college education are less likely to put off

paying bills or cut leave short. Conversely, those with a high school education or

less are more likely to limit extras and go on public assistance. Unionized employees are less likely to cut leave short or go on public assistance than non-union

employers in order to cover wages lost due to leave-taking.

F I G U R E 5 . 1 2

Leave-Takers(1): Methods of Covering

Lost Wages Due to Leave-Taking

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because categories are not mutually exclusive.

(1)Only leave-takers who report they were partially paid or unpaid during leave were asked about

methods of covering lost wages.

SAVINGS

EARMARKED

FOR LEAVE

OTHER

SAVINGS

BORROW

MONEY

PUBLIC

ASSISTANCE

LIMIT

EXTRAS

PUT OFF

PAYING

BILLS

CUT LEAVE

SHORT

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

43.7% 40.6%

25.1%

9.0%

75.5%

38.8% 40.3%

21 While further analyses of these data are needed to determine precisely what demographic characteristics

cluster around this outcome, it seems probable that a sizable proportion of this group is accounted for by

single earner families with children.
112

A Workable Balance

Differences also emerge with regard to other demographic variables. Based on

employees’ reports of their strategiesfor covering lost wages, white leave-takers are

less likely to rely on savings to cover wages than those in other racial/ethnic categories. Women are more likely than men to go on public assistance, to limit

extras and put off paying bills. The youngest leave-takers are more likely to go on

public assistance and borrow money than are older workers. In addition, women

are more likely than men to cut leave short. As noted in the Employee Survey, the

relationship between age, sex and certain methods of covering lost wages (notably,

going on public assistance) is statistically significant.22

I. Job Protection and Returning to Work

Some employers have expressed concern that a federal leave law would lead to

abuses by leave-takers, particularly with regard to decisions by employees not to

return to work. The Family and Medical Leave Act requires that workers be granted

their same or equivalent jobs with equivalent pay, benefits and other terms and

conditions of employment when returning to work following their leave. Employers have been concerned that there is no guarantee for them that leave-takers will

actually return. Employees have been concerned that, without job guarantees,

taking family and medical leave puts their jobs at risk. Both the Employee and

Employer Surveys shed light on this issue.

1. Data from Employers

The Employer Survey shows that most worksites report having all leave-takers

return to their jobs (67 percent).23 Of the 33 percent of employers reporting an

employee not returning to work, the great majority (86.6 percent) had only one

leave-taker not return to work, 7.2 percent had two leave-takers not return, and

6.2 percent had more than two leave-takers not returning to work.24

When an employee takes leave and fails to return to work, the employer has the

right under the Act to reclaim health insurance benefit payments made during the

22 McGonagle, et al., p. 22. Further analysis would help clarify the extent to which certain demographic

characteristics are associated with certain methods of covering lost wages.

23 David Cantor, et al., The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers, (Rockville,

MD: Westat Inc, 1995) p. 4-14, Table 4-12.

24 Ibid, p. 4-14, Table 4-13.
113

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

period of leave. However, only about seven percent of employers in this category

(that is, seven percent of the 33 percent, or 2.3 percent) report having pursued this

course.25

2. Data from Employees

The great majority (84 percent) of leave-takers stated that they returned to work

at their same employers, while six percent did not return (this included leavetakers who report taking a job with a new employer and those leaving the labor

force) and ten percent remain on leave (See Figure 5.13). There are several factors

that could account for employees not returning to their same employer, for instance, employees may not be offered their jobs back, or they may choose not to

return.

F I G U R E 5 . 1 3

Leave-Takers Returning/Not Returning to Work

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

(1)“Did not return” includes leave-takers who left the workforce and those who went to a new employer

after their leave.

Returned to Same Employer

Did Not Return

Still on Leave

Returned

to Same

Employer

Did Not

Return

Still on

84.0% Leave

10.4%

5.6%

RETURNED TO SAME EMPLOYER

DID NOT RETURN(1)

STILL ON LEAVE

25 Ibid, p. 4-14, Table 4-14.
114

A Workable Balance

Employees in the lowest family income category who had returned to work (less

than $20,000 annually), and leave-takers with no wage replacement at all, are

most likely not to return to work to the same employer (see Appendix E, Table

5.S). This suggests that a leave-taker’s level of compensation influences the decision about whether to return to work. Conversely, employees with higher family

incomes, working at covered worksites and receiving full wage replacement are

more likely to return to their same employers. Not surprisingly, then, salaried

employees and unionized workers are more likely to return to their employers.

Leave-takers with full wage replacement are far more likely than those with either

partial or no wage replacement to return to their employers after leave. Indeed,

94.2 percent of those leave-takers who were fully paid, (compared with 73.8 percent of those who were partially paid and 76.5 percent of those who were not paid

at all) returned to their same employer after taking leave.

Finally, people working at worksites that are not covered by the Act are more

likely than employees at covered worksites to not return to the same employer

(10.9 percent compared with 1.9 percent at covered sites). This difference is statistically significant even taking into account variables like sex, age and income,

which influence whether or not employees return to work, and whether or not

they return to their old employer. Thus it appears that non-covered employers

may face higher rates of employee turnover because they do not offer all the benefits associated with job-protected family and medical leave under the new law.

J. Summary

The Employer and Employee Surveys, together with the testimonial evidence from

the Commission’s public hearings, clearly indicate that family and medical leave

makes a significant difference to employees trying to sustain their family and work

lives at times when their own serious health problems or the needs of their dependents become pressing.

The demand for leave among employees is significant, and the FMLA expands

leave access to workers who might not otherwise be able to take leave, and might

therefore have to make significant sacrifices at home, or to lose their jobs in order

to deal with family and medical needs. More than that, the Act creates the conditions that make leave possible for many employees by providing job guarantees
115

Employers’ and Employees’ Experiences with Leave Since Enactment of the FMLA

andrequiring employers to continue health benefits to employees on leave. Leavetakers report taking leave for a variety of reasons: their own serious health condition (59 percent); care for a newborn/adopted child (almost 15 percent); and care

for an ill child, parent, or spouse (almost 20 percent). The reasons for leave-taking

by employees at covered and non-covered worksites are very similar, suggesting

that the need for leave is independent of the availability of job-protected family

and medical leave.

The Employee Survey indicates that some employees need leave, but are still unable to take it. Over 40 percent of this group report needing leave for their own

serious health condition or leave to care for a seriously ill family member. The

major reason this group cites for not taking leave is financial. Sixty-four percent

report they could not afford to take the leave they needed.

The Employee Survey also illustrates that the demand for leave is likely to continue to be substantial: among those who had neither taken nor needed to take

leave, two-thirds of employees anticipate that they are very likely or somewhat

likely to need leave at some time in the next five years. These projections highlight a growing need for eldercare: the reason for leave most likely to be cited by

those anticipating a need for leave was to care for a seriously ill parent.

The Employer and Employee Surveys indicate that employees who need leave do

not, in general, need very long leave. Most periods of leave were short, and were

taken by employees who needed time off from work for reasons connected to their

own serious health problems. Almost all leaves taken fell within the Act’s 12-

week period. Women’s leave was somewhat longer because of the medical and

infantcare requirements of giving birth, while men took longer leave than women

for their own serious health conditions. Significantly, among leave-takers, men’s

role in family caregiving, across both categories of family leave (parental leave and

leave to care for a seriously ill parent, child, or spouse), is currently comparable to

that of women (excluding women’s leave for maternity-disability).

Most leave-takers have their work covered by co-workers while they are on leave,

though many employers also state that they hire temporary replacement workers

to help cover the job duties of leave-takers. A majority of those employees who

did not take leave do not feel burdened by having to cover the work of leavetakers, and well over two-thirds believe that every employee should have up to 12

weeks a year of unpaid family and medical leave.
116

A Workable Balance

Most leave-takers receive some wage replacement while they are on leave. Since

unpaid leave can be a significant burden for workers, the existence of some voluntary wage replacement probably makes a profound difference in many employees’

experiences of taking leave. This is not to diminish the importance of job-protected unpaid leave to many employees, but rather to point out that the existence

of some wage replacement, regardless of the source, is extremely important in making it possible for many employees to take leave in the first place.

As noted above, much of the wage replacement captured by these two surveys

either includes or consists entirely of forms of income that are independent of the

FMLA, for instance vacation pay, disability insurance or sick pay. It therefore

seems likely that some substantial portion of employers’ financial outlays (in the

form of wage replacement for leave) would occur even in the absence of the Act.

Additional research and cost projections regardingwage replacement must take

these pre-existing forms of wage replacement into account.

Most covered employers continue to provide health benefits to workers while they

are on leave and most offer job-guaranteed leave. However, there appears to be

some level of employer non-compliance on both counts. The great majority of

leave-takers return to work for their old employers after their leave is over, although a small minority does not. Once again, leave-takers at covered worksites

with the lowest levels of family income, in hourly positions and so on, are most

likely not to return to work. Women are slightly more likely than men not to

return to work. This can be attributed to several factors: women are more concentrated in lower-income jobs, infant care is difficult to find and women are still

more likely to have primary responsibility for family caregiving.

The overview of leave-taking presented in this chapter raises many issues about a

series of more specific effects of the Act on employers and employees. The next

two chapters explore these in detail, considering the overall impact of the FMLA

and leave policies, looking first at a variety of costs and benefits to employers (Chapter VI) and second at the experience of leave-taking from the viewpoint of employees (Chapter VII).

118
119 C H A P T E R V I

Assessing the Impact of Family and

Medical Leave Policies on Employers

A. Introduction

This chapter presents data from the Employer Survey, as well as qualitative information obtained through public hearings and supplementary survey data on small

employers, to assess the impact of family and medical leave policies in general, and

of the FMLA in particular, on employers.1 The chapter begins with sections covering administration and the extent to which employers are complying with the

FMLA, its costs, some of its benefits to employers and its effects on business and

employee performance. These are followed by a section that analyzes the effects

on worksites2 with different types of experiences in complying with and implementing the Act. The next section compares the experiences of employers covered by the FMLA with expectations of how the Act would affect worksites not

currently falling under its mandate. The chapter closes with a brief summary and

conclusion.

B. Administration of and Compliance with the FMLA

Among covered worksites, the majority of employers find the additional administrative activities necessitated by the Act either “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to

implement. However, there is variation in assessments across the different types of

administrative activities identified by the survey.

More than 90 percent of covered employers find it “very easy” or “somewhat easy”

to determine whether their worksite is covered by the Act, and to determine em1 See Chapter II for a description of the samples and methods used to gather data on employers. 2 The worksite was the unit of analysis used in the Employer Survey by Westat. Throughout this Chapter we

use the term “worksite,” not the terms firm or company to refer to the location on which the employer data is

based.

Opposite: Top Left: Nell Rivers,

Human Resources Manager, and

Marsha Lawrence, Vice

President, Public and Operator

Services, Bell Atlantic, testifying

at Commission on Leave Public

Hearing, Washington, DC,

August 4, 1995.Top Right: Mary

Ann Thode, President and CEO,

St. Marys Medical Center,

testifying at Commission on Leave

Public Hearing, San Francisco,

CA, June 26, 1995. Bottom:

Denis Thompson, Director,

Human Resources, Dallco

Industries, Inc., testifying at

Commission on Leave Public

Hearing, Washington, DC,

August 4, 1995. Above: Ronald

Compton, Chairman and CEO,

AEtna Life and Casualty

Company, testifying at

Commission on Leave Public

Hearing, Washington, DC,

August 4, 1995.
120

A Workable Balance

ployee eligibility (see Figure 6.1). These employers report having slightly more

trouble with additional record-keeping necessary for the Act and with the coordination of state and federal leave laws, other federal laws and other leave policies -

with between 74 percent and just over 81 percent of employers reporting these

activities to be “somewhat” or “very easy.” A sizable majority of covered worksites

report no problems administering the Act in any one of the categories cited.

Testimony before the Family Leave Commission by various employer representatives confirms the finding that the majority of sites from every size category find

administrative responsibilities under the Act to be “easy” or “somewhat easy” to

carry out (see Appendix E, Table 6.A). Thus, for instance, Diane Duval, CorpoF I G U R E 6 . 1

Ease of Performing FMLA Administrative Activities:

The Impact of FMLA on Covered Worksites

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

DETERMINE

WORKSITE

COVERAGE

DETERMINE

EMPLOYEE

ELIGIBILITY

MAINTAIN

ADDITIONAL

RECORDS

COORDINATE

STATE AND

FEDERAL

LEAVE LAWS

COORDINATE

WITH

OTHER

FEDERAL

LAWS

COORDINATE

WITH

PREEXISTING

LEAVE

POLICIES

MANAGE

INTERMITTENT

USE OF LEAVE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very/

Somewhat

Easy

Very/

Somewhat

Difficult

91.8%

8.2%

92.0%

8.0%

76.0%

24.0%

81.1%

18.9%

74.3%

25.7%

78.9%

21.1%

60.8%

39.2%
121

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

rate Benefits Manager from the Lotus Corporation, a computer software company,

described the modifications in paperwork to comply with the Act as “very minimal.”3

 Ms. Duval also noted that “due to the broad work/family initiatives we

already had in place in 1993, we had only to make modest accommodations to our

existing leave policies in order to comply ... [and] in terms of administering the

program, we have found the U.S. Department of Labor’s model forms extremely

helpful.”4

The area with which covered sites appear to have the greatest difficulty is the

management of intermittent leave under the FMLA. The Act permits eligible

employees to take leave “intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule” under

certain conditions. By its very nature, intermittent leave may require more administration because it offers employers and employees the opportunity to negotiate both the timing and the schedule of the proposed leave. Under the FMLA,

intermittent leave may be taken for the birth of a child or the care of a newborn,

newly-adopted or foster child, if the employer grants the employee’s request for

such a schedule. Leave for a serious health condition (either the employee’s or a

family member’s) may be taken intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule when

“medically necessary.”5

The majority of employers (60.8 percent) find it either “very” or “somewhat easy”

to manage the Act’s intermittent leave provisions. However, 39.2 percent find it

to be either “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.” That is, the proportion finding intermittent leave difficult to administer - while still a minority - is higher than

the percentage reporting difficulties with any of the other administrative aspects of

the law covered in the survey.

The hearing testimony sheds light on why some employers have trouble administering intermittent leave. Elizabeth Pedrick Sartain, a vice president of Southwest

Airlines, testified that the company does “not have any problem with employees

taking long-term leaves of absence. They don’t take it unless they need it.” But

3 Testimony of Diane Duval, Lotus Corporation, at Washington, DC Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S.

Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 77.

4 Ibid, p. 24. 5 An employer may request that an employee support an intermittent leave request for a serious health

condition with certification from the health care provider. Employees must make a reasonable effort to

schedule their foreseeable intermittent leave so as not to disrupt the employer’s operation unduly, subject to

the approval of the health care provider. Employers may assign employees temporarily to alternative

positions with equivalent pay and benefits that better accommodate such recurring periods of intermittent

leave.
122

A Workable Balance

problems arise with intermittent and reduced leave aspects of the law because the

company “control[s its] attendance through a reward and incentive program and

also an attendance control program.”

In this case, the “major administrative

burden ... [is] the increased use of the

intermittent leave for absences that

would have ordinarily been routine

absences that we would have covered

under our sick plan.”6 Another complaint, registered by a representative of

Lotus (also quoted above), was that

while in general the family and medical leave policy under the FMLA was

“extremely manageable,” the “administrative complexities of intermittent

leave” created difficulties in “developing an efficient, automated tracking

mechanism for this type of leave.”7

On the other hand, some testifying

employers found the intermittent leave

provisions to be an asset. Linda Siebert

Rapaport, a manager from First Chicago Bank, for example, described intermittent leave as “extremely important for our working parents who need to take time off, for example, to take their

children for treatments or for their parents as well.” She found intermittent leave

to be a “useful tool along with our emphasis on flexible work arrangements to be

able to gradually return people to work in the most effective way possible.” Here,

the FMLA is seen as “part of a wide range of other family-friendly strategies that

we are using at this time.”8 In further testimony, Elizabeth Carlson, an employer

representative from the National Futures Association, a large manufacturing organization, described in approving terms an employee “who takes intermittent leave

to take care of her husband. I have seen her return to work after spending many

6 Testimony of Elizabeth Pedrick Sartain, Vice President, People Dept., Southwest Airlines, at Chicago, IL

Hearing, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 81,112.

7 Duval, p. 65. 8 Testimony of Linda Seibert Rapaport, Assistant Vice President, First Chicago Bank, at Chicago, IL Hearing,

May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 25-6.

F I G U R E 6 . 2

Leave-Takers: Continuous vs. Intermittent Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Continuous Leave

Intermittent Leave

Unknown

Continuous

Leave

Intermittent

Leave

Unknown

11.5%

4.1%

84.4%

INTERMITTENT LEAVE

UNKNOWN

CONTINUOUS LEAVE
123

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

hours at the hospital with him, caring for him, supporting him, being with him at

a very crucial time.” This representative went on to state: “Particularly with intermittent leave, we work closely with our employees to try and work out a program

that enables them to fulfill their obligations not only to themselves and their family, but also to fulfill their obligations to

our company as well.”9

While some employers have expressed

concerns about the use of intermittent

leave, this type of leave-taking is a small

proportion of leave-taking overall. The

Employee Survey finds that 84 percent of

employees take leave continuously, while

11.5 percent take it on an intermittent

basis (see Figure 6.2). Leave is taken on

an intermittent basis (rather than all at

once) by just under a quarter of leave-takers caring for an ill child or spouse and 17

percent of those caring for an ill parent.

Eleven percent of employees who take

leave to care for their own serious illness

also take leave on an intermittent basis

rather than all at once (see Appendix E,

Table 6.B).

Returning to the broader range of administrative activities associated with the

Act, the survey reveals no noteworthy differences between employers from different industrial sectors. When covered worksites are broken down into size categories - small (having fewer than 50 employees), medium sized (50 to 250 employees) and large (with more than 250 employees) - the data suggest that the degree of

difficulty in administering the Act grows with the size of the worksite (see Appendix E, Table 6.A). The larger the site, the greater degree of difficulty: worksites

with 1,000 employees or more are more likely than those with between 250 and

1,000 employees to report difficulty coordinating the FMLA with pre-existing leave

laws (see Inset 6-1); and over three-fourths of those with 1,000 employees or more

report difficulties implementing the Act’s intermittent leave provisions.

Inset 6-1

Valerie M. Pinkert, Vice President and Manager, Bank of

America

While complying with the principles of the Act has not been a problem,

the administrative aspect of complying with the technical and complex

regulations has proven to be a great challenge. For example, while the

Act encourages employers to go beyond the law in developing their

own policies, employers who have generous leave programs that go

beyond what is required under the law receive no accommodation

under the Act for their further efforts....We also believe that the regulations could be streamlined and modified in ways that would help to

alleviate some of these difficulties.

Testimony of Valerie M. Pinkert at San Francisco CA Hearing, June 26,

1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing.

9 Testimony of Elizabeth Carlson, Director of Human Resources, National Futures Association, at Chicago, IL

Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 35-6.
124

A Workable Balance

In short, smaller covered worksites are more likely than larger ones to find the

administration of the Act relatively easy. On the one hand, this may seem counterintuitive since larger worksites also tend to have larger and more professional human resource management staffs. That is, one might hypothesize that the administration of the Act would be easier in larger worksites, given the well-organized

presence of this function within most large worksites. On the other hand, larger

worksites are also more likely to have leave-takers, to be covered by other laws, to

have pre-existing formal policies regarding leave, and so on. As such, the Act may

require more overall administrative adjustment and realignment at larger worksites.

These factors could account for the finding that larger covered worksites - especially the largest sites surveyed - have more trouble than small and medium-sized

covered worksites with these administrative functions.

The hearing testimony indicates that at least some of the difficulty experienced by

larger employers in administering the Act can be attributed to start-up costs. Valerie

M. Pinkert, the vice president and employee relations manager of Bank of America,

for example, noted that “[b]ecause we’re so large and in 48 states, we have to go

through steps that smaller organizations that are in a couple of states don’t. [In a

small operation, a]ll ten managers can come to a training class. When you’ve got

90,000, how do we best do this in a cost-effective way?”10 Catherine A. Morris, a

human resource manager from ARCO, a large firm in the oil and gas industry,

found it burdensome “mak[ing] sure that every unit everywhere in the country

understands exactly what the Act requires, and is able, then, to do what’s legally

required.” She went on to note that the letter of notification requirements to

employees could be cumbersome, and that “sometimes it’s caused confusion ... with

23,000 employees, the increased paperwork has become very burdensome.”11

The fact that smaller worksites are more likely to manage human resource policies

informally may also partially explain the size differences relating to perceived administrative difficulties. In smaller worksites, administrative difficulties encountered as a result of the Act would most likely be experienced by individual supervisors or managers making leave-related decisions, rather than by a larger formal

department charged with administering the Act.

10 Testimony of Valerie M. Pinkert, Vice President and Manager, Employee Relations, Bank of America, at

San Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 52.

11 Testimony of Catherine A. Morris, Human Resources Manager, ARCO, at San Francisco, CA Hearing,

June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 68,96,102.
125

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

Historically, when federal

standards that affect business administration (especially, but not exclusively,

human resource management issues) are first put

into place, organizations

experience a learning

curve effect. They tend to

have more difficulties administering policies in the

early phases of implementation, and less trouble

over time as the processes

involved are adjusted to fit

the circumstances of a specific organization. Further

research regarding the administrative activities related to the Act five years

or more after its implementation would be useful for assessing how much

of the difficulty reported

in the first two years is due

to “start-up” problems that will diminish over time.

C. Costs to Employers

Covered employers were asked to rate the extent of cost increases they had experienced in four broader areas: general administrative costs; the cost of continuing

health benefits to employees taking leave; costs associated with hiring and training replacements for employees taking leave; and “other” costs. The great majority report no cost increases at all, or only small cost increases, in all four categories

(see Figure 6.3). With respect to administrative costs, 89.2 percent of covered

employers report no increase or only a small increase in costs. Over 90 percent of

covered worksites experience no or small cost increases associated with continuing

F I G U R E 6 . 3

Cost to Employers: Impact of FMLA on Covered Worksites

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

ADMINISTRATIVE

COSTS

BENEFITS

COSTS

HIRING

COSTS

OTHER

COSTS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No/Small

Increase

Moderate/

Large

Increase

89.2%

10.8%

93.3%

6.7%

94.8%

5.2%

98.5%

1.5%
126

A Workable Balance

employee benefits. No or small increases in costs are reported with respect to

hiring and training by 95 percent of employers. Finally, 98.5 percent report no or

small cost increases in “other” areas. Manufacturing establishments are slightly

more likely to report moderate to large increases than the sample as a whole.12

Otherwise sectoral distinctions are not significant.

With regard to size, the larger sites look somewhat different than the smaller sites

(see Appendix E, Table 6.C). In general, the highest costs experienced by covered

employers in all size categories fall into

the category of administrative costs and

the lowest costs fall into the “other costs”

category. With respect to administrative

costs, covered employers with 25 employees or fewer are more likely to report small

cost increases or no cost increases at all

(90.7 to 100 percent) than larger employers.13 Between about 11 and 25 percent

of covered employers with 26 to 250

employees report modest or large increases in administrative costs. Among

the largest employer group, with 1,000

employees or more, 58.3 percent report

small or no cost increases, but 41.7 percent report moderate or large increases

in administrative costs.

Increases in benefits costs are also most

likely to be reported by the largest employers, with 28.9 percent stating they

experience modest or large increases,

compared with 11.2 percent or less of employers with up to 99 employees.

12 David Cantor, et al., The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers, (Rockville,

MD: Westat, Inc., 1995), pp.4-8, Table 4-6.

13 Some employers who have fewer than 50 employees at their worksite are considered “covered” under

the FMLA because of the 75-mile radius rule, and are therefore included in this analysis.

Inset 6-2

Elliott Lehman, Co-Chairman Emeritus, Fel Pro Corporation

There are expenses involved in administering [the Act]. They are not

great. In our case, we estimate that it takes ten percent of one of our

human resource personnel. But there are other concomitant expenses

when trying to deal with a person who takes the leave. How do we

cover them in the plan, what will the supervisors have to do and things

like that.... [which total t]en percent of one person’s time in our human

resources department.

It is estimated, not even including the administrative costs of finding a

replacement, that it takes a year and a half for a [replacement] to get

up to the speed of the person who has left. And that’s all the way

through. And so that is why when we examine these kinds of data

we have to balance them out: What did you have? What does it cost?

What is the cost of the 13 weeks or the 12 weeks, which nobody takes

because - let’s face it - when you have unpaid leave in today’s society,

who can afford to take off that long of time if they have to balance their

own personal budgets?

Testimony of Elliott Lehman at Chicago IL Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S.

Commission on Leave Public Hearing.
127

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

As mentioned above, this size effect - relatively higher cost increases being reported by relatively larger employers - could reflect the likelihood that larger

worksites have more leave-takers, and tend to have formal policies that may require greater time and effort to bring into line with the Act’s requirements. Nell

Rivers, a human resources manager from Bell Atlantic, for instance, testified that

in addition to direct costs, the company has “lost substantial productivity due to

the need to train more than 6000 supervisors” on FMLA and on additional “new

paperwork burdens.”14 Inset 6-2 contains one employer’s testimony at the public

hearings on his experience with costs related to the FMLA.

D. Benefits to Employers

Very few worksites report any significant cost savings (see Appendix E, Table 6.D).

Once accounting for sampling error, only two of the size categories report savings

that are significantly different from zero (five to 99 employees and 251 to 500

employees). Of the cost savings that do exist, there is a slight tendency for the

larger worksites (i.e., 251 to 500 employees) to report more cost savings than the

smaller worksites (i.e., fewer than 250 employees). Indeed, over ten percent of

sites in the 251 to 500 employee size category experience cost savings as a result of

complying with the FMLA (compared with five percent or less of worksites with

fewer than 250 employees). To some extent, these savings may offset some of the

relatively higher level of costs reported by larger sites, as described above.

One benefit noted by several testifying employer representatives is the savings

resulting from reduced employee turnover costs. Ms. Rapaport from First Chicago

Bank, for instance, emphasized that the cost of offering leave is outweighed by the

cost of losing employees who have no access to leave: “... [W]e look at the fact that

to recruit, to source, to hire, to go through the administration, training someone,

bringing them up to speed would probably cost 50 to 150 percent of annual salary.

In this way, we have someone who is coming back who is recommitted who knows

the job, and that is very valuable for us in a business sense.”15 Terri Wolfe, Human

Resources Director at Patagonia, a large clothing manufacturing and sales organi14 Testimony of Nell Rivers, Human Resources Manger, Bell Atlantic, at Washington DC Hearing, August 4,

1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 92.

15 Rapaport, p. 26.
128

A Workable Balance

zation, noting the high replacement cost of even entry-level employees ($15,840)

- to say nothing of senior executives ($89,599) - stated: “If the ethical obligation

we all have as employers isn’t reason enough to support these types of leaves, the

financial impact certainly is. The choice to implement family and medical leave

policies is a matter of priorities.”16

Some employers have found that the Act has helped them to establish uniformity

and consistency in their family and medical leave policies. Thus, Ms. Pinkert, a

Bank of America vice president, testified that even though the organization already provided more benefits than those required under FMLA, the Act provided

“a backbone to go on ... everybody is doing the same thing.” In this case, the

FMLA helped establish specifically “what the procedures would be ... and I think

that’s positive.”17 Further testimony from Ms. Morris, a human resources manager

at ARCO noted “no downside” to providing FMLA benefits, and found it, in fact,

“easier when [the] government passes a law” such as the FMLA.18 Ronald Compton,

CEO of AEtna Life and Casualty Company, testified likewise in support of the

FMLA, noting that the “intent and spirit” have from the beginning been “on the

mark.”19

Several employers testified that the Act provides benefits not only to companies,

but to their employees as well. Mary Ann Thode, President and CEO of St. Mary’s

Medical Center (owned and operated by Catholic Healthcare West), noted for

instance, that the FMLA did not represent a “significant financial burden [or a]

significant administrative headache,” rather serving to “support [our] efforts to

bolster the health of the family, and therefore the community that we serve.” She

described the Act as “cost-effective for us in reducing the emotional stress that

employees feel when someone they care about needs their care.”20

Marsha Brock, the human resources manager at Casto Travel, noted that as a result

of the Act the company has “expanded this benefit to all of our employees regardless of their office size or location [and] ... we have also waived the one-year eligi16 Testimony of Terri Wolfe, Human Resources Manger, Patagonia, at Washington DC Hearing, August 4,

1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 29.

17 Pinkert, pp. 52-3. 18 Morris, pp. 68,96,102. 19 Testimony of Ronald Compton, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AEtna Life and Casualty Company,

at Washington DC Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 19.

20 Testimony of Mary Ann Thode, President and CEO, St. Mary’s Medical Center, at San Francisco, CA

Hearing, June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 10.
129

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

bility for the leave. We felt that a mom who has been with our company for ten

months should have the same right and the same experience with her children as

somebody who has been with the company, say, 15 or 20 years ... The FMLA is, we

believe, in the best interest of the employee and the employer. We feel it is a

dual benefit, and it will promote a productive environment and a strong dedication and loyalty.”21 Rhoma Young, Principal of Rhoma Young and Associates, a

small management consulting company,

described the Act as a useful tool to address performance problems that result

from “stress from the outside world or from

[their] personal life” affecting behavior.

With the Act in place, managers are able

to say to employees: “If you need to go

out on leave to take care of these issues,

we encourage you to do so.”22

Among worksites already providing leave

policies consistent with or more generous

than those required by the Act, the FMLA

may prove beneficial for the additional

reason that these worksites are no longer

at a competitive disadvantage in relation

to other worksites. That is, to the extent

that the Act entails costs, those are now

shared by competing worksites that are

also providing leave benefits because they

are covered under the law. For example, Ms. Wolfe from Patagonia testified that

“the enactment [of the FMLA] has actually leveled the playing field for us...[and]

especially in states outside of California [it has] been very beneficial...”23

21 Testimony of Marsha Brock, Human Resources Manager, Casto Travel, at San Francisco, CA Hearing,

June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 17-8.

22 Testimony of Rhoma Young, Rhoma Young and Associates, at San Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26,

1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 75.

23 Wolfe, pp. 82-3.

Inset 6-3:

Bette Carlson, Director of Human Resources,

National Futures Association

I really feel confident that I speak for all levels of management at NFA

as well as our officers and directors when I say that NFA’s experience

with this leave has been very positive. As you will hear from our four

staff who are here today, this policy benefits employees, because it

allows them a peace of mind without any sense of guilt about shirking

their job responsibility at a time when their energies need to be directed

toward their families or personal lives. Management benefits by

retaining its trained and experienced staff and from the loyalty and

goodwill that the policy engenders among the employees. In my

opinion, the United States of America and all society benefits also by

ensuring positive family experiences.

Beyond providing natural caring and support, families represent the

locus of deepest human experience. Connection to the past and hope

for the future all arise from this nexus. I think that the Family [and]

Medical Leave Act is a significant step towards bringing the United

States employment policy into alignment with these positive family

experiences.

Testimony of Elizabeth Carlson at Chicago, IL Hearing, May 8, 1995,

U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing.
130

A Workable Balance

In short, many employers view the FMLA as providing benefits to both the employer and the employee (see Inset 6-3). However, some employers have a different assessment of the overall balance of costs and benefits (see Inset 6-4).

E. Business and Employee Performance

The pattern of responses with respect to

the Act’s impact on business and employee performance at covered worksites

is consistent with the findings above, in

that a large majority of employers reported no noticeable effects in any one

category.

Three dimensions of business performance were measured: productivity, profitability and growth.24 The majority of

covered worksites cite no noticeable effect on these dimensions (86.4 percent,

92.5 percent and 95.8 percent, respectively) (see Figure 6.4). To the extent

that employers do report an effect, they

are about equally likely to note a positive

effect as a negative effect on business productivity and growth (6.4 percent compared with 7.3 percent, and three percent

compared with 1.1 percent, respectively). More employers cite a negative effect

regarding profitability (6.3 percent compared with 1.2 percent).

On all dimensions of employee performance, the majority of covered worksites

report no noticeable effect (89.5 percent report no noticeable effect regarding em24 One difficulty the Commission faced was the problem of measuring something as complex as productivity.

A refinement of tools to measure productivity would help assess the impact of the FMLA and of family and

medical leave policies on business performance in the future. The Commission on Leave recommends future

research in this important area (see Chapter IX of this Report).

Inset 6-4

Catherine A. Morris, Benefits Manager, ARCO

[ARCO] is in 100 percent agreement with the concept of providing

time off for family and medical reasons. In fact, we have had, for

many decades, benefits that are far in excess of what’s required by

FMLA. ... Our concerns are related to the ongoing paperwork requirements the Act has generated. Our employees, in essence, received no

additional benefits as a result of the Act. But the company became

responsible for a lot of extra paperwork.

The absences always occurred prior to the Act. There will always be

issues where people have to be off work. But the regulations require

letter-writing confirming coverage for people, which they’re really on full

pay for, most of the time. All their benefits are covered, so it’s really

superfluous information that we have to provide to employees - their

rights and obligations under the Act. And that’s the part that’s burdensome ... is to make sure that every unit everywhere in the country

understands exactly what the Act requires, and is able then to do what’s

legally required.

Testimony of Catherine A. Morris at San Francisco, CA Hearing, June

26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing.
131

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

F I G U R E 6 . 4

Business and Employee Performance: Effects of FMLA on Covered Worksites

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

EMPLOYEE

PRODUCTIVITY

EMPLOYEE ABSENCES EMPLOYEE TURNOVER EMPLOYEE’S ABILITY

TO CARE FOR FAMILY

EMPLOYEE CAREER

ADVANCEMENT

BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY BUSINESS PROFITABILITY BUSINESS GROWTH

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because a small percentage of employers did not know or did not respond.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Positive

Effect

Negative

Effect

No

Noticeable

Effect

6.4% 7.3%

86.4%

1.2%

6.3%

92.5%

1.1% 3.1%

95.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

82,7%

4.7%

12.6%

5.9% 4.6%

89.5%

4.9%

0.2%

94.7%

34.1%

0.4%

65.7%

8.3%

0.8%

91.0%
132

A Workable Balance

ployee absences, 94.7 percent with respect to employee turnover and 91.0 percent

on the career advancement of employees). To the extent that employers do report

an effect, the positives outweigh the negatives on four measures and are roughly

equally divided on the fifth - employee absences. The following hearing testimony

from Martha Lawrence, Vice President of Public and Operator Services, Bell Atlantic, Silver Spring, points out one employer’s concerns about employee absences:

“We support the goals of the FMLA but have experienced unintended adverse

consequences as a result of the implementation, including substantial costs for

absences for non-serious health conditions, as well as administrative cost burdens.

Employers who don’t pay employees when they are off due to illnesses or employers

that pay for only a handful of sick days each year, probably are not experiencing

the sudden and dramatic increase in absence rates that Bell Atlantic has suffered.”25

However, Morton Bahr, President of the Communication Workers Union, which

represents 37,000 Bell Atlantic members, disputes Bell Atlantic’s assessment of

the effects of the FMLA on absenteeism. He submitted testimony to the Commission stating that before the FMLA, AT&T and the Bell Companies “subjected

employees who were absent from work - even with legitimate sick or disability

leave - to discipline if absences exceeded a set number...Today, our members with a

serious health condition can take sick leave without fear of discipline.” Mr. Bahr

points out that “most of the union’s major telecommunications employers have

found that the FMLA is not unduly burdensome.”26

Significant positive effects of the FMLA are evident in the areas of effect on employees’ career advancement (8.3 percent compared with less than one percent

noting a negative effect) and employee productivity (12.6 percent compared with

4.7 percent).

Perhaps most significant in the light of the Act’s goals, is the fact that over onethird (34.1 percent) of employers surveyed note a positive effect on employees’

ability to care for family members, compared with 0.2 percent negative effect. As

to the positive effect, Linda Seibert Rapaport from First Chicago Bank stated: “We

know that just from everyday experience that when our employees are just able to

take time away to care for their family members or for their own serious illness,

when they return or just knowing that this leave is available, we know that they

25 Testimony of Martha Lawrence, Bell Atlantic, at Washington DC Hearing, August 4, 1996, U.S Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 96.

26 Testimony of Morton Bahr, Communication Workers of America, at Washington DC Hearing, August 4,

1995, Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, appended to formal written transcript.
133

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

are more productive when they return, they are more willing to go the extra mile

for our customers, and they become recommitted over and over again, emotionally

committed to our organization and to performing service for our customers. And

they also willingly offer their discretionary effort and suggest quality improvements.

So we really see here that what is fundamentally good for our employees is fundamentally good for us as well. It is a real win-win.”27

As to sectoral differences, manufacturing sites are more likely to perceive negative

effects on employee productivity (see Appendix E, Table 6.E).28 Employers in the

service sector are more likely than those in other industries to note positive effects

on employee turnover. In short, the sectoral distinctions suggest that covered sites

in the service sector are having the most positive experiences with the Act on

selected dimensions of business and employee performance, while manufacturing

sites appear to be least likely to have positive experiences.29

Size differences recall the pattern discussed above (see Appendix E, Table 6.F),

with smaller covered employers, in general, more likely than larger ones to report

no noticeable effect on the various aspects of business and employee performance

measured. Regarding the three measures of business performance, between 96 percent and 100 percent of employers with 25 employees or fewer report no noticeable effects. By contrast, 26.2 percent of covered worksites with 26 to 49 employees report negative effects on productivity, and 20.9 percent report negative effects

on profitability. Interestingly, however, the percentage reporting negative effects

on business performance is noticeably lower for all larger employers except those

with 1,000 employees or more. In this largest category, negative effects are noted

by 27.6 percent regarding productivity and by 21.5 percent with respect to profitability. The percentage of employers citing negative effects on growth is extremely

small by comparison, for all size categories.

As for the measures of employee performance, the results are somewhat more mixed.

By far the most striking finding is that employers in all size categories are likely to

note positive effects on employees’ ability to care for family members, and this

proportion grows from 11.5 percent for the smallest covered employer, to 34 percent of those employing between 11 and 25 employees and to over 70 percent for

employers with 1,000 employees or more.

27 Rapaport, p. 24. 28 Cantor, et al. 29 There appears to be some confounding of the variables of size and sector in the experience of manufacturing sites, many of which are large and have relatively large numbers of leave-takers.
134

A Workable Balance

Negative effects are most likely to be reported by larger employers, and are most

likely to attach to measures of employee productivity and absences. For instance,

over a quarter of employers with 501 to 999 workers note negative effects on employee productivity (although this percentage was much lower - 4.7 percent - for

all employers combined). More than one-third of employers with 1,000 employees

or more note negative effects on absences (compared with 4.6 percent for all size

categories).

In short, most employers do not experience any noticeable effects on business or

employee performance. The most striking positive effect is in the area of helping

families handle work and family responsibilities - the major goal of leave policies

in general and the intent of Congress in enacting the FMLA in particular.

F. Comparisons of Covered Worksites’ Experiences

Most covered employers report that the FMLA has had little measurable effect on

the areas described in the previous section. Positive effects in the areas of employee performance, especially on employees’ ability to care for their families, outweigh negative effects. Nevertheless, some employers, and in the case of the effects of intermittent leave, a significant minority, report costs and negative effects

associated with the Act. In this section, we consider two possible reasons for these

experiences.

First, we consider whether more difficulties and costs are experienced by covered

worksites that need to initiate or change family and medical leave policies in order

to comply with the Act (which we refer to as “complying employers”) than are

experienced by worksites that already have family and medical leave policies in

place that are equivalent to or more extensive than those required by the FMLA

(“voluntary employers”). This comparison is based on the hypothesis that the

impact of the Act is more burdensome for worksites that need to start or adjust

policies and procedures in order to comply.

Second, we analyze the effect of direct experience with leave-taking on employers’

assessment of the FMLA. We compare differences in the perceived impact of the

FMLA between worksites that had one employee or more take leave for a reason

covered by the Act, and worksites that had no leave-takers during the period of

time covered by the Employer Survey.
135

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

In making these two comparisons, we again refer to covered employers’ answers to

three key questions: ease of compliance with the Act; costs associated with the

Act; and the effect of the Act on business and employee performance.

1. Differences Between “Voluntary” and “Complying” Employers

There are several notable differences between employers that had voluntarily implemented leave policies meeting or exceeding the criteria of the FMLA (one-third of

covered worksites), and the employers that needed to change policies in order to

comply (two-thirds of covered worksites). There are several differences between

the “voluntary” and “complying” employers relative to ease of compliance (see

Appendix E, Table G). For example, in terms of coordinating the Act with other

federal laws, one-third (33.8 percent) of “compliers” reported difficulties compared

with only 10.3 percent of “voluntary” employers. In terms of maintaining additional records, 27.7 percent of “compliers” report this administrative task is “very”

or “somewhat difficult,” compared with 16.7 percent of “voluntaries”. The largest

area of difference relates to managing intermittent leave. Forty-seven percent of

“complying” employers compared with 23.3 percent of “voluntary” employers find

this “somewhat” or “very difficult.”

Interestingly, there are no noticeable differences between the two groups of employers on any of the cost dimensions measured. That is, the extent of cost increases reported is similar across the two groups for administrative costs, benefits

costs and costs associated with having to hire and train workers as a result of the

Act.

There are no significant differences between “voluntary” and “complying” worksites

as to their assessment of the effect of the FMLA on business growth, profitability

and business productivity. However, differences between “voluntary” and “complying” employers are numerous in the areas of employee performance. First, with

regard to employee productivity, 24.8 percent of “voluntary” employers (compared

with 6.4 percent of “complying” employers) see positive effects. Over 40 percent

(42.9 percent) of “voluntary” employers report positive effects on employees’ ability to care for family members, compared with 29.9 percent of “complying” employers. As to employees’ career advancement, 22.3 percent of “voluntary” employers note a positive effect, compared with 1.7 percent of “complying” employers. “Complying” employers are relatively less likely than “voluntary” employers
136

A Workable Balance

to note positive effects on employee career advancement, but less than two percent report any negative effects in these areas (see Appendix E, Table 6.H).

In sum, the experiences of “voluntary” employers with the Act appear to be somewhat more positive than those of “complying” employers. Specifically, the “voluntary” employers are less likely to have trouble coordinating the Act with other

federal laws, maintaining additional records, or managing intermittent leave. They

are more likely to report positive effects on various measures of employee performance, such as employee productivity. Interestingly, there appear to be no significant differences between “voluntary” and “complying” employers with respect to

cost increases associated with the FMLA and effects on business performance.

2. The Effects of Having Leave-Takers

Overall, the differences between the experiences of worksites with one employee

or more taking leave under the Act and those without any leave-taking employees

are relatively small. However, the experience of having leave-taking employees

does seem to amplify employers’ assessments of the Act - on both the positive and

negative sides. It appears that the experience of having a leave-taker shapes the

opinions of managers administering leave, such that they have stronger views of

the impact of leave-taking in general, whether positive or negative. It should be

noted that when covered employers who had no leave-takers report costs - especially administrative costs - these costs may have been incurred in anticipation of

having employees take leave. On the other hand, their reports on effects and ease

of compliance probably reflect their attitudes and expectations as they have not

yet had direct experience with employees taking leave.

Keeping in mind that the majority of covered worksites found it “easy” (“very” or

“somewhat”) to administer the Act, there are some differences between employers

with leave-takers and those who did not have leave-takers on some dimensions of

administration (see Appendix E, Table 6.I). For example, almost three times as

many employers with leave-takers find record-keeping “somewhat difficult” than

do those without leave-takers (29.6 percent compared with 11.3 percent). Twentyseven percent of those with leave-takers find coordination of the FMLA with other

federal laws to be “somewhat difficult,” compared with 16 percent of those without

leave-takers.
137

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

Intermittent leave - considered more difficult to administer than other aspects of

the FMLA by a significant minority of employers - is viewed as more difficult (“somewhat” or “very”) to administer by employers with leave-takers than by those without (48.5 percent compared with 30.5 percent). It is not surprising that worksites

with leave-takers are engaged in more record-keeping and administrative activities as a direct result; likewise, these organizations are likely to have had to identify

relevant laws and adjust policies accordingly.

Regarding costs associated with the FMLA, employers with leave-takers are more

likely to report costs in all three areas measured (see Appendix E, Table 6.J). The

majority of covered employers experience no costs or small costs. However, moderate and large costs are more likely to be reported by those with leave-takers and

in the area of administrative costs.

The effect of the FMLA on business and employee performance reveals some noteworthy contrasts between covered employers with leave-takers and those without

(see Appendix E, Table 6.K). In the areas of employee productivity, absences and

turnover, employers with leave-takers are significantly more likely to report positive effects than those without leave-takers (with 21.1 percent, 14.1 percent and

13.9 percent of employers with leave-takers reporting positive effects in each area,

respectively, compared with 9.2 percent, 2.3 percent and 0.7 percent of employers

without leave-takers.) In general, then, having direct experience with leave-taking employees is associated with a positive assessment of the effect of the FMLA on

employee performance.

G. Small Worksites’ Experiences and Expectations

So far, this chapter has focused on the experiences of worksites covered by the

FMLA, and those of various subgroups of covered sites. This section considers in

greater detail the experiences of smaller employers, including discussion of a Census Bureau survey of small employers carried out for the Commission on Leave, and

compares the views and experiences of employers covered by the Act - including

the small covered employers - with the expectations of those not covered by the

Act.
138

A Workable Balance

1. Coverage and Leave Policies of Smaller Employers

The majority of worksites surveyed in the Employer Survey are not covered by the

Act because the law established coverage on the basis of worksite size. Of the

worksites surveyed in the Employer Survey, about 11 percent are covered, and the

remaining 89 percent are not covered. However, because of the 75-mile radius

provision, a substantial number of worksites with fewer than 50 employees (60.9

percent) are covered by the FMLA.

Holding size constant, covered sites are more likely to have had family and medical

leave policies in place before 1993 when the Act was passed (38.7 percent compared with 17.4 percent), and, not surprisingly, far more likely to have put policies

in place during and after 1993 (presumably as a result of the Acts passage).30 One

reason why a sizable percentage of the smaller covered sites had policies in place

before they were legally required to offer family and medical leave by the FMLA

may be that these worksites are units of larger worksites, which have historically

been more likely to have family and medical leave policies in place to begin with.

The attachment of many small covered sites to larger worksites probably also accounts for the fact that the percentage differences for each category of leave policies are relatively small between sites with fewer than 50 employees and those with

50 workers or more. For both covered and non-covered sites, as size increases so

does the likelihood of having had policies in place before 1993, and of putting

policies in place during or after 1993.

2. The Census Bureau’s Survey of Small Businesses

The data discussed above show that the costs to smaller covered employers seem to

be lower than those to larger ones, and the negative effects they experience more

limited. A survey of small businesses with at least one employee, conducted by the

Census Bureau for the Commission on Leave, provides further information about

the experiences of small employers.31

This survey queried employers with regard to their leave policies in 1992, before

the Act, and in 1994, after the passage of the FMLA. It represents three million

small businesses, of which 3.5 percent had 50 employees or more on the payroll for

30 See discussion in Chapter IV and Appendix E, Table 4.C. 31 See Chapter II for full description of the CBO Survey conducted by the Census Bureau.
139

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

20 calendar work weeks or more in 1994 - a proxy for being covered by the FMLA.

Taking this employer population as a whole, about 50 percent reported that between three-quarters and all of their employees met the FMLA requirement for

eligibility of having worked at the company for at least 1,250 hours in 1994. Among

employers with 50 employees or more, almost 100 percent had at least one eligible

employee. It should be noted that these criteria differ somewhat from those used

for the Employer Survey (as described in Chapter IV), hence this population of

small worksites differs somewhat from the small worksites discussed earlier in this

chapter.

a) Incidence and Characteristics of Leave-Taking

About twice as many employers with 50 employees or more than employers with

fewer than 50 employees reported having had at least one leave-taker in 1994;

however, there was no statistically significant increase in leave-taking among the

smaller or larger employers between 1992 and 1994. That is, the FMLA does not

appear to have increased the incidence of leave-taking among these small employers, whether or not they were covered. In both 1992 and 1994, about 79 percent of

all employers surveyed reported having no leave-takers (among employers with 50

employees or more, this figure was 55.5 percent).

There was a statistically significant increase between 1992 and 1994 in the use of

family and medical leave by men - from 1.2 percent of leave-takers in sites with 50

employees or more in 1992, to four percent in 1994.

Among covered employers, 72.4 percent reported that the average leave lasted

between two and 12 weeks; 12.7 percent reported that the average leave lasted a

week or less. (These figures are generally in line with the results of the Employer

Survey.) The length of leave in these small worksites did not change significantly

between 1992 and 1994.

b) Extent of Leave-Related Costs

Among the covered employers (with 50 employees or more), 73.7 percent reported

no new costs associated with the Act, while 24.2 percent reported some additional

costs related to the FMLA. (Results are similar to those of the Employer Survey.)

Most of those reporting some cost increases - 17.6 percent of the total sample -

reported cost increases of less than one percent of payroll; another 4.2 percent

reported increases of between one and four percent of payroll.
140

A Workable Balance

c) Extent and Effect of Policy Changes to Comply with the Act

Among covered worksites (with 50 employees or more), about two-thirds did not

have to make policy changes in order to comply with the Act. Of those employers

making changes in order to comply with the FMLA, about 30 percent made policy

changes to allow fathers to take leave to care for a newborn child, about 24 percent

made changes allowing employees to take family leave (to care for a seriously ill

child, spouse or parent) and about 20 percent made changes allowing for maternity-related disability leave and leave for one’s own serious health condition.

Among the roughly one-third of employers making policy changes in order to comply

with the Act, a small minority reported reduced employee productivity (7.7 percent), increases in unscheduled employee absences (5.6 percent) and increases in

employee turnover (4.2 percent). By the same token, seven percent reported improvements in employee morale and 16.8 percent noted an increase in employees’

ability to handle family needs.

3. Covered Employers’ Experiences Versus Non-Covered Employers’ Expectations

Small employers have voiced concerns about what would happen to their businesses if the FMLA were applied to them. For example, Jim Johnson, the owner of

a small Washington D.C. photography shop with only one employee, testified that

if his shop were covered, “[it] would make it difficult for me to continue in business,” noting that most small employers “are barely scraping by.”32 Similar concerns were voiced by the owner of another small business, Furin’s, with 11 employees, “If the Family and Medical Leave Act applied to my company, it would cause

a tremendous burden ... Losing just one of my employees for [12 weeks] would be

devastating, especially if that employee is essential to the operation of my

business....As a small business owner, I want to work out flexible arrangements

with my employees when they need to take time off for sick child, spouse, or their

own sickness, but I also need to stay in business to make sure I can offer people

jobs. If this one mandate would include me, my days of owning my business -

would, and very soon, disappear.”33 The pressures on small business were brought

32 Testimony of Jim Johnson, Jim Johnson Photography, at Washington DC Hearing, August 4, 1995,

Transcript of Commission on Leave Hearings, p. 175.

33 Testimony of Bernard P. Furin, at Washington DC Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave

Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 101, 103-4.
141

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

to the attention of the Commission by other employers during the public hearings

process (see Inset 6-5).

Before the passage of the Act, there was

significant debate as to the possibility that

the FMLA would be unduly burdensome

to smaller employers. Comparisons between covered and non-covered worksites

reveal striking differences between how

the FMLA is perceived by those who have

and have not had direct experience with

the Act. As shown in Figure 6.5, the costs

anticipated by non-covered worksites are

significantly higher than those experienced and reported by covered worksites.

Moderate or large increases in administrative costs are anticipated by 42.4 percent of non-covered sites, but experienced

by only 10.8 percent of covered employers. Regarding hiring and training, moderate or large cost increases are expected

by 36 percent of non-covered sites, but

cited by only 5.2 percent of covered sites.

That is, non-covered employers were between approximately four times and seven

times more likely to expect moderate or large cost increases than covered employers were to experience them (see Appendix E, Table 6.L).34

The contrast between the actual experiences of covered sites and the expectations

of non-covered sites with respect to business and employee performance is also

striking, as shown in Figure 6.6. Non-covered sites are far more likely to anticipate

a negative effect on every dimension of performance than was experienced by covered worksites. About 47 percent of non-covered employers anticipated a negative effect on business productivity and profitability (compared with 7.3 percent

and 6.3 percent reported by covered sites), and close to one-third expected a negative effect on growth, employee productivity and employee absences (compared

Inset 6-5

Sharon Beard, owner, Hurricane Fence Company,

Like many small businesses, you know, we’re operating on small

margins in order to compete with some of these bigger businesses” but

“we’re being pressured to provide benefits to our employees which we

are incapable of providing for ourselves and our families.... For many

small businesses, the cost of “carrying and maintaining health coverage” and “bring[ing] on a replacement worker and to cover them and

their family would be a real hardship....I have given family paid leave

for one of our guys. He had requested a leave. I gave him two weeks

off paid. This was a worker who showed up every day, never complained, you know, gave the job his all. And you do that, you work

with your employees. You value your employees. We’re not ogres.

We’re not monsters. I think some people like to look at the business

community and say, ‘Oh, but, you know, you ought to do this for your

workers.’ We can’t do it for ourselves, and I think that’s what it gets

down to.

Testimony of Sharon Beard at Chicago IL Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S

Commission on Leave.

34 Notwithstanding the non-covered sites overall negative expectations, 4.2 percent of non-covered sites

anticipate that compliance with the Act would result in some cost savings.
142

A Workable Balance

F I G U R E 6 . 5

Comparison of Costs Experienced by FMLA-Covered Worksites

with Costs Anticipated by Non-Covered Worksites

SOURCE: WESTAT, INC. TABULTION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Covered

NonCovered

52.8%

35.2% 36.4%

22.4%

9.4%

25.5%

1.4%

76.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

43.2%

18.5% 20.8%

4.2%

17.8%

1.0%

18.2%

76.3%

NO INCREASE SMALL INCREASE MODERATE INCREASE LARGE INCREASE

NO INCREASE SMALL INCREASE MODERATE INCREASE LARGE INCREASE

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

HIRING/TRAINING COSTS

FMLACovered

NonCovered
143

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers F I G U R E 6 . 6

Comparison of Effects of FMLA on Covered Worksites with Anticipated Effects of

FMLA on Non-Covered Worksites

SOURCE: WESTAT, INC. TABULATION ON DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

POSITIVE

EFFECT

NEGATIVE

EFFECT

NO

NOTICEABLE

EFFECT

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% FMLA-Cove

Non-Covere

6.4% 7.0% 7.3%

46.8%

84.6%

46.1%

1.2%

5.5% 6.3%

46.6%

92.5%

62.6%

1.1%3.6% 3.1%

33.8%

95.8%

62.6%

FMLACovered

NonCovered

BUSINESS

PERFORMANCE

BUSINESS

PROFITABILITY

BUSINESS GROWTH

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12.6%

12.2%

4.7%

31.0%

82.7%

56.8%

5.9%

7.8%

4.6%

28.1%

89.5%

64.0%

4.9%

11.4%

0.4%

15.0%

94.7%

73.7%

34.1%

42.8%

0.8%

8.2%

65.7%

49.0%

8.3%

6.0%

0.8%

8.5%

91.0%

85.5%

EMPLOYEE

PRODUCTIVITY

EMPLOYEE

ABSENCES

EMPLOYEE

TURNOVER

EMPLOYEE’S

ABILITY TO CARE

FOR FAMILY

MEMBERS

EMPLOYEE

CAREER

ADVANCEMENT
144

A Workable Balance

with 3.1 percent, 4.7 percent and 4.6 percent respectively, reported by covered

sites). Between 8.2 and 15 percent of non-covered sites (compared with less than

one percent of covered employers) expected negative effects on employees’ ability

to care for family members, career advancement and turnover, although it should

be noted that 43 percent of non-covered sites expected a positive effect on employees’ ability to care for family members (see Appendix E, Table 6.M).

Put differently, the negative effects expected by non-covered employers are much

greater than the negative effects experienced by covered employers. The concerns

regarding possible negative effects on employee turnover are especially noteworthy: non-covered employers are more likely to anticipate negative effects in this

area than covered employers are to experience and report negative effects on turnover (15 percent compared with 0.4 percent).

These expectations are also at odds with the fact that smaller covered employers

tend to find the Act less burdensome than larger covered employers. These results

may reflect the expectation of small employers that they lack the labor pool, administrative capacity and financial resources to absorb the impact of a family and

medical leave requirement. The smaller the worksite, the greater the impact of

any one employee’s taking leave. On the other hand, small employers are more

likely to know a leave-taking employee personally and to be able to assess the

positive impact on the employee and the workplace. In short, given that smaller

covered worksites are less likely than larger ones to find the FMLA costly and

burdensome, the expectations of small non-covered worksites are discrepant with

the experiences of worksites covered by the Act.

H. Summary

In conclusion, on the whole, the costs of the Act to employers appear to be modest

or small. Most covered employers report having a relatively easy time complying

with the Act. A small group of employers reports cost savings as a result of the

Act, and some of the testimony heard at the public hearings suggests potential

benefits to worksites to offering leave, particularly in the area of reducing employee turnover.

Larger worksites, and to a lesser extent manufacturing sites, appear to experience

somewhat more difficulty with all aspects of administration and compliance than
145

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

worksites in smaller size categories and in other sectors. While the data collected

in the Employer Survey do not allow for clear inferences as to what accounts for

these differences, they are probably due in part to start-up costs involved in the

implementation of the FMLA. These may diminish over time, and further research will be needed to determine the extent to which the administrative costs

and burdens of compliance decline as these start-up costs are recouped and offset

by benefits in other areas. While generally the costs and negative effects of FMLA

seem to increase with the size of the worksite, this is not a constant or linear relationship.

The Employer Survey reveals some differences in the ease of administering the

Act and the impact on business and employee performance, between “voluntary”

employers (worksites that had leave policies pre-1993 comparable to the FMLA)

and “complying” employers (worksites that had to initiate or change their leave

policies after the enactment of the FMLA), although there are no significant differences in the area of cost between the two groups. Differences between worksites

that had at least one leave-taker and those that did not have any leave-takers

suggest that direct experience with leave-taking amplifies employers’ assessment of

both the positive and negative effects of the Act, although these differences are

small overall. Perhaps the most significant difference is that employers with leavetakers note enhanced productivity among their employees.

Also noteworthy is the contrast between the experiences of the small covered

worksites and the expectations of the small non-covered sites. As noted above,

larger covered sites are more likely to report compliance difficulties and costs than

the small covered sites. The small covered employers, both those surveyed by the

Census Bureau and the Employer Survey, appear to have had relatively benign

experiences with the Act; they have experienced small costs and minimal changes

in leave-usage since 1992. By contrast, the expectations of the small non-covered

sites included in the Employer Survey are far more negative than the experiences

of all covered sites, but especially so in comparison with the small covered sites.

As with any regulation that may entail costs to employers, one way to ensure that

those costs do not place affected employers at a competitive disadvantage relative

to non-covered worksites is to make coverage as broad as possible. With respect to

the FMLA, to the extent that covered employers experience costs (for instance,

the costs of replacing workers on leave) that are not experienced by non-covered

worksites, the former may be placed at a competitive disadvantage. By the same
146

A Workable Balance

token, to the degree that the FMLA has the effect of lowering costs to covered

worksites - for instance, the cost savings associated with reduced employee turnover costs - non-covered sites may be placed at a competitive disadvantage. Further research after the Act has been in force for five years or more can help clarify

the relative costs and benefits experienced by covered and non-covered worksites.

148
149 C H A P T E R V I I

Assessing the Impact of Family and

Medical Leave Policies on Employees

A. Introduction

This chapter is based primarily on data from the Employee Survey. It discusses in

greater detail the question of how the Act affects employees, beginning with a

brief overview of leave-taking patterns, based on the data presented in Chapter V,

and supplemented by testimony of leave-taking employees to the Family Leave

Commission. This is followed by a section analyzing additional data from the

Employee Survey, which focuses on the leave-takers’ ease or difficulty of getting

leave, their worries about taking leave and their overall satisfaction with the amount

of leave they took. The next section of this chapter presents the leave-taking

experiences of four people who took leave under the Family and Medical Leave

Act, illustrating with qualitative data some of the issues suggested by the quantitative data from the two national surveys on which this Report has focused. The

chapter ends with a brief conclusion.

B. Overview of Leave-Takers and Leave-Taking

The Employee Survey demonstrates that the demand for the kinds of leave covered by the FMLA is substantial. Over 16 percent of employees surveyed take

leave for reasons covered by the Act; another 3.4 percent state that they needed

but did not take leave. In other words, about 20 percent of the employees surveyed

in both covered and non-covered worksites either took or needed to take leave for

personal, medical or family caregiving reasons covered by the Act.

The demographic profile of leave-takers generally resembles that of the overall

sample of employed persons surveyed, with some important distinctions. For example, although women represent only 46 percent of the workforce, they are more

likely than men to work for employers covered by the FMLA, and as likely as men

to be covered and eligible. Women are more likely to take leave than men (58.2

percent compared with 41.8 percent). This is partly because men do not bear

children and partly because women are somewhat more likely to care for infants or

Opposite: Top Left: Christopher

Ruffin testifying at Commission on

Leave Public Hearing, Washington, DC, August 4, 1995.

Top Right: Walter Fish testifying

at Commission on Leave Public

Hearing, Washington, DC,

August 4, 1995. Bottom:

Kenneth Weaver, Rosie Weaver

and a photograph of their daughter

Melissa, testifying at Commission

on Leave Public Hearing,

Chicago, IL, May 8, 1995.

Above: Diane Atwood testifying

at Commission on Leave Public

Hearing, Washington, DC,

August 4, 1995.
150

A Workable Balance

seriously ill family members than are men. In terms of absolute numbers, the largest group of leave-takers is between 35 and 49 years old. However, relative to their

representation in the employed population, employees in the 25 to 34 year-old age

group are more likely than younger or older employees to take leave. This in part

reflects the fact that a significant portion

of leave-taking centers around caring for

children from birth through adolescence,

and those in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, are

most likely to have children who may

need care.

As noted in Chapter V, leave under the

FMLA falls into two major categories: 1)

medical leave, including leave for ones’

own serious health condition, excluding

maternity-disabilities; 2) family leave,

including a) mothers’ or fathers’ care of a

newborn child, a newly-adopted, or foster child; and b) care for a seriously ill

child, spouse or parent. In addition, maternity-disability leave may combine both

medical leave and parental leave. About

60 percent of those who take leave do so

because of their own serious health conditions. Inset 7-1 illustrates the story of

Diane Atwood who took leave to deal

with a serious medical problem and Inset

7-2 tells the story of Nedra Ward who

took leave for a maternity-disability.

About one-fourth of all leave is taken by

relatively young parents as parental leave

or as leave to care for their seriously ill

children. Jonathan Zingman, who took

leave to care for his new daughter, illustrates a typical parental leave story (see

Inset 7-3) and the story of the Weaver

family movingly illustrates leave to care

Inset 7-1

Diane Atwood: Leave for One’s Own Serious Health

Condition

Diane Atwood, of Little Rock, Arkansas, is married and has two daughters - one a nurse and the other a pre-med student in college. She and

her husband both work full-time. On December 23, 1992, Ms. Atwood

was diagnosed with hodgkin’s lymphoma, and had to endure many

“necessary, but also very painful” tests and biopsies. The tests revealed

cancer in her lymph nodes, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. “Not”,

she noted, “a very good Christmas present for me and my family.”

Using personal leave time, she began chemotherapy on January 14,

1993, the day after her 41st birthday, and her treatment involved

several months of four-and-a-half hour chemotherapy sessions every other

week. So far so good. But later that year the cancer began to grow

again; she had come out of remission. Two months later she had to

undergo five days of high-dose chemotherapy.

A little over a year later, in April of 1994, Ms. Atwood needed to use

FMLA leave. She was hospitalized for a bone marrow and stem cell

transplant, and needed to be away from work for about ten weeks.

When she was diagnosed, she said, “my body became a war zone. To

be able to fight back and win the war that was taking place inside of

me, all my energies had to be focused on this war. The Family and

Medical Leave Act of 1993 allowed me the freedom to concentrate

solely on fighting the cancer with all my being. Because of this Act, I

was free from having to worry whether I would still have a job when I

was able to return to work. I was also freed from the worry of having to

try and find the funds to keep my health insurance in force, with me

paying the total monthly premium of well over $400. But, because of

the Family and Medical Leave Act, my employer continued to pay their

part of my group health insurance and I paid my part. This kept the

insurance affordable for me and, most important, it kept the insurance in

force until I was able to return to my job.”

Testimony of Diane Atwood at Washington, DC Hearing, August 4,

1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing.
151

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

for their seriously ill daughter Melissa (see Inset 7-4). Almost ten percent of leave

is taken by employees who are typically somewhat older, in order to care for seriously ill elderly parents, as described by Patricia Connell who cared for her seriously ill mother (see Inset 7-5). Finally,

care for an ill spouse accounts for about

three percent of all leave taken, and is

described by Walter Fish (see Inset 7-6).

The great majority of all leave taken falls

within the 12-week limit established by

the Act. Maternity-disability leave tends

to be relatively longer; 40 to 45 percent

of these leaves last more than 12 weeks

(this type of leave often covers some time

before birth as well as the post-partum recovery). Most leave to care for newborns

is less than 12 weeks. Ninety percent of

those who take leave to care for seriously

ill children are off the job for less than

two weeks, as are 80 percent of leave-takers caring for seriously ill parents. Salaried employees are especially likely to take

shorter leave - up to seven days.

The most prevalent method used by employers to cover the work of employees

who take leave is to assign their work temporarily to other employees - according

to both surveys. A number of employers

also cite the use of temporary replacements; employees in the lowest-income

category are most likely to state that permanent replacements were hired to cover

their work.

A large minority of non-leave-taking employees express concern about the burden of having to take over work of leavetaking employees. However, over two-thirds (71 percent) of non-leave-taking emInset 7-2

Nedra Ward: Maternity-Disability Leave

Nedra Ward, an administrative assistant, found out in January of 1994

that she was pregnant. She testified as follows: “I didn’t share it with

anyone in my department yet because I started experiencing difficulties. I

had severe nausea and frequent spotting. And so I decided to keep it to

myself to try to get through my first trimester, and then I would share it

with the company. Through this time, I exceeded my sick days as well

as my vacation days. So in April of 1994, my manager called me into

her office to inform me that I had exceeded all days and that disciplinary

action would have to be taken against me. This is when I decided to

inform her that I was pregnant. And she said, well, she would have to

meet with [the Director of Human Resources] to see if something could

be done since there was not an illness but a medical condition.”

Ms. Ward’s manager soon reported back that she “could take time on

an intermittent basis since it was not definite as to when I would have

difficulties in my pregnancy. So for the next six months of my pregnancy

I was able to take time off of work whenever one of the occurrences

would happen.”

Her employer also moved her to a less pressured department. This

“alleviated a lot of stress” and “I was able to come into my department,

continue to work whenever possible until I had my child, which was in

October of 1994. And he was born healthy and strong, and he’ll be

seven months old next week. And so I’ve really had a very positive

experience. On the onset, I was not familiar with the intermittent schedule

that I could take and neither was my department. We weren’t familiar

with that. So we both learned something. And I didn’t meet with any

opposition once we all understood the intermittent schedule.”

Testimony of Nedra Ward at Chicago, IL Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S.

Commission on Leave Public Hearing.
152

A Workable Balance

ployees surveyed agree with the statement that all employees should have the ability to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, jobprotected leave per year for family

caregiving needs and serious health conditions.

Most leave-takers had their benefits continue while they were on leave, but about

nine percent did not. About three percent report that they lost their health

benefits while they were on leave. Nonwhites, employees with one or more children and lower-income employees are especially likely to report having lost benefits, as are women and employees between 25 and 34 years old. Salaried employees and employees with partial or full

wage replacement are comparatively unlikely to lose benefits.

Two-thirds of leave-taking employees report that they receive full or partial wage

replacement during their leave. Those

taking leave for their own serious health

condition are most likely to have had

some wage replacement (probably in large

measure pay for sick days). Salaried and

unionized employees, employees with the

highest levels of household income and

education are most likely to receive wage

replacement. The likelihood of an employee receiving full or partial wage replacement increases sharply as education

and income rise. Men are more likely to

receive full pay during leave than women,

as are workers between 50 and 64 years

old.

Inset 7-3

Jonathan Zingman: Parental Leave

Jonathan Zingman is a theoretical nuclear physicist. At the time of his

second daughter’s birth in 1994, he was employed at TCSI Corporation, managing a project developing integrated circuits for cellular

phones, supervising a staff of four and acting as primary contact for the

company’s Japanese client. Information about the FMLA had been

posted around the company, and the company had also circulated a

memo providing detailed information and procedures for using the Act.

Mr. Zingman and his wife decided that he should take leave to be with

her upon their daughter’s birth, particularly since they knew that his wife

would be having a cesarean section.

Immediately after his daughter’s birth, Zingman took sick leave and

vacation time. Two weeks after her birth, his daughter was hospitalized

for a staph infection, after which his wife’s mother also came to help the

couple care for their new baby and their older daughter. About six

weeks after his daughter’s birth, Zingman began FMLA leave, which

lasted for a period of approximately two weeks. The time was spent “at

home with my family and being a father mostly, helping my wife recover

from her surgery, helping the baby recover from being in the hospital,

and helping my daughter adjust to having competition in the house.”

Zingman felt that the “leave was handled very well at my company. In

spite of being mostly male and having the high pressure, they are very

encouraging of this. They allow you to take responsibility for your own

work, and if you feel you can take the time off and spend the time with

your family, then there doesn’t seem to be a problem with that.”

He testified: “I don’t have a dramatic story, but the leave was important

because it allowed me to settle in, allowed my new daughter to settle in,

allowed us to settle in as a family, and allowed my wife to recover from

her surgery. The time that we spent was very much family time: doing

the laundry and taking care of the kids, and that sort of thing, and it was

time that I was able to spend just being the father, and not the father and

the engineer and physicist, all the other roles.”

Testimony of Jonathan Zingman at San Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26,

1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing.
153

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

Inset 7-4

Kenneth Weaver: Leave to Care for a Seriously Ill Child

Melissa was the oldest child of Kenneth and Rosie Weaver. She was diagnosed with a rare type of

cancer when she was ten years old, and underwent chemotherapy, surgery and radiation treatments for

a full year. More lumps and tumors were found, biopsies, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy

were performed. By this time the tumor had spread to more vital areas: her lung, liver and spine.

Mr. Weaver described his daughter as “strong, tough, determined, intelligent, sympathetic, apologetic,

kind, friendly, and every other adjective there is to describe a wonderful little girl.” While waiting with

her mother to see the doctor about a lump on her leg, he recalled, she “confidently said to her mother,

‘well, at least I’m not sick.’” That remained her “personal motto” almost as long as she lived.

But the doctor said Melissa’s death would be “quick, probably less than six months.” She urged him to

take time off “right now.” Mr. Weaver, an instrument electrical technician at Oxichem, told his supervisors: “I’m going to use the Family [and] Medical Leave Act, and I’m out of here.” But he was apprehensive, knowing that “the company wasn’t used to hav[ing] something like this come thrown right in their

face. So I was going to give them about a week to go ahead and get everything organized.” Melissa

then “decided to defy her fear of flying,” and she and her family, including her parents, two siblings and

grandmother, flew to Chicago to visit her cousin, aunt and uncle.

One evening Melissa and her father talked about “going to the supermarket, buying a couple steaks and

just cooking our own supper at home.” She had been in a wheelchair for several weeks, but on this

night she got out of the car and walked in the store with her father. It was the last time he remembers her

walking on her own.

In September of 1993 another bulging lump was found below Melissa’s waist, accelerating a trip to

Washington D.C. provided by the Make-A-Wish Foundation. In Washington, Melissa “was granted a

very special wish. [President] Clinton met us in the hallway after completing his morning jog, and it was

then that I was able to personally thank him for the FMLA. Without this law, my family could have never

made those precious memories that we now hold so dear.”

The Weavers returned home late that day. Melissa, very sick, did not live to see the next Sunday. “My

wife and I were with Melissa for each and every moment until her final passing. For that chance I am

eternally grateful,” said Melissa’s father. Rosie Weaver added: “For 18 months, Melissa and I had been

traveling for over about three hours back and forth to Houston for either a week stay or one day. And at

that point, it was just like, I ... couldn’t handle it. And to have [her father] with us and to have that

support, because you’re always trying to take care of the other two children and trying to keep everything normal when it is not, and to have him there with me was - I don’t know if I would have made it

without having him there.”

Testimony of Kenneth and Rosie Weaver at Chicago, IL Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on

Leave Public Hearing.
154

A Workable Balance

Inset 7-5

Patricia Connell: Leave to Care for a Seriously Ill Parent

Patricia Connell is a supervising attorney with the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago. She is married,

and has children of her own. In 1993, she learned that her mother, living alone outside of Harrisburg

Pennsylvania since 1960, was suffering from a form of cancer which is almost always fatal. The doctors

informed Ms. Connell, an only child, that her mother probably had between three and nine months to live,

and that although she probably would not regain enough strength to resume her independence or to drive

her own car, she could probably remain in her own home until she died.

Ms. Connell’s mother wanted very much to stay in her own home “free to prepare and eat her own meals,

sit in her own yard and watch the seasons change and sleep in her own bed until death took her.” Ms.

Connell, determined to try to help her mother fulfill this wish, went to her employer armed with the FMLA.

She requested periodic leave to enable her to travel back and forth to Pennsylvania once a month to help

her mother get to chemotherapy sessions, and to stay with her during the following days of weakness.

Connell knew that her employer would be personally sympathetic, but in the past, when she had requested

unpaid time off from her job, it had been given reluctantly. There was concern that her leave might set a

bad precedent. This time, however, “[w]hether it was the Act or my employer’s recognition that we all have

responsibilities to our parents, he was gracious and only required that I notify him of the times that I would

be gone, giving him as much notice as I could.”

Over the next five months, Ms. Connell made six trips to her mother’s home, taking her for treatments, doing

shopping and preparing advance meals. She arranged for periodic visits from home health aids and

visiting nurses, did the spring cleaning, and made sure that bills were paid. Moreover, she and her mother

were able to spend time together, going through cherished things which Ms. Connell’s mother asked her to

give to special old friends. They visited the grave of her mother’s mother, and, when possible, went out.

Ms. Connell’s mother then had to be hospitalized, and on her release, Ms. Connell decided to move her

mother into her own house in Chicago. After the move, her mother lived for another two weeks. She died

on a Friday morning shortly after her grandchildren children had left for school, as her daughter sat at her

side, talking to her.

“[It is] always hard to lose a parent. Despite the fact that neither my mother nor I had the extreme financial

difficulties so often associated with a fatal illness, it was taxing to balance the competing needs of my

mother, my job, and my family. My spouse and children were extremely supportive, understanding that

caring for my mother was a family responsibility that I felt I had to meet. Thank God, or maybe Congress,

that my employer couldn’t complicate my choices by refusing to grant me leave in order to do so.”

Testimony of Patricia Connell at Chicago, Il Hearing, May 8, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public

Hearing.
155

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

A sizable majority of employees who take leave return to their same employers

after leave, according to both the Employer and Employee Surveys. Workers in

the lowest family income category and

leave-takers with no wage replacement at

all, are more likely not to return to work.

Employees with higher family incomes,

those working at covered worksites, and

those receiving full wage replacement are

more likely to return to their same employers. Not surprisingly, then, salaried

employees and unionized workers are

more likely to return to their employers.

Leave-takers with full wage replacement

are far more likely than those with either

partial or no wage replacement to return

to their employers after leave.

The most common strategy used by leavetakers to cover lost wages was “limiting

extras” (75.5 percent) followed by the use

of some type of savings (40 to 44 percent).

Those with the highest levels of education are least likely to put off paying bills

or to cut leave short. Those with the highest levels of income are least likely to put

off paying bills or go on public assistance.

Conversely, those whose family incomes

are $20,000 per year or less are at least

four times more likely than those with

higher incomes to go on public assistance

in order to deal with lost income.1

The demographic profile of employees

who needed but did not take leave -

“leave-needers” - differs in several regards

1 Katherine McGonagle, et al., The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: An Employee Survey, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,

October, 1995) p. 22.

Inset 7-6

Walter Fish: Leave to Care for a Seriously Ill Spouse

Walter Fish began taking vacation days from work when his wife,

Debbie, was hospitalized for diabetes complications. While she was

in the hospital, an infection in her right eye aggravated a glaucoma

condition, and she lost her vision. Mr. Fish called his personnel

director, who told him about the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Although he had heard of the Act, he knew little about it.

On February 29, 1995, Walter Fish took FMLA leave, arranging for

people to take over responsibilities for a small catering business which

he and his wife ran on the side, and rushed his wife to the W.K.

Kellogg Eye Center, in Ann Arbor, MI. The Eye Center admitted her for

four days, where doctors performed laser surgery on both eyes and

glaucoma surgery on the right eye. Mr. Fish was able to remain with

her until she was released. Very soon thereafter, he had to bring Mrs.

Fish back to the Eye Center for glaucoma surgery on the left eye. This

was followed by many more doctors visits. When his wife returned

home she was unable to care for herself or their son. Mr. Fish cooked,

cleaned house and cared for his wife and their child during her convalescence.

On April 3, 1995, a little over a month later, he was able to return to

work. At the time of their testimony, August, 1995, Mrs. Fish had

regained 60 percent of the vision in her right eye. Mr. Fish said at that

time: “I feel very strongly about the Family [and Medical] Leave Act

because at my workplace they do have an attendance policy. I would

have lost my job. Without the Act I could have lost our small business

also. I feel I helped strengthen my wife’s hopes and determination to

keep fighting.”

Testimony of Walter Fish at Washington, DC Hearing, August 4, 1995,

U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing.
156

A Workable Balance

from that of the overall sample. For example, hourly workers are especially likely

to need but not take leave, as are those with one or more children, employees with

family incomes under $30,000 per year. Leave-needers are more likely to have

wanted to take leave for some type of family leave reason than are leave-takers.

The primary reason cited leave-needers for not taking leave is that they could not

afford to (64 percent).

About forty percent of all the workers surveyed report they are “very likely” or

“somewhat likely” to take leave for an FMLA reason sometime within the next

five years. Between 15 to 20 percent say it is “very likely”, a figure that mirrors the

percentage of employees who took leave during the period covered by the Employee Survey. The projected need for leave is somewhat greater for women than

men. The largest percentage of employees who

project that they will take

leave in the next five years

are the 25 to 34 year-olds,

a group likely to experience caregiving demands

from both young children

and elderly parents.

C. Employees’ Views

of Leave

1. The Ease/Difficulty of

Getting Leave

It is not always easy for

employees who need leave

to arrange for time off from

work. The Employee Survey asked leave-takers to

state the relative ease or difficulty of getting leave. Most of those who take leave

find it “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to get leave (81.1 percent), while 12.1 percent find it “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” (see Figure 7.1). Slightly more

employees in covered worksites find it “very” or “somewhat easy” to arrange leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

F I G U R E 7 . 1

Leave-Takers’ Ease/Difficulty of Getting Leave

Very Easy

mewhat Easy

 Difficult or Easy

Somewhat Difficult

Very Difficult

Very Easy

Somewhat Easy

Not Difficult or

Easy

Somewhat

Difficult

Very Difficult

64.8%

6.7%

16.3%

6.7%

5.4%

VERY DIFFICULT

SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT

VERY EASY

NOT DIFFICULT

OR EASY

SOMEWHAT

EASY
157

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

(82.1 percent) than those in non-covered worksites (78.8 percent), and employees

in non-covered worksites were somewhat more likely to find it “very” or “somewhat difficult” to arrange leave (see Appendix E, Table 7.A).

Among those finding leave-taking especially easy are men (72.3 percent found it

“very easy”), employees over 50 years old (77 percent found it “very easy”), and

white leave-takers (69 percent found it “very easy”; see Appendix E, Table 7.B).

Certain sub-populations in a variety of demographic categories have more trouble

getting leave. For example, 15.1 percent of women state it was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” as compared to eight percent of men.

2. Job-Related Worries

About Taking Leave

Employees who take leave

were also asked whether

they were worried about

taking leave for any one of

several reasons: because

doing so might lead them

to lose their jobs; hurt

their possibilities for job

advancement; or make

them lose seniority at their

workplaces. Overall, over

three-quarters of leavetaking employees did not

report being worried about

losing their jobs or hurting their chances for advancement, and 87.2 percent were not worried

about losing seniority (see

Figure 7.2).

The demographic profile of those who are not worried overlaps substantially with

those of employees who find it easy to get leave (see Appendix E, Table 7.C).

F I G U R E 7 . 2

Leave-Takers’ Worries About Taking Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

MIGHT LOSE JOB MIGHT HURT JOB

ADVANCEMENT

MIGHT LOSE

SENIORITY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

22.1%

77.9%

21.9%

78.1%

12.8%

87.2%
158

A Workable Balance

Thus, for example, about 18 to 19 percent of white employees worry about losing

their jobs or hurting their job advancement, compared with well over a quarter of

non-whites. Employees over 50 years old are far less likely to report being worried

than all younger employees on all three dimensions measured. The level of worry

decreases as education increases. Employees with annual family incomes between

$50,000 and $75,000 are also relatively less likely to be worried on all three measures.

Hourly employees are relatively more likely to be worried about losing their jobs,

hurting their advancement or losing seniority as a result of leave-taking, compared

to salaried employees. Women are more likely to express worries about losing their

jobs or hurting their possibilities of advancement, relative to men.

Worries about taking leave vary slightly according to whether a leave-taker works

at a covered or non-covered worksite. For example, worries about seniority are

reported by 13.9 percent

of leave-takers at covered

worksites compared with

9.7 percent of leave-takers

at non-covered worksites.

Worries about hurting job

advancement are reported

by 23 percent of leave-takers at covered worksites

and 18.7 percent of those

at non-covered worksites.

On the other hand, leavetakers at covered and noncovered worksites report

almost the same degree of

worry about losing their

job (see Appendix E,

Table 7.D).

F I G U R E 7 . 3

Leave-Takers’ Satisfaction

With the Amount of Leave they Took

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

VERY

SATISFIED

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

d

ssatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Very Satisfied

Somewhat

Satisfied

Not Satisfied

or Dissatisfied

Somewhat

Dissatisfied

Very

Dissatisfied

48.0%

5.6%

11.9%

6.5%

28.0%

SOMEWHAT

SATISFIED

SOMEWHAT

DISSATISFIED

VERY DISSATISFIED

NOT SATISFIED

OR DISSATISFIED
159

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

3. Satisfaction with Amount of Leave

The Employee Survey also asked leave-takers how satisfied they are with the amount

of leave they took. As shown in Figure 7.3, 76 percent of employees are either

“very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the amount of leave they took.

The relatively high level of satisfaction among all leave-takers holds across categories of sex, race, age, education, income and type of compensation (see Appendix

E, Table 7.E). Here again the demographic profile of those who are most satisfied

resembles that of employees who find it particularly easy to take leave and who are

relatively less worried about taking leave. Most notably, employees over 50 years

old are more satisfied than younger leave-takers with the amount of leave they

took (about 64 percent are “very satisfied,” compared with 43 to 49 percent of

younger employees). Satisfaction with amount of leave is higher among those

with annual family incomes over $30,000. Not surprisingly then, salaried employees are more likely to be “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the amount

of leave they take (82.5 percent) than hourly workers (73.5 percent).

Women and men are about equally satisfied, although men are more likely to report being “very satisfied” with the amount of leave they took than women (54.2

percent compared with 43.6 percent). The same relationship holds for white versus non-white employees, with whites more likely to report that they are “very

satisfied.”

The degree of satisfaction is more pronounced for leave-takers working at covered

worksites, 77.9 percent of whom report they are “very” or “somewhat satisfied,”

compared to 71.2 percent of those working at non-covered worksites (see Appendix E, Table 7.F). This corresponds to the fact that leave-takers in covered worksites,

on average, take longer leave regardless of reason for leave, than leave-takers at

non-covered worksites (see Chapter V).

In short, the majority of employees who take leave find it relatively easy to get

leave, are not especially worried about the job-related consequences of taking leave,

and are relatively satisfied with the amount of leave they took. To the extent that

employees have trouble getting leave, express job-related concerns about taking

leave and are dissatisfied with the amount of leave they took, these leave-takers

are more likely to work in non-covered worksites. Women, non-whites and those

in non-salaried positions are particularly likely to report negative experiences on
160

A Workable Balance

at least one of these measures. This demographic profile is similar to that of employees who are relatively less likely to have wage replacement while they were on

leave, who need but cannot take leave and who have relatively greater difficulties

dealing with the lost income associated with taking leave.2

4. The Effect of Job Characteristics on the Leave-Taking Experience

The data from the Employee Survey that have been reported on in this chapter

and in Chapter V suggest a pattern of demographic and job characteristics associated with relatively positive employee experiences with leave-taking. Whether

one looks at the ease or difficulty of getting leave, relative satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the amount of leave, the extent of wage replacement (if any) during

leave, or job-related worries about taking leave, the experiences of men, older

employees, whites, salaried employees and those with higher levels of education

and family income are the most positive.

We know from research on the extent and availability of family and medical leave

before the Acts passage that employees working in larger worksites and with relatively higher levels of education, income and job responsibility have typically been

more likely to have leave available to them (and to have some form of wage replacement). Since higher-educated, higher-income, salaried, older white men tend

to be in relatively secure and higher-level positions, the question is raised of whether

- continuing the pattern observed before the Act’s passage - access to leave is related to job characteristics.

The Employee Survey did not include measures of skill, individual income, job

satisfaction or the extent of benefits. However, the method by which employees

are compensated - that is - whether an employee was salaried, paid by the hour or

paid in some other way, does tell us something about the kinds of jobs and work

lives they have. The great majority of employees are either salaried or hourly

employees (that is, not working on a piecework or commission basis). People who

are salaried are most likely to be managerial, professional or semi-professional, technical or mid- to high-level administrative employees. Those who are paid by the

hour are more likely to be relatively lower-paid and work in a variety of clerical,

sales, service or manufacturing jobs.

2 See Chapter V for a more detailed discussion of these issues.
161

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

F I G U R E 7 . 4

Leave-Takers: Extent of Pay by Type of Compensation

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

FULLY PAID PARTIALLY PAID UNPAID

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sala

76.4% Hou

32.6%

13.1%

24.7%

10.5%

42.8%

Salaried

Hourly

FULLY PAID PARTIALLY PAID UNPAID

The contrast between the

leave experiences of these

two groups supports the

idea that the salaried/nonsalaried distinction has

implications for the nature

of the leave-taking experience (see Figure 7.4).

About three-quarters

(76.4 percent) of salaried

employees receive full pay

during their leave, compared with a third (32.6

percent) of hourly workers. Only 10.5 percent of

salaried employees report

receiving no pay whatsoever, compared with 42.8

percent of hourly employees.

Salaried employees are

slightly more likely to return to their jobs after their leaves were over. Salaried employees were somewhat

more likely than hourly employees to report having to use savings earmarked for

leave (48.8 percent compared with 44.4 percent). Hourly employees are more

likely than their salaried co-workers to put off paying bills (41.9 percent compared

with 27.3 percent) and to cut leave short (41.9 percent compared with 27.1 percent) (see Appendix E, Table 7.G).

In short, being salaried seems to be positively correlated with a positive leavetaking experience. Employees in salaried positions tend to have a greater chance

of working for a covered employer, and of being eligible to take leave under the

Act and to have more positive experiences with leave-taking policies generally,

and the FMLA in particular.
162

A Workable Balance

D. Portraits of Leave-Takers

To flesh out the picture of leave-taking embodied in the survey data and the hearing testimony, four open-ended interviews were conducted with leave-takers.3

 The

interviews covered what was involved in arranging leave, the nature of the leavetaker’s relationship with their organizations while they were on leave, how their

work was covered and how they viewed the costs and benefits of their leave experiences.

1. Arranging Leave, Methods of Covering Work During Leave and Return to

Work

As noted above, over 80 percent of leave-takers find it relatively easy to arrange

leave, although women, non-whites, non-union and non-salaried employees have

relatively more trouble in this regard than other leave-takers. The most common

method of covering the work of leave-takers, as reported by both surveys, however,

is to delegate work to other employees. However, slightly more than one-third of

employers report using temporary workers, while one-fifth of employers report that

leave-takers did work at home while on leave. The Employee Survey also shows

that a large majority of leave-takers return to their same employer, especially those

in salaried positions who receive partial or full wage replacement.

The open-ended interviews conducted with professionals and managers, help to

illuminate the concerns and experiences of one sector of FMLA-covered employees. Kim Martin is a 26 year-old white woman, married, and working as a low-level

manager in the Human Resource Department of a large East Coast company.4 She

planned to use family and medical leave to lengthen her time away from work after

her first child was born.

Ms. Martin’s own position in her company involved helping other employees get

leave, so she was familiar with the new law and company policy. In addition, her

supervisor was very supportive of her taking leave. Ms. Martin was interviewed

after arranging her leave but just before starting it, so information on her situation

is somewhat limited. She expressed hesitation about maintaining any responsibili3 These interviews were conducted by Catalyst, Inc. See Chapter II for a full description of work done by

Catalyst for the Commission on Leave.

4 The names of all four leave-takers described here are pseudonyms.
163

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

ties while on leave, but also said she felt pressure from her employer not to make a

complete break with work while she was on leave.

Sam Thornton is a single, African American professional in his mid-twenties,

working in the insurance industry. Mr. Thornton had worked with his company

two years before he requested eight weeks of unpaid FMLA leave to care for his

mother, who was extremely ill.

Mr. Thornton found his human resource department very helpful in arranging his

leave, and all their materials on the FMLA clear and comprehensive. Mr. Thornton’s

work was covered by employees from other branches of his insurance company. He

made a complete break from work. While he said he may have missed some opportunities, he received a promotion (which had been under discussion before he took

leave) upon his return. He says he considered leaving the company, but, in fact, he

returned to full-time work as planned.

Jane Johnson, a 24 year-old African American woman, is a professional in the

finance department of a large East Coast company. She combined two different

types of paid leave - short-term disability and vacation - with four weeks of unpaid

FMLA leave, for a total leave of 14 weeks to have and care for a baby. The supervisor of Ms. Johnsons division was not especially understanding about her leave,

making it clear to her that he assumed she would not return to work. She also

received very little help with her leave from her personnel department (although

she did get the assistance she really needed from a co-worker who had taken FMLA

leave the year before). Ms. Johnson made a fairly complete break from work while

on leave. A paid intern was hired to cover some of Ms. Johnson’s responsibilities,

while co-workers picked up her other duties. She kept in occasional touch with

her department informally, did not feel that she missed any opportunities while on

leave, and never considered either leaving the company or returning earlier than

she had planned.

Wanda McMillan, a 34 year-old, married, white, high-level manager in a large East

Coast company, used unpaid FMLA leave of six weeks to supplement her employer’s

six weeks of paid leave, for a total leave of 12 weeks to care for her newborn child.
164

A Workable Balance

Ms. McMillan had the most difficult time arranging her leave, despite the fact that

she holds the most senior position of the four leave-takers interviewed. She found

her human resources department and other employees confused about what the

law actually mandates. She found it difficult to finalize her leave arrangements

and her supervisor conveyed a negative attitude about her being away from the

office for a long time.

Although Ms. McMillan completed major projects before her leave, she also agreed

to maintain some formal responsibilities while on leave. The rest of her work was

assigned to co-workers. Her co-workers were supportive, but she said of her supervisor: “He knows by law that he can not stop me from taking 12 weeks, but he is

not exactly Mr. Supportive about it.” She was worried about how he would treat

her when she returned, uneasy about comments he made before she left about her

future career plans and felt concerned enough about the implications of these comments that she kept a record of their discussions.

These leave-takers seem to typify employees in salaried positions. The length of

each period of leave fell within the 12-week period specified by FMLA, three out

of four had access to wage replacement for a portion of their leave, and all returned

to work. To the extent they encountered difficulties, these difficulties again reflect

the kinds of problems found in the Employee Survey data on salaried workers.

That is, for the most senior among them, Ms. McMillan, her work could not be

easily delegated to other workers. This in turn affected the ease of her arranging

leave and created pressure for her to return to work before she was fully ready.

2. Personal and Work-Related Costs and Benefits of Leave-Taking

In the Employer Survey, worksites report that the largest positive effect of the

FMLA is in the area of helping employees to care for family members. Over 30

percent of all covered employers and two-thirds of large covered employers report

a positive effect in this area. This is confirmed by data from the Employee Survey

in response to questions on attitudes regarding the FMLA and satisfaction with

the amount of leave taken. Over 70 percent of employees support the idea that

U.S. workers should have 12 weeks of job-protected family and medical leave and

over three-quarters of leave-takers say they are “very” or “somewhat satisfied” with

the amount of leave taken. The benefits to families who have used the FMLA

leave is also captured in the personal stories employees told the Commission about

the difference the FMLA made in their lives and the lives of close family members.
165

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

The Employee Survey also documents the costs to employees who take leave. Nine

percent of respondents lost benefits while on leave and one-third percent of employees had no wage replacement during their leave. The lack of wage replacement was more pronounced for young workers, hourly workers and those with household incomes of $30,000 per year and less. While most employees were able to

cover lost wages with savings or by limiting extras, nine percent had to go on

public assistance to compensate for lost wages. While some leave-takers coped

with lost wages and benefits, others had worries about the impact of leave-taking

on their job status. A small but not insignificant number worried about losing

their jobs (22.1 percent), hurting their chances for advancement (21.9 percent) or

losing their seniority (12.8 percent).

Ms. Martin felt she had a basically supportive workplace, but noted that some

people, especially men, have been hesitant to ask for leave because of worries about

supervisors’ or co-workers’ reactions. She said the greatest benefit of the FMLA is

that “it has given people peace of mind ... The law has given many people more

confidence in asking for leaves.” However, she also believes the Act has not done

much to change her company’s policies. Moreover, she was concerned about the

lack of wage replacement, and felt lucky to be in a financial position that enabled

her to take advantage of the Act.

Mr. Thornton had no negative experiences before or after his leave, and reported

that the FMLA was widely used and supported by his co-workers and supervisors.

In his view, employees who are perceived as especially valuable to the company (a

category in which he included himself) had better chances of having their leave

accepted. He saw himself as benefiting by being able to care for his mother while

maintaining his job, but he also felt the company benefited in being able to retain

a valued employee.

Ms. Johnson did not experience any particular problem with leave-taking, and said

she “came back full force” despite her supervisor’s assumption that she would not

return at all. She felt her company was supportive of leave-taking overall, but that

leave was less acceptable for those in particularly senior positions in the company,

and that any leave lasting longer than three months was viewed with disfavor. She

said she would use it again and recommend it to others, citing no negative consequences for her, either in terms of salary or with respect to opportunities for promotion. The greatest benefit of the FMLA for her was the “invaluable time at

home with my child.”
166

A Workable Balance

Ms. McMillan stated that the quality of her leave and that of co-workers at her

company depended greatly on the flexibility and attitude of individual managers.

Some managers, she said, had negative attitudes, which she hoped would not prevent others from taking leave. She saw the greatest benefit of the Act as being the

job-protection provision, which she believed had influenced the culture of her

workplace. “Seven years ago I had a friend who felt so uncomfortable about taking

maternity-disability leave that she returned after six weeks,” she said, adding that

this would be much less likely to happen today. She also observed that it continued to be more difficult for men to take leave than for women, and that maternity

leave was the most accepted type of leave. Finally, Ms. McMillan believed that six

months of unpaid leave would be more reasonable than the current 12 weeks allowed, because a longer time period would give employees in diverse circumstances

greater flexibility to arrange their lives to accommodate family and medical needs.

3. Summary

The stories told by these four leave-takers all reflect in one way or another the

newness of the FMLA - the fact that employers and employees have not had much

experience with the Act. This is captured by the ambiguities and uncertainties of

which these employees spoke. Each referred to some kind of inequity in the way

they saw the Act being applied in their particular organization. For example, Mr.

Thornton believed that leave-taking by “valued” employees was more accepted in

his insurance company than leave-taking by less valued workers. By contrast, Ms.

McMillan’s difficulties getting leave seem to be linked to the fact that she held a

high-level position in the company, and her supervisors were reluctant to have her

absent for an extended period.

The knowledgeability and attitude of these leave-takers’ supervisors played especially important roles in influencing the quality of their experiences. The women

encountered some problems with supervisors’ attitudes.5

In general, the experiences of these four leave-takers are consistent with the picture painted by the survey data discussed in this and the two previous chapters.

The leave taken by each of these four employees fell within the Act’s 12-week

mandate. The leave-takers expressed some concerns about taking leave but ulti5 Given the power of employee’s supervisors over their job prospects, and given the fact that some

employees surveyed reported job-related worries about taking leaves, this anecdotal data should be tested

with more rigorous research on a group of employees with diverse occupations and skill levels.
167

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

mately were able to go ahead with their plans. Two of the women experienced

some difficulty getting leave. All four leave-takers returned to work as scheduled.

Perhaps most importantly, in each case the leave played a critical part in allowing

these employees to tend to important family and medical needs, while being able

to return to their jobs. According to these interviews, these employees are better

able to contribute to their organizations because of their leave-taking experiences.

E. Summary

The FMLA makes a significant difference to employees trying to sustain their family lives and work lives, at times when their own health problems or the needs of

their dependents become pressing. The passage of the FMLA expands leave access

to employees who might not otherwise be able to take leave and, perhaps most

importantly, provides the minimum conditions that make it possible for employees

to consider taking leave. The testimony before the Family Leave Commission

illustrates the sorts of extremely difficult choices employees face when they need

the FMLA. Clearly, the fact that jobs are guaranteed and health benefits are continued when they take leave has had a profoundly positive impact on employees’

ability to meet both work and family responsibilities.

Research on the availability of family and medical leave before the passage of the

Act suggests that the FMLA has indeed expanded access, especially to employees

in relatively low-wage positions in the private sector. More leave, and more paid

leave, was available to professionals, to employees at medium and large companies

and to state and government employees before the FMLA was passed. In relative

terms, this is still the case. However, the Act has gone a significant way toward

expanding access to family and medical leave. Many of the employees who shared

their stories with the Commission in public hearings might very well not have had

access to leave before 1993.

Another way in which the Act expands access to leave is by including family leave

to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or parent. Before 1993 it was extremely rare

for private-sector workers to be able to take leave to care for ill elderly parents.

Thus, Ms. Connell and Mr. Thornton - whose stories are described in this chapter

- might not have been able to care for their ill mothers were it not for the FMLA.
168

A Workable Balance

The fact that the Act makes it possible for employees to use various wage replacement mechanisms (such as sick pay or vacation pay) to cover family and medical

leave undoubtedly makes a big difference to those employees who are able to benefit in this way. The financial difficulties of leave-takers who are in the lower two

income brackets ($30,000 or less in annual family income) - many of whom have

to borrow money and use up savings, and some of whom have to cut their leave

short or go on public assistance - indicate the importance of at least partial wage

replacement in making leave possible at all for many employees.

Overall, the effect of family and medical leave policies in general, and the impact

of the FMLA in particular, is substantial and positive for employees. At the same

time, the data suggest two caveats. First, the leave-taking experiences of employees with relatively higher-levels of income and education, those in salaried jobs

(and so on, as noted above) were more positive than leave-taking experiences

overall. Employees who are younger, those in hourly jobs and non-union positions, those with lower incomes and educational levels are less likely to have wage

replacement while on leave. Non-white and lower-income employees are disproportionately likely to lose benefits while on leave. In addition, it is not surprising

that the leave-needers (those who needed but did not take leave) were more likely

to be hourly workers, to have annual family incomes below $30,000 per year, and

that 64 percent of this group report they could not afford to take leave.

Second, there are some ways in which people in relatively more privileged employment positions may have trouble getting access to the full extent of family and

medical leave policies. For example, employees with family incomes of more than

$75,000 per year are relatively less satisfied with the amount of leave they took

than those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year. Indeed, salaried employees take much shorter leaves than hourly employees. This may be due to the

pressures on them to return to work to resume the responsibilities that come with

professional and managerial positions.

Thus, while family and medical leave policies and the FMLA clearly have had a

positive impact on employees as a whole, these policies affect various groups of

employees differently. Those at the lower end of the labor market - who tend to

have more worries about taking leave, trouble getting leave and problems with

covering lost wages during leave - and those at the top - who tend to take shorter

periods of leave and who may feel pressure not to take leave because of their senior

positions - experience different types of problems in taking family and medical
169

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employees

leave. It is important to note that there is no cause and effect relationship here.

These inequities were not created or exacerbated by the Act - rather, they reflect

pre-existing segmentation of the labor market, with certain groups of employees

enjoying more favorable circumstances than others.
170
171 C H A P T E R V I I I

Analysis and Responses to

Statutorily Mandated Questions

As reported in the previous chapters, the Commission on Leave has collected extensive scientific data and other kinds of information concerning family leave policies in general, and the Family and Medical Leave Act in particular. The

Commission’s findings cover many topics related to employers’ leave policies and

employees’ leave experiences. Having explored many of the issues surrounding

the need for leave and the implementation of voluntary policies, state laws and a

new federal law, we now turn to the specific areas of inquiry posed to the Commission and specified in the statute which established it.

(A): “Existing and Proposed Mandatory and Voluntary Policies

Relating to Family and Temporary Medical Leave, Including Policies Provided by Employers Not Covered Under this Act”

As a result of the Employer Survey, the Characteristics of Business Owners (CBO)

survey and other data gathered in papers and through public hearings, we now

have valuable information on the family and medical leave policies of both covered and non-covered employers since passage of the Family and Medical Leave

Act. The Employer Study makes clear that the FMLA has had a significant impact

on employer leave practices and especially on formal leave policies, with two-thirds

of covered worksites changing some aspect of their policies in order to comply with

the Act. Among those covered worksites that did make changes, the most common change was to increase the reasons for which employees can take leave. For

example, 69.3 percent of employers changed their policies to grant male employees time off for family leave. Other common changes were allowing leave to be

taken for a longer period of time, making the leave job-guaranteed, expanding

health insurance benefits and easing employee eligibility requirements.

Chapter IV discusses in detail the results of questions asked both covered and noncovered employers about the types of benefits currently available under their family and medical leave policies. With respect to covered worksites, the data show
172

A Workable Balance

that over 90 percent of employers at covered worksites provide up to 12 weeks of

job-guaranteed leave for each of the reasons specified under the FMLA, and some

portion of this group have policies that go beyond the requirements of the Act.

Among covered worksites, larger worksites with more than 250 employees are only

slightly more likely to offer leave than worksites with 250 employees or fewer.

Over 90 percent of employers at covered worksites also continue health benefits,

and guarantee a job upon return from leave for the reasons specified in the Act.

The proportion of employers at non-covered worksites that offer benefits on a uniform basis is much lower. Fewer than one-half of employers at non-covered worksites

offer 12 weeks of job-protected leave for reasons provided under the Act. Employers at smaller, non-covered worksites tend to have relatively informal policies regarding the use of leave, which depend on the particular circumstances of the

employer and of the employee requesting leave. Among the non-covered worksites,

there are significant differences in the availability of 12 weeks of leave, with worksites

that have fewer than ten employees less likely to offer 12 weeks of job-guaranteed

leave for each of the reasons under the Act. The percentage of employers at noncovered worksites that continue health benefits changes with each reason for leave,

ranging from 69 to 86 percent. A substantial majority (at least 84 percent) of

employers at non-covered worksites who offer 12 weeks of leave do guarantee employees their jobs for each of the reasons specified in the Act, but that is lower

than the minimum 95 percent of employers at covered worksites who do so. Employers at non-covered worksites are also less likely to offer paid time off than are

those at covered worksites, and are less likely to continue pension or retirement, or

contributions to employees’ life insurance plans and disability. Relatively few

employers offer family and medical leave for reasons not included in the Act, although those that do are usually FMLA-covered worksites.

Approximately two-thirds (66.1 percent) of the U.S. labor force work for covered

employers, and certain subgroups of America’s labor force are more likely than

others to be among that group. Employees with higher levels of education, hourly

workers, families with higher income levels and unionized workers enjoy the greatest proportion of coverage. An employee’s racial or ethnic background is also

correlated with the likelihood that he or she will be working for a covered employer, with African Americans the most likely to be covered. Least likely to be

working for a covered employer are employees from households with the lowest

family income levels, with the lowest education levels, the youngest workers and

Latino workers.
173

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

Despite the fact that two-thirds of workers are employed at covered worksites, only

slightly more than half (54.9 percent) of U.S. workers, public and private-sector

combined, actually meet the Act’s eligibility requirements for taking leave, based

on length of service and hours worked. The number of eligible employees drops to

less than half (46.5 percent) for those in the private sector. The disparity between

the extent to which employees are “covered” versus “covered and eligible” is greater

for three subgroups of workers: those 18 to 24 years old, those who have never been

married and those with annual incomes of $20,000 or less.

Only about ten percent of all private-sector U.S. worksites are covered by the Act,

but they employ 60 percent of the country’s private-sector employees. Industries

with the largest worksites, such as manufacturing, also have a large number of

eligible employees working in a relatively small percentage of worksites.

The overall rate at which employees are utilizing the Family and Medical Leave

Act is between two and four percent. The Employer Survey, which covers only the

private sector, finds that at covered worksites the ratio of employees taking leave

under the FMLA is 3.6 for every 100 employees. This ratio varies somewhat by

both the size of the organization, as well as by type of industry. Employees in the

manufacturing sector are more likely to have used the Act than are employees in

the retail industries.

The Employee Survey finds that of the household members who had been employed in either the private-sector or the public-sector within the 18 months prior

to the survey interview, two out of every 100 employees have taken leave using the

Family and Medical Leave Act. While 16.8 percent of all employees surveyed

have taken leave for a reason covered by the FMLA, not all leave taken have

necessarily been identified as “FMLA leave.” Of the 16.8 percent who have taken

leave, seven percent of that group took leave “under the FMLA.” Given that 55

percent of all employees work at covered worksites and are eligible to take leave

under the Act, the Employee Survey finds that the overall FMLA-utilization rate

among employees at covered public and private-sector worksites is two percent.1

Combining the findings of the Employer and Employee Surveys, approximately

1 The Employee Survey had a strict set of criteria for determining whether an employee’s leave was taken

“under the FMLA.” The employee had to meet the eligibility rules specified by the Act, had to have

knowledge of the FMLA, and had to designate their leave as “FMLA-leave.” This may explain in part why

the FMLA utilization rate is lower in the Employee Survey than the Employer Survey.
174

A Workable Balance

one-and-a- half million to just over three million workers took FMLA leave during

the 18 months covered by both surveys.

In addition to the 16.8 percent of employees who have taken FMLA-covered leave,

approximately 3.4 percent needed to take leave but did not. Thus, according to

the Employee Survey, approximately one-fifth of working Americans need to take

leave for family and medical reasons.

In sum, a look at the changes that employers made to comply with the Act and the

resulting access of almost two-thirds of U.S. employees to family and medical leave

policies present a picture of important changes that can be attributed to the Act -

both the benefits offered by employers and the leave options available to employees. To be sure, prior to the Act, many employers did voluntarily provide some

degree of family and medical leave coverage to their employees. A small number

of those employers had policies that matched, or even surpassed FMLA requirements in the protections they offered. But until the FMLA, the overall picture was

that of a patchwork quilt, in which different employers offered different types of

leave with a range of eligibility requirements and specifications. Many voluntary

policies were informal and applied unevenly among employees. Employers may

have provided leave, but not for all the reasons offered by FMLA, especially family

leave provisions which allow employees to care for the serious health condition of

an ill parent, child or spouse, or for parental leave to care for a newborn. Leave was

sometimes handled informally, or on a case-by-case basis, was often for a shorter

duration, and health insurance and other benefits were not necessarily maintained.

Perhaps most significantly, the discretionary nature of many leave policies meant

that leave-taking employees did so at some risk to their job security, benefits and

other issues.

Thus, the data reveal that even at this early stage, the Act has succeeded in replacing the piecemeal nature of family and medical leave policies with a more consistent and uniform standard that assures a minimum level of protection to all eligible employees. The FMLA, with its signature features of guaranteed job protection and maintenance of health benefits, begins to emerge, even now, as a major

step forward in helping working Americans meet their medical and family caregiving

needs while still maintaining their jobs and their economic security.
175

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

(B): “The Potential Costs, Benefits and Impact on Productivity,

Job Creation and Business Growth of Such Policies on Employers and Employees”

1) Employers

The information used to assess costs and benefits for employers is derived from

three key areas of inquiry on the Employer Survey, namely: ease of compliance

with the administrative activities associated with FMLA; costs of administration,

benefits, hiring and training; and the effect of the Act on factors related to the

performance of the worksite and its employees. It should be noted that this is an

assessment based on the first two years of experience with the new law.

Among covered worksites, the vast majority of respondents find that both general

compliance and the administrative activities associated with implementing the

Act are either “very easy” or “somewhat easy.” Specifically, over 90 percent of

employers at covered worksites found it “very” or “somewhat easy” to determine

whether the Act applies to their worksite, and to determine employee eligibility.

Between 74.3 percent and just over 80 percent of employers at covered worksites

report additional record-keeping and coordination of state and federal leave laws,

other federal law, and other leave policies to be “somewhat” or “very” easy. In

short, a sizable majority of employers at covered worksites report few or no problems with administering the Act. The area with which covered employers appear

to have the greatest difficulty concerns the management of intermittent leave under the FMLA. Thus, while the majority of employers at covered worksites (60.8

percent) find it either “very” or “somewhat easy” to manage the Act’s intermittent

leave provisions, 39.2 percent find them either “somewhat” or “very difficult.” The

use of intermittent leave, however, is relatively low, with only 11.5 percent of

leave-takers taking intermittent leave.

Covered-worksite respondents to the Employer Survey were also asked to rate the

extent of cost increases they had experienced in four broad areas: general administrative costs; the cost of continuing health benefits to employees taking leave;

costs associated with hiring and training replacements for employees taking leave;

and “other” costs. The great majority report no cost increases at all, or only slight

cost increases in all four categories. With respect to administrative costs, 89.2

percent of employers at covered worksites report no or only small cost increases.

Over 90 percent of covered worksites report no or small increases in costs associ-
176

A Workable Balance

ated with continuing employee benefits during leave. No or small increases in

costs are reported with respect to hiring and training by over 95 percent of employers. Finally, 98.5 percent of employers at covered worksites report no or small cost

increases in other areas.

With respect to benefits to employers resulting from the Act, very few employers

report any significant cost savings. A number of employers who testified at the

hearings pointed out some of the benefits to their worksites that accrued from the

Act. In addition to cost savings, some employers found that the Act has helped

them establish uniformity and consistency in their family and medical leave policies. Several employers testified that by providing family and medical leave to

their employees, the Act benefits their worksite, as well. For example, several

employers cited benefits from a lowering of employee turnover.

With respect to the Act’s impact on three measures of business performance - productivity, profitability and business growth - the data reveal that most respondents

experience no noticeable effects. To the extent that employers do report an effect,

they are about equally likely to note a positive effect as a negative effect regarding

business productivity and growth. More employers cite a negative effect regarding

business profitability. With respect to the Act’s impact on five measures of employee performance - productivity, employee absence, turnover, career advancement and help balancing work and family - again, the majority of covered respondents report no noticeable effect. However, the positives outweigh the negatives

on four out of five of these measures. For example, over one-third of employers

note a positive impact on employees’ ability to care for family members, while only

0.2 percent report a negative effect. And, as discussed below, the positive effect

jumps to 71 percent for the largest employers. In addition, 8.3 percent see a positive effect on employees’ career advancement, while less than one percent note a

negative effect. Employee absence is the only measure of employee performance

where the positive and negative effects are roughly equivalent.

In sum, while many concerns were voiced by the business community about the

potential negative impact of the Act when it was under discussion by Congress,

data from the Employer Survey indicate that the great majority of employers have

experienced little or no effects from the Act. This includes the area of costs as well

as those of productivity, job creation and business growth. For example, the data

indicate that employee abuse has not surfaced as a significant problem; rather, the

data present a picture marked by low employee utilization rates and short leave

durations, with the vast majority of employees returning to their jobs.
177

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

2) Employees

The Employee Survey dramatically demonstrates the overall need experienced by

employees for family and medical leave policies. A full 20 percent of employees

surveyed either took leave for reasons covered by the FMLA or needed to take

leave, but did not do so. In addition, two-thirds of all employees surveyed think

they are “very” or “somewhat likely” to take leave for an FMLA reason sometime

within the next five years. (Eighteen percent think it “very likely,” and 47.5 percent say it is “somewhat likely.”) As the Employee Survey indicates, the need for

leave may not occur often, but when the need does strike, it is often urgent and

immediate, making the provision of job-protected leave a major benefit to those

covered by the FMLA.

The hearing testimony repeatedly underscored the importance to employees and

their families of the ability to take leave when the need arose in their families’

lives. Employees needed to take time off from work to fight cancer, to recuperate

after childbirth, to care for a wife and newborn child, to accompany an ailing

spouse to surgery, or to stay by a dying child. While the stories differed, certain

themes were repeated throughout: the importance to employees of knowing that

their health insurance would continue, and that their jobs would be there when

they returned. Clearly, the FMLA can make a profound difference to employees

struggling to balance the needs of work and family.

Prior to the Act, many employers voluntarily provided some degree of family and

medical leave coverage to their employees. But often policies were partial in the

types of leave provided. Jobs were often not guaranteed, nor were health benefits

maintained. The passage of the FMLA has enabled more employees to take advantage of family and medical leave policies, under a more consistent and uniform

standard that assures certain minimal levels of protection. As both the Employer

Survey data and the hearing testimony made clear, a family-friendly leave policy

can enhance employees’ productivity. As one employer explained, the FMLA “is a

dual benefit, and it will promote a productive environment and a strong dedication and loyalty.”2

2 Testimony of Marsha Brock, Human Resources Manager, Casto Travel, at San Francisco, CA Hearing,

June 28, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 18.
178

A Workable Balance

The Employee Survey also points out several costs to employees associated with

the current provisions in the FMLA and other family and medical leave policies.

First, some employees are ineligible to take leave because of eligibility requirements related to their employer’s size or their own hours and length of service.

Second, there is a lack of wage replacement. Fewer than half of all leave-takers

have full pay during their leave and the proportion of those with full pay drops

significantly for workers 18 to 24 years old, hourly workers and those with low

levels of education and family income. In order to cover lost wages, some employees must limit “extras,” borrow money or use savings, and a small number go on

public assistance. Others may cut short their leave before they or a family member

are really ready for them to return to work.

Third, family and medical leave policies appear to affect various groups of employees differently. Those at the lower end of the labor market, and those at the top,

experience different types of problems in taking family and medical leave, reflecting pre-existing segmentation of the labor market. Fourth, some employers may

not be complying, judging by the fact that some employers at covered worksites

reported they are not providing certain benefits required by the Act. While the

newness of the law and lack of employer knowledge may account for some of the

non-compliance, the fact remains that some employees lack the job protection

and health benefits guaranteed under the FMLA. All in all, however, the data

show that the benefits of the Act outweigh the costs to employees, and that the

FMLA’s impact on employees is substantial and positive.

(C): “Possible Differences in Costs, Benefits and Impact on Productivity, Job Creation and Business Growth of Such Policies on

Employers Based on Business Type and Size”

1) Costs to Employers Based on Business Type and Size

As with the other measures of the effects of the FMLA, costs are more of a concern

for larger compared with smaller covered worksites. The larger worksites are somewhat more likely to have seen “moderate” increases in administrative costs. The

increased costs that larger worksites experience in administering the Act are consistent with employers’ responses to questions concerning the degree of difficulty

they had in administering the Act. When covered worksites are broken down into

size categories - small (having fewer than 50 employees but qualifying as covered
179

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

due to the 75-mile radius rule), medium-sized (50 to 250 employees) and larger

(with more than 250 employees) - the data show that the degree of difficulty in

administering the Act grows with the size of the worksite: worksites with more

than 500 employees are more likely than those with between 250 and 500 to report

difficulty coordinating the FMLA with pre-existing leave policies, and over threefourths of those with more than 1,000 employees report difficulties implementing

the Act’s intermittent leave provisions.

Certain factors could account for the finding that larger covered worksites tend to

have more trouble than smaller and medium-sized sites with these administrative

functions. Larger worksites are more likely to have leave-takers, to be covered by

other laws, to have pre-existing formal policies regarding leave and generally require more overall administrative adjustment and realignment than do the smaller

worksites. The fact that smaller worksites are more likely to manage human resource policies informally may also partially explain the size differences concerning administrative difficulties. The hearing testimony indicates, as well, that at

least some of the difficulty experienced by larger worksites in administering the

Act can be attributed to start-up costs. Additional research over time will help to

distinguish the relative weight of start-up costs versus ongoing, routine costs in the

overall bottom-line calculations of employers.

In addition to administration of the Act, the continuation of benefits during leave

are more likely to cause “moderate” cost increases for larger covered worksites.

Only a very small percentage of covered worksites indicate that “other” cost increases have occurred due to the FMLA. Manufacturing worksites are slightly less

likely to report small or no increases than the sample as a whole.

2) Benefits to Employers Based on Business Type and Size

Very few covered worksites report cost savings as a result of the Act (2.5 percent).

Interestingly though, the larger worksites - those with more than 250 employees -

that are more likely to incur costs from complying with the Act also report slightly

more cost savings (7.5 percent) than covered worksites as a whole.3 These savings

may help to offset the relatively higher level of costs reported by larger sites, especially to the extent that they are start-up costs.

3 David Cantor, et al., The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of Employers, (Rockville,

MD: Westat, Inc., 1995), pp. 4-8, Table 4-7.
180

A Workable Balance

In addition, some of the examples of benefits raised by employers at the hearings

pertain especially to the larger employers. Thus, for example, the FMLA can benefit those worksites - usually larger - already providing leave policies consistent

with or more generous than the Act because it removes their competitive disadvantage in relation to other companies.

There are also direct benefits to employers in the form of enhanced employee productivity and reduced employee turnover, as well as indirect benefits to employers

when employees are better able to handle their family responsibilities.

3) Impact on Productivity, Job Creation and Business Growth Based on Business Type and Size

As discussed above, most covered worksites experience no significant impact on

business and employee performance as a result of the Act. The majority of employers at covered worksites cite little or no noticeable effect on productivity, profitability or growth.

In general, employers’ views on the impact of the Act on business performance and

employee performance vary across different size categories of covered worksites.

Larger worksites report more negative effects of FMLA on business productivity,

profitability, employee productivity and absences. On the other hand, they are

much more likely than their smaller counterparts to find that the Act has had a

positive impact on their employees’ abilities to care for family members. Thus,

while over one-third of covered worksites across size categories find that the Act

has had a positive impact on their employees’ abilities to care for family members,

that is true of over 70 percent of the largest covered worksites.

Manufacturing sites are more likely to perceive negative effects on employee productivity. Employers in the service sector are more likely than those in other industries to note positive effects on employee turnover and absenses. Covered

worksites in the service sector also report the most positive effects from the Act on

business and employee productivity, while manufacturing sites are the least likely

to report positive effects on these two dimensions. Overall, however, it is important to reiterate that most worksites do not experience any noticeable effects on

business or employee performance, regardless of size or sector.
181

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

(D): “The Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on the

Availability of Employee Benefits Provided by Employers, Including Employers Not Covered Under the Act”

The Employer Survey specifically addresses this issue by asking employers at

worksites whether they reduced other existing benefits to offset any increased costs

associated with the FMLA, and if so, what they were. The results are that very few

(1.3 percent) employers at worksites find it necessary to reduce other employee

benefits in order to comply with the FMLA.4 No significant differences are found

in benefit reduction as a function of worksite size or industry. For example, 1.4

percent of worksites with up to 250 employees and .6 percent of worksites with

more than 250 employees reduce their benefits.

The Employee Survey respondents report that the most frequent reduction in benefits was paid time off, either in the form of sick days, personal leave or vacation

leave. This probably means that their employers allowed them to use these types

of paid leave for wage replacement during their FMLA leave. Employees also report some reduction in health benefits (8.2 percent of covered employees) and

disability insurance (1.9 percent of covered employees).

The fact that minimal numbers of employers have needed to reduce other employee benefits in order to comply with the Act is consistent with, and reinforces

the other data from the Employer Survey indicating that the costs of administering

and implementing the FMLA are negligible or small for the great majority of employers.

(E): “Alternate and Equivalent State Enforcement of Title I with

Respect to Employees Described in Section 108(a)”

Title I, Section 108 of the FMLA restricts teachers’ ability to take certain types of

leave ordinarily available under the Act. The restrictions pertain to intermittent

or reduced scheduled leave, and leave near the conclusion of an academic term.

Title IV, Section 401 of the Act provides that the FMLA cannot be construed to

supersede any provision of any state or local law that provides more generous family or medical leave rights than those established under the Act. The Federal

4 Cantor, et al, pp. 4-12, Tables 4-10, 4-11.
182

A Workable Balance

regulations implementing the FMLA provide that the Department of Labor will

not enforce state family or medical leave laws, and states may not enforce the

FMLA.5

Mandated question E specifically charges the Commission to study alternate and

equivalent state enforcement of Title I with respect to teachers. To do this, the

Commission followed a two-pronged approach. First, the Commission developed

a “state enforcement mini-survey” to answer this and other questions pertaining to

individual state family and medical leave laws. Second, the Commission contacted major management and teacher organizations in the education field, inviting them to contribute their expertise to the research process.6

 Of the various

educational organizations contacted, only the American Federation of Teachers

(AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) responded affirmatively,

and each conducted studies designed to provide information about the special conditions in the FMLA applicable to teachers. Neither of these studies purports to be

a scientific, random-sample survey. Rather, each offers useful but anecdotal information on the question posed to the Commission regarding the special conditions

in the FMLA applicable to teachers.

1) Results of the State Survey

Following are the three mini-survey questions pertaining to teachers and the results:

a) What family and medical leave provisions exist in your state law that relate specifically

to instructional persons (teachers)?

Thirty-three states responded to this question. Three states (Alaska, Connecticut

and Oregon) and Washington, D.C. responded that they have had laws with specific provisions that pertained to teachers. Thirty states had no provisions specifically pertaining to teachers.

b) How are these provisions enforced? By whom?

Alaska, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington, D.C. each have enforcement provisions specifically relating to teachers. In Alaska, the provisions are enforced by

5 Federal Regulations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Part 825.701(a), Subpart F, “Special

Rules for Employees of Schools.”

6 The Commission contacted the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Board

Association, the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, and the National Education Association, AFLCIO.
183

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

the state’s Bureau of Labor Standards. Connecticut’s provisions are enforced by

the state’s Department of Administrative Services. In Oregon, the state’s Bureau

of Labor and Industry enforces the provisions pertaining to teachers. Finally, Washington, D.C. enforces its provisions through its Department of Human Rights and

Minority Business.

c) What problems, if any, exist for local school administrators if they have to report to

both state and federal enforcement entities?

All thirty-four states that responded to this question (including Connecticut, Alaska

and Oregon), Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico know of no problems for local

school administrators resulting from reporting to both state and federal enforcement entities.

2)Results of the Surveys of Educational Professionals

a) American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

The purpose of the AFT survey was to learn about the impact of the new law, and

the special leave provisions affecting teachers, on affected AFT members. The

union looked at two states: one (Illinois) in which leave-of-absence rules are negotiated in collective bargaining or provided in state statute; and the other (Texas)

in which leave-of-absence rules are established by school boards. This methodology was designed to determine if collective bargaining had any bearing on the

practical application of the FMLA for members and their families.

The survey results show that teachers and other school employees are, in fact,

taking leave without undue disruption. In all, 16 Illinois local members and 12

Texas local members have taken family and medical leave. The survey also finds

that virtually all responding local representatives have heard of the FMLA and

have at least a general understanding of the law. There are only three complaints

among local respondents regarding implementation of the new law, two regarding

the need for additional information and one concerning employer unwillingness

to share information about the subject. Only a small minority of survey respondents indicated knowledge of the special leave provisions affecting classroom teachers under the law. AFT plans to correct this shortcoming by providing each local

with a reference guide to FMLA, including examples that apply to classroom teachers.
184

A Workable Balance

Only a small fraction of surveyed locals have actually incorporated the provisions

of the FMLA into their contracts. Locals in both states were eligible for maternity

and child care leave before the enactment of the FMLA. A majority of Illinois

respondents, and four out of nine Texas locals, state that school-related personnel

(such as bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians and secretaries) are not required

to work 1,250 hours to be eligible for FMLA protections; they are automatically

covered.

In evaluating the importance of new protections provided under the FMLA, local

respondents from both states cite the job security provisions, maintenance of health

insurance coverage and the expansion in the types of leave available to workers,

particularly parenting leave for fathers.

b) National Education Association (NEA)

The NEA survey of their state affiliates elicited information on the level of coverage, the extent of FMLA use, the impact on the workplace and suggestions for

further improvements in the FMLA. The survey finds that: 1) most of the educational employees in the respondent states were covered by some level of family and

medical leave prior to passage of the FMLA; 2) 48 percent of the respondents

indicate that coverage for family leave improved with the passage of the law, while

32 percent respond that coverage for medical leave improved with enactment of

the new law; 3) most respondents indicate that the level of use of family and medical leave is either relatively unchanged since passage of the FMLA, or that they do

not have sufficient data on which to make a judgment about what changes there

may have been in leave-usage; and 4) the number of grievances and lawsuits filed

over family and medical leave has lowered in a few states since passage of the

FMLA.

Finally, respondents recommend a number of changes in the FMLA. First, and

most relevant to the query posed by Congress, respondents recommend eliminating the rule that allows employers to require educational employees to use additional unpaid leave beyond their FMLA leave when near the end of the school

term. They also recommend extending coverage to small employers and part-time

employees, making unpaid leave periods longer, providing for paid leave in place

of unpaid leave, reducing the burden of health insurance costs during periods of

unpaid leave and repealing the employer cost-recapture rules applicable to employees who do not return from unpaid leave.
185

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

(F): “Methods Used by Employers to Reduce Administrative Costs

of Implementing Family and Medical Leave Policies”

Prior to the passage of the FMLA, concerns were expressed that implementation of

the Act would prove costly to employers, thus making cost reduction an important

factor to address. The data collected by the Commission on Leave indicate that

employer costs are not a substantial burden. Rather, the Employer Survey finds

that employer cost increases due to FMLA are either absent or small for the majority of worksites, and this finding is corroborated by the Characteristics of Business

Owners survey conducted by the Census Bureau. Thus, while the importance to

employers of cost reduction in principle should not be minimized, it does not present

itself as a significant factor with respect to the FMLA thus far.

The hearing testimony points out particular start-up problems experienced by

employers, including those pertaining to coordination with state laws, record-keeping and training.7

 The testimony also provides examples of a number of ways in

which employers have sought to minimize their administrative costs and burdens.

Some employers have developed training programs on FMLA for managers and

supervisors, which operate to decrease costs over time.8 Others have developed

software programs that make family and medical leave policy information available to employees on-line.9

 In providing estimates of initial costs to employers of

complying with the Act, the Employer Study provides good base-line data for future research to assess cost-reduction methods over time.

(G): “The Ability of Employers to Recover the Premiums Described in Title I, Section 104(c)(2) of the Act”

The Family and Medical Leave Act provides that the employer may recover the

premium paid for maintaining health insurance coverage during the employee’s

7 Testimony of Valerie M. Pinkert, Vice President, Bank of America, at San Francisco,CA Hearing, June 26,

1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, pp. 14-15, 52; Testimony of Catherine A.

Morris, Corporate Human Resources, ARCO, at San Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26, 1995, U.S.

Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 68; Testimony of Rhoma Young, Rhoma Young &

Associates, at San Francisco,CA Hearing, June 26, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing

Transcript, pp. 71-2; Testimony of Ronald Compton, CEO Aetna Life and Casualty Company, at Washington, D.C. Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 19. 8 Testimony of Diane Duval, Corporate Benefits Manager, Lotus Development Corporation, at Washington,

DC Hearing, August 4, 1995, U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 25; Testimony of

Catherine A. Morris, Corporate Human Resources, ARCO at San Francisco, CA Hearing, June 26, 1995,

U.S. Commission on Leave Public Hearing Transcript, p. 102. 9 Duval, p. 25
186

A Workable Balance

unpaid leave under the Act if the employee fails to return from leave, subject to

certain conditions. The purpose of this section is to defray the costs incurred by

employers in situations where leave-takers decide to terminate employment and

do not return to work.

In order to assess the prevalence of this situation, the Employer Survey asked respondents in worksites with at least one FMLA leave-taker whether any employee

that took FMLA leave did not return to work. The Employer Survey finds that

one-third of the worksites have had this situation occur, with the majority of this

group (86.6 percent) having had only one leave-taker not return.10 The Employer

Survey further finds, however, that very few worksites (7.3 percent of the onethird who had a leave-taker not return) have attempted to recover health insurance benefit payments, even though they are entitled to do so under the Act.11

(H): “The Impact on Employers and Employees of Policies that

Provide Temporary Wage Replacement During Periods of Family

and Medical Leave”

There are several sources of information for understanding the impact of temporary wage replacement policies on employers and employees. The Employee Survey data provide a picture of the availability of wage replacement to leave-takers

in both covered and non-covered worksites following passage of the FMLA. In

addition, a “white paper” prepared for the Commission by the Radcliffe Public

Policy Institute provides data about the status and impact of paid leave policies

prior to 1993.12 Finally, there is qualitative data on the issue of wage replacement

in the hearing testimony and Catalyst interviews.

1) Employee Survey: Wage Replacement Data

While the Act does not include a mandate for paid leave, it does include provisions for employers or employees to apply wage replacement provided for other

kinds of leave (sick leave or vacation pay) to family and medical leave. The Employee Survey does not distinguish between wage replacement specifically for fam10 Cantor, et al., pp. 4-14, Tables 4-12, 4-13. 11 Ibid, pp. 4-12, Table 4-14. 12 Kirsten S. Wever, Improving Access to Family and Medical Leave: Temporary Partial Wage Replacement

Options, (September 29, 1995).
187

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

ily and medical leave, on the one hand, and sick leave pay or vacation pay, on the

other.

The Employee Survey finds that a significant percentage (46.7 percent) of all leavetaker respondents receive full wage replacement during their leave. Of those working

in covered worksites, 51.9 percent receive full pay while on leave, and 21.5 percent receive partial wage replacement. The percent age of leave-takers receiving

full pay is significantly lower for the youngest employees, hourly employees and

those with the lowest education and income. No wage replacement whatsoever is

received by 26.6 percent of leave-takers in covered worksites and over half (53

percent) of employees working at non-covered worksites.

Those employees taking leave for their own health are most likely to have full or

partial wage replacement (probably in large measure sick pay, followed by vacation

pay, disability insurance or a combination of these). Partial wage replacement is

most common for maternity-disability leave-takers. This may reflect the fact that

some private sector employers provide disability insurance plans13 and that five

states have mandated Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) systems which include partial wage replacement for pregnancy and childbirth-related disabilities.14

There are some significant demographic variations as to the likelihood that a leavetaker will receive wage replacement. Salaried employees, unionized employees

and those with higher levels of household income are most likely to receive wage

replacement. Conversely, those who receive no pay during their leave tend to be

nonsalaried, non-union and low-income respondents.

The most striking difference between employees’ levels of wage replacement while

on leave is found with respect to education. The likelihood of a respondent’s

having received full or partial wage replacement increases as education rises, from

53.8 percent of leave-takers with less than a high school education receiving either full or partial pay to 79.6 percent of those with at least a four-year college

degree receiving compensation. The relationship between the level of wage replacement and income closely parallels the findings with respect to education. In

13 Employers voluntarily provide both short-term and long-term disability insurance. For example, the 1993

Employee Benefits Survey of Medium and Large Private Establishments found that 87 percent of full-time

employees have short-term disability protection and 41 percent have long-term disability insurance.

14 Although only five states in the U.S. have mandated TDI systems, it should be noted that three of the five

states (NY, NJ CA) account for 20 percent of the U.S. population.
188

A Workable Balance

general, lower-income employees are far less likely to have wage replacement. Likewise, non-salaried employees (who are more likely to have lower incomes and lower

levels of education) are four times as likely as salaried leave-takers to report receiving no pay during their periods of leave. Other differences among subgroups also

emerge, with men and older workers more likely to receive pay during leave, and

Latino workers least likely to do so.

The importance of wage replacement to leave-taking is underscored by the fact

that 63.9 percent of all leave-needers (employees who need but did not take leave)

report that they do not take leave because they cannot afford to go without a

paycheck, even for a limited period of time. Fully 58 percent of those leave-needers

working for covered employers and 72 percent of leave-needers at non-covered

worksites say they are unable to take leave because they cannot afford the associated loss of wages. These employees are especially likely to be African American,

to be hourly workers and to have low levels of family income. This is cited far

more frequently than any other reason given for not taking leave by those who

need leave.

In sum, the Employee Survey makes clear that many employers are already providing some measure of wage replacement to their leave-taking employees, most in

the form of sick pay, disability insurance and vacation pay. The existence of some

level of pay for different types of family and medical leave means that additional

funding for leave should take these pre-existing forms of wage replacement into

account.

2) U.S. Wage Replacement Policies in a Global Context

While the United States has no uniform system of wage replacement, many other

countries do. Because U.S. businesses operate in an increasingly global marketplace, a look at the national wage replacement policies that exist in some of those

other countries provides a valuable source of comparison. In making such comparisons, cultural, demographic and economic differences among nations should

be taken into account. Most other advanced industrial countries have national

legislation that provides employees with partial wage replacement for some period

of time - ranging from about three to nine months when they take leave for reasons

of personal illness or to give birth. The trend in many advanced industrial countries has been to encourage fathers to play greater roles in caring for their children

by offering more and more generous forms of paid paternity leave. Paid leave for
189

Analysis and Responses to Statutorily Mandated Questions

employees who need to take care of ill family members is fairly common when

those in need of care are children; paid leave for taking care of spouses is rarer, and

only a few countries offer any wage replacement in the case of eldercare leave.15

The mechanisms used to finance paid leave vary significantly across countries,

ranging from employee-funded and employee/employer-funded insurance plans to

plans financed entirely out of general tax revenues. As the paper cited above

indicates, comparative political and economic analyses suggest that the costs to

employers are negligible, and the benefits to citizens significant.

The United States stands out in international comparison in that national family

and medical leave policy is unpaid, and is available only to those working in companies with 50 employees or more. However, the FMLA is more generous than

leave policies in many other advanced industrial countries in that it covers a broader

range of reasons for taking leave, especially in the area of family leave.

Many U.S. companies voluntarily offer wage replacement for certain kinds of employee leave. While hard data are scarce, many of these companies associate paid

leave policies with higher levels of product and service quality, and improvements

in productivity.16 Nevertheless, many companies - particularly smaller companies

- have expressed concerns about the costs of offering employees paid leave. Some

suggest that one way of reducing cost differences among employers is to standardize

leave policies broadly enough that individual companies offering leave are not

placed at a competitive disadvantage to companies not offering leave.

The evidence concerning paid leave associated with Temporary Disability Insurance plans in the five states that have such programs suggests that paid maternity

leave and leave for personal illness provide significant benefits for employees, in

terms of job stability, income maintenance, long-range earnings potential and protection of savings. In addition, employer participation in TDI is relatively inexpensive. There is also evidence to suggest that the economic well-being of even

small worksites (and certainly larger worksites as well) in states whose leave policies are more extensive than those of the FMLA do not suffer.

15 For example, in Sweden employees can take 30 days of paid leave to care for elderly relatives. See Lynn

B. Gerald, “Paid Family Caregiving: A Review of Progress and Policies,” Journal of Aging and Social Policy,

Vol. 5, 1993.

16 General Accounting Office, The Changing Workforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal Work/

Family Programs and Approaches, Report to Congressional Committees, (U.S. General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC, April, 1992).
190

A Workable Balance

The data reveal that many employees who currently have no access to paid leave

would use it and benefit by it, especially low-income workers. Employees paid on

an hourly basis and those with relatively low levels of education and income are

less likely to have access to paid leave policies than are salaried employees and

those with higher levels of education and income. Anecdotal evidence also suggests a strong preference among many employees for part-time leave, supporting

the idea that partial wage replacement would be a significant benefit to working

people.

192
193 C H A P T E R I X

Future Directions:

Commission on Leave Recommendations
194

A Workable Balance

COMMISION ON LEAVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the information detailed in this report, the Commission on Leave developed and

unanimously adopted the following recommendations.1

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

A. Increased Public Education on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The Commission recommends that the Labor Department do more to educate

employees, employers and the public in general about the FMLA, including but

not limited to: inauguration of a 1-800 number; on-going PSAs; employee rights

and responsibilities education programs targeted to FMLA populations; distribution of information to libraries, schools, hospitals, community and senior centers,

etc., and, as appropriate, on the Internet; increased distribution of materials to

employers and employees; and special campaigns to educate doctors, social workers and other health professionals on their role in the FMLA and how they can

help their clients use it — perhaps working with doctor, nurse, and social-worker

associations and with medical colleges and other training institutions. The Labor

Department should also identify other agencies that have on-going links to business, unions, health care providers or others who have a role in making the FMLA

work, and encourage those agencies to assist in public education efforts.

B. Model Record-Keeping

The Commission recommends that the Labor Department, in consultation with

the Commerce Department and the Small Business Administration, work with

large and small business and employee representatives and software companies to

develop model systems for record-keeping and for personnel practices that could

be widely distributed to businesses to assist them in complying with FMLA.

C. Specific Areas of Technical Assistance and Public Education

(1) To better protect employee privacy, the Commission recommends that the

Labor Department make clear, through technical assistance opinion letters, or other appropriate means, that the categories of information that

1 One voting member of the Commission was absent for this vote.
195

Recommendations

employers are to keep confidential be expanded to include requests for

leave and orally-provided information (in addition to the actual medical

certification documents).

(2) Because the FMLA’s overlap with other state and federal laws has proven

confusing to the public, the Commission recommends that the Labor Department do more public education and technical assistance and, if appropriate, provide model record-keeping on the interaction of FMLA with

the unemployment compensation program, with state laws and with other

federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act.

In particular, when an employee loses her or his job in violation of the

FMLA, the employee should not be disqualified from unemployment compensation. The Commission recommends that the Labor Department issue guidance to state unemployment insurance programs to this effect.

(3) To address cultural barriers to leave-taking, the Commission recommends

that appropriate federal agencies create a national business/employee Round

Table to address corporate and general cultural barriers that prevent employees, male and female, from taking advantage of available family and

medical leave policies. And the Labor Department should direct some of

its efforts at increasing public awareness of the FMLA toward populations

that are particularly affected by these cultural barriers.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Introduction

There is no question that the work of the Family Leave Commission has provided

rich sources of data about the impact of a particular kind of family-friendly workplace policy - family and medical leave policies - on employees and on employers.

Indeed, the two new datasets that the Commission has created will no doubt be

the subject of extensive further study. In fact, these two studies can yield much

information that is useful to build upon and improve family and medical policies -

useful not only to Congress and other public policy makers, but also to businesses,

employee organizations and individuals. In addition, there are a number of areas
196

A Workable Balance

of research that the Commission did not try to pursue, and that would also be

extremely useful as a basis for improving future family-friendly workplace policies.

At the same time, the research community has evidenced a lively interest in the

impact of family and medical leave policy at all levels - on the economy, on employers, on families, on individual employees, on children, on women, on the elderly and on society as a whole. The Commission urges that this interest, and the

work that has already been done, be enhanced by researchers in the academy, in

government and in businesses. Specifically, the following new research should be

pursued:

(A) Building on the instruments developed for the Commission’s two surveys,

additional regular questions on family and medical leave should be added

to existing and on-going government and private surveys, including the

Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Benefits Survey;

(B) Additional research should be done to assess the impact of family leave

policies (both those required by the FMLA and those voluntarily provided)

on: child development and well-being, particularly the effect on the physical, cognitive and social development of children; child and family health,

particularly the effect on parents’ role in meeting their children’s health

needs; family and life functioning, particularly the effect on families’ ability to provide an economically secure and nurturing environment for

childrearing and other kinds of family caregiving;

(C) Additional research should be done to assess the impact of family leave

policies (both those required by the FMLA and those voluntarily provided)

on employees who do not have telephones - generally, low-income people

- and on public employers and employees;

(D) Additional macroeconomic research should be done to assess the impact

of family leave policies (both those required by the FMLA and those voluntarily provided) on countries’ and companies’ overall economic performance. Research on the domestic impact should take cognizance of the

interaction between family leave polices and other benefit policies resulting from voluntary provision, state laws or other sources. Research on the

impact on countries should take cognizance of the related impacts of factors such as culture, demographics and medical practices;
197

Recommendations

(E) Additional research should be done to assess the impact of family leave

policies (both those required by the FMLA and those voluntarily provided)

on temporary, part-time and contract workers;

(F) More in-depth case studies of employers who have been successful at providing family leave and other family-friendly policies should be conducted,

to create a larger body of “best practices” information for employers and

employee organizations to draw on;

(G) Better tools to measure the impact of family-leave policies on employees’

morale, productivity, turnover and retraining loyalty and commitment to

their employers should be developed;

(H) Research should be done on the relationship of family leave policies to

containing health care costs of the nation, of businesses and of families;

(I) Additional research should be undertaken to identify effective approaches

for employers to take to reduce the cultural barriers to taking leave; and

those approaches should be disseminated;

(J) Research should be conducted on the implementation and application of

the Act with regard to Congressional employees and employing authorities that parallels applicable areas of research with regard to the private

and other public sectors. Such research should include, but not be limited

to, education and awareness, incidence of leave-taking, discrimination,

abuse and impact on family well-being. Of special interest would be research on how applying the FMLA to Congress affects the attitudes of

policy makers and their employees toward the current trend of more fully

applying private sector employment laws to Congressional employees and

employers; and

(K) Additional research should be conducted on the long-term costs and benefits of family and medical leave policies for employers - including the

impact on “no-fault” absence policies and on other benefits employers may

provide voluntarily or through federal statute.
198

A Workable Balance

POLICY DIRECTIONS

A. Enforcement

(1) The Commission recommends that the Labor Department continue and

strengthen its program of enforcing the Family and Medical Leave Act

(FMLA).

(2) The Commission recommends that other federal agencies (in addition to

the Labor Department) identify steps they can take to ensure full compliance with the FMLA by companies with which they work.

(3) The Commission recommends that Congress seriously consider making

the same court procedures and remedies available to employees of the federal government as are available to other employees.

B. More Family-Friendly Policies

(1) Wage Replacement

The Commission’s research and hearings show that by far, the major reason employees in FMLA-covered institutions do not take FMLA leave is

that they cannot afford to do so. In addition, family and medical leave

users often suffer financial hardship when they do take unpaid leave. Finally, many employers do already provide some form of paid leave voluntarily - indicating both their recognition of their employees’ need and their

own ability to provide paid leave through sick leave, disability insurance,

paid childcare leave or other means. On the other hand, many employers

- especially small employers - fear the additional costs that paid leave programs are likely to impose on their businesses.

The Commission makes no recommendation for or against federally-mandated paid leave. However, the Commission recommends that the development of a uniform system of wage replacement for periods of family and

medical leave be given serious consideration by employers, employee representatives and others. Following are some such measures that employers, unions and states may undertake to provide wage replacement for periods of family and medical leave:
199

Recommendations

a. Employers should consider, voluntarily or through collective bargaining, establishing or expanding existing temporary disability insurance (TDI)

to provide wage replacement for periods of family and medical leave, or

otherwise providing paid family and medical leave benefits on as wide a

scale as they can;

b. Unions should consider negotiating the establishment or expansion of

existing methods for providing wage replacement to cover periods of family and medical leave, or otherwise providing for paid family and medical

leave benefits on as wide a scale as they can;

c. States should consider voluntarily extending unemployment compensation qualifications to employees on family and medical leave; and

d. States should consider voluntarily establishing or expanding existing

temporary disability insurance programs to provide wage replacement for

periods of family and medical leave.

(2) Additional family-friendly policies

The Commission recommends that all American employers voluntarily

take steps to ensure that their work environments affirmatively help their

employees to combine their work and family obligations. For example,

many employers already are providing not only paid family and medical

leave, but also: flexible work schedules; part-time jobs; telecommuting;

adoption benefits; facilities for nursing mothers to use for pumping during

work hours; on-site child care; and emergency dependent care benefits.

(3) The federal government should lead by example

The Commission recommends that the federal government become a model

“family-friendly” employer by, inter alia, ensuring that federal employees

know about their FMLA rights; allowing employees to decide when and

whether to substitute paid leave in all instances; considering standardization and extension of methods of wage replacement during periods of family leave; and providing other family-friendly workplace policies in-so-far

as possible.

In carrying out any of the Recommendations of this Commission involving activities by the federal government, the Administration in its budget requests, and the

Congress in its appropriations and other relevant legislation, should be sensitive to

the need for adequate funding, as appropriate.
200

Appendix A

200
201

Appendix A

Appendix A

Fact Sheet on the Family and Medical

Leave Act of 1993

201
202

Appendix A

The U.S. Department of Labor’s

Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, administers and enforces the Family and

Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for all

private, state and local government

employees, and some federal employees. Most Federal and certain

congressional employees are also

covered by the law and are subject to

the jurisdiction of the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management or the

Congress.

FMLA became effective on August 5,

1993, for most employers. If a

collective bargaining agreement

(CBA) was in effect on that date,

FMLA became effective on the

expiration date of the CBA or February 5, 1994, whichever was earlier.

FMLA entitles eligible employees to

take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, jobprotected leave in a

12-month period for specified family

and medical reasons. The employer

may elect to use the calendar year, a

fixed 12-month leave or fiscal year, or

a 12-month period prior to or after the

commencement of leave as the 12-

month period.

The law contains provisions on

employer coverage; employee

eligibility for the law’s benefits;

entitlement to leave, maintenance of

health benefits during leave, and job

restoration after leave; notice and

certification of the need for FMLA

leave; and, protection for employees

who request or take FMLA leave. The

law also requires employers to keep

certain records.

EMPLOYER COVERAGE

FMLA applies to all:

• public agencies, including state,

local and federal employers, local

education agencies (schools), and

• private-sector employers who

employed 50 or more employees in

20 or more workweeks in the current

or preceding calendar year and who

are engaged in commerce or in any

industry or activity affecting commerce including joint employers and

successors of covered employers.

EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY

To be eligible for FMLA benefits, an

employee must:

(1) work for a coveredemployer;

(2) have worked for the

employerforatotal of 12 months;

(3) have worked at least 1,250 hours

over the previous 12 months; and

(4) work at a location in the United

States or in any territory or

possession of the United States

where at least 50 employees are

employed by the employer within

75 miles.

LEAVE ENTITLEMENT

A covered employer must grant an

eligible employee up to a total of 12

workweeks of unpaid leave during

any 12-month period for one or more

of the following reasons:

 • for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;

FACT SHEET ON THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE

ACT OF 1993

Prepared by the Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division,

U.S. Department of Labor
203

Appendix A

• for placement with the employee of a

son or daughter for adoption or foster

care;

• to care for an immediate family

member (spouse, child, or parent) with

a serious health condition; or

• to take medical leave when the

employee is unable to work because

of a serious health condition.

Spouses employed by the same

employer are jointly entitled to a

combined total of 12 work- weeks of

family leave for the birth and care of

the newborn child, for placement of a

child for adoption or foster care, and

to care for a parent who has a serious

health condition.

Leave for birth and care, or placement

for adoption or foster care must

conclude within 12 months of the birth

or placement.

Under some circumstances, employees may take FMLA leave intermittently which means taking leave in

blocks of time, or by reducing their

normal weekly or daily work schedule.

• If FMLA leave is for birth and care or

placement for adoption or foster care,

use of intermittent leave is subject to

the employer’s approval.

• FMLA leave may be taken intermittently whenever medically necessary

to care for a seriously ill family member, or because the employee is

seriously ill and unable to work.

Also, subject to certain conditions,

employees or employers may choose

to use accrued paid leave (such as

sick or vacation leave) to cover some

or all of the FMLA leave.

The employer is responsible for

designating if an employee’s use of

paid leave counts as FMLA leave,

based on information from the

employee. “Serious health condition” means

an illness, injury, impairment, or

physical or mental condition that

involves either:

• any period of incapacity or treatment connected with inpatient care (i.e., an overnight stay) in a hospital,

hospice, or residential medical-care

facility, and any period of incapacity

or subsequent treatment in connection with such inpatient care; or

• Continuing treatment by a health

care provider which includes any

period of incapacity (i.e., inability to

work, attend school or perform other

regular daily activities) due to:

(1) A health condition (including

treatment therefor, or recovery

therefrom) lasting more than

three consecutive days, and any

subsequent treatment or period

of incapacity relating to the same

condition, that also includes:

- treatment two or more times by

or under the supervision of a

health care provider; or

- one treatment by a health care

provider with a continuing

regimen of treatment; or

(2) Pregnancy or prenatal care. A

visit to the health care provider is

not necessary for each absence;

or

(3) A chronic serious health condition

which continues over an extended period of time, requires

periodic visits to a health care

provider, and may involve

occasional episodes of incapacity (e.g., asthma, diabetes). A visit

to a health care provider is not

necessary for each absence; or
204

Appendix A

(4) A permanent or long-term

conditionfor which treatment

may not be effective (e.g.,

Alzheimer’s, a severe stroke,

 terminal cancer). Only supervi

sion by a health care provider is

 required, rather than active

 treatment; or

(5) Any absences to receive multiple

 treatments for restorative surgery

 or for a condition which would

 likely result in a period of inca

pacity of more than three days if

 not treated (e.g., chemotherapy

 or radiation treatments for

 cancer).

“Health care provider” means:

• doctors of medicine or osteopathy

authorized to practice medicine or

surgery by the state in which the

doctors practice; or

• podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists and chiropractors (limited to manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by X-ray to

exist) authorized to practice, and

performing within the scope of their

practice, under state law; or

• nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives

and clinical social workers authorized

to practice, and performing within the

scope of their practice, as defined

under state law; or

• Christian Science practitioners listed

with the First Church of Christ,

Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts;

or

• Any health care provider recognized

by the employer or the employer’s

group health plan benefits manager.

MAINTENANCE OF HEALTH

BENEFITS

A covered employer is required to

maintain group health insurance

coverage for an employee on FMLA

leave whenever such insurance was

provided before the leave was taken

and on the same terms as if the

employee had continued to work. If

applicable, arrangements will need to

be made for employees to pay their

share of health insurance premiums

while on leave.

In some instances, the employer may

recover premiums it paid to maintain

health coverage for an employee who

fails to return to work from FMLA

leave.

JOB RESTORATION

Upon return from FMLA leave, an

employee must be restored to the

employee’s original job, or to an

equivalent job with equivalent pay,

benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

In addition, an employee’s use of

FMLA leave cannot result in the loss

of any employment benefit that the

employee earned or was entitled to

before using FMLA leave, nor be

counted against the employee under

a “no fault” attendance policy.

Under specified and limited circumstances where restoration to employment will cause substantial and

grievous economic injury to its

operations, an employer may refuse

to reinstate certain highly-paid “key”

employees after using FMLA leave

during which health coverage was

maintained. In order to do so, the

employer must:

• notify the employee of his/her status

as a “key” employee in response to

the employee’s notice of intent to take

FMLA leave;
205

Appendix A

• notify the employee as soon as the

employer decides it will deny job

restoration, and explain the reasons

for this decision;

• offer the employee a reasonable

opportunity to return to work from

FMLA leave after giving this notice;

and

• make a final determination as to

whether reinstatement will be denied

at the end of the leave period if the

employee then requests restoration.

A “key” employee is a salaried “eligible” employee who is among the

highest paid ten percent of employees

within 75 miles of the work site.

NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION

Employees seeking to use FMLA

leave are required to provide 30-day

advance notice of the need to take

FMLA leave when the need is foreseeable and such notice is practicable.

Employers may also require employees to provide:

• medical certification supporting the

need for leave due to a serious health

condition affecting the employee or an

immediate family member;

• second or third medical opinions (at

the employer’s expense) and periodic

recertification; and

• periodic reports during FMLA leave

regarding the employee’s status and

intent to return to work.

When intermittent leave is needed to

care for an immediate family member

or the employee’s own illness, and is

for planned medical treatment, the

employee must try to schedule

treatment so as not to unduly disrupt

the employer’s operation.

Covered employers must post a

notice approved by the Secretary of

Labor explaining rights and responsibilities under FMLA. An employer

that willfully violates this posting

requirement may be subject to a fine

of up to $100 for each separate

offense.

Also, covered employers must inform

employees of their rights and responsibilities under FMLA, including giving

specific written information on what is

required of the employee and what

might happen in certain circumstances, such as if the employee fails

to return to work after FMLA leave.

UNLAWFUL ACTS

It is unlawful for any employer to

interfere with, restrain, or deny the

exercise of any right provided by

FMLA. It is also unlawful for an

employer to discharge or discriminate

against any individual for opposing

any practice, or because of involvement in any proceeding, related to

FMLA.

ENFORCEMENT

The Wage and Hour Division investigates complaints. If violations cannot

be satisfactorily resolved, the U.S.

Department of Labor may bring

action in court to compel compliance.

Individuals may also bring a private

civil action against an employer for

violations.

OTHER PROVISIONS

Special rules apply to employees of

local education agencies. Generally, these rules provide for FMLA

leave to be taken in blocks of time

when intermittent leave is needed or

the leave is required near the end of

a school term.

Salaried executive, administrative,

and professional employees of
206

Appendix A

covered employers who meet the Fair

Labor Standards Act (FLSA) criteria

for exemption from minimum wage

and overtime under Regulations, 29

CFR Part 541, do not lose their FLSAexempt status by using any unpaid

FMLA leave. This special exception

to the “salary basis” requirements for

FLSA’s exemption extends only to

“eligible” employees’ use of leave

required by FMLA.

The FMLA does not affect any other

federal or state law which prohibits

discrimination, nor supersede any

state or local law which provides

greater family or medical leave

protection. Nor does it affect an

employer’s obligation to provide

greater leave rights under a collective

bargaining agreement or employment

benefit plan. The FMLA also encourages employers to provide more

generous leave rights.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The final rule implementing FMLA is

contained in the January 6, 1995,

Federal Register. (An interim final

rule was published in the Federal

Register on June 4, 1993.) For more

information, please contact the

nearest office of the Wage and Hour

Division, listed in most telephone

directories under U.S. Government,

Department of Labor, Employment

Standards Administration.

 _________________
207

Appendix B

Appendix B

Commissioner Biographies

207
208

Appendix B

ELLEN BRAVO

Ellen Bravo is Executive Director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women

headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Her organization has heard from thousands of employees struggling to balance work and family responsibilities through

its toll-free Job Problem Hotline. Bravo wrote The Job/Family Challenge: A 9to5

Guide and co-authored The 9to5 Guide to Combatting Sexual Harassment. She frequently speaks to employers, working women and the news media about work/

family issues.

SECRETARY RONALD H. BROWN (Ex-Officio Member)

Ronald Brown is the Secretary of Commerce. He also serves on the President’s

National Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council. He is chairman of

the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and of the National Infrastructure

Task Force, co-chair of the U.S. - China Joint Commission on Commerce and

Trade, Deputy Executive Director for the National Urban League, and past chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

U.S. SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG (R-ID)

Senator Craig serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry as well as the Veterans Affairs

Committee. He is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands

Management and Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization. He formerly

served five terms as a U.S. Representative for Idaho. He also served three terms in

the Idaho State Senate where he was Chairman of the Commerce and Labor Committee.

LELAND B. CROSS, Jr.

Leland B. Cross is a partner at the Indianapolis law firm of Ice, Miller, Donadio &

Ryan. An expert in labor law, representing management, and entertainment law,

representing presenters, Mr. Cross currently serves on the National Relations Board

Advisory Commission. He was also chair of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce

and Special Counsel to the State of Indiana in trade negotiations in Russia, Yugoslavia, and Poland, and Special Counsel to the Secretary of State of Romania.
209

Appendix B

U.S. SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD (D-CT), CHAIR

Senator Dodd is the ranking member of the Senate Labor Subcommittee on Children and Families and also serves on the Senate Budget Committee and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. He is the author of the Family

and Medical Leave Act. His main areas of interest include children and families.

He founded the Senate’s Children’s Caucus and is author of the 1990 Child Care

and Development Block Grant. He was named Head Start Senator of the Decade

for his efforts on behalf of children.

PAMELA L. EGAN

Pamela Egan is the Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer for the Montana

Family Union, AFL-CIO. She previously served as the Finance Director for Congressman Pat Williams. She is an expert in the areas of political, community and

workplace organizing and her main interest lies in the economic empowerment of

working families.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE GUNDERSON (R-WI)

Representative Gunderson was first elected in 1980 and is currently a member of

the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee where he serves

on the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training, and Lifelong Learning. He also serves on the House Agriculture Committee, where he is Chairman of

the Sumcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry and the Vice Chairman of the

Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry. Congressman

Gunderson served as Chief Deputy Whip, under then Minority Whip Speaker

Newt Gingrich, from 1989 through 1993. He has served on the Board of Trustees

of Gallaudet University, in Washington, DC since 1985.

PHILIP LADER (Ex-Officio Member)

Philip Lader is the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Mr.

Lader formerly served as White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant to the

President. Previously he was Deputy Director for Management at the Office of

Management and Budget. In this capacity he served as Chairman of the Policy

Committee of the National Performance Review, the “reinventing government”

initiative led by Vice President Gore, and as Chairman of the President’s Management Council. Mr. Lader was also President of Winthrop University in South

Carolina.
210

Appendix B

DONNA R. LENHOFF, VICE CHAIR

Donna R. Lenhoff is General Counsel and Director of Work and Family Programs

at the Women’s Legal Defense Fund in Washington, DC. She has written and

spoken extensively in the areas of equal opportunity for women, family and medical leave, sexual harassment, and constitutional rights. She led the coalition that

developed and lobbied for the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. Her awards

include Mirabella Magazine’s “1,000 Women for the 1990s” Award.

LENORE MILLER

Lenore Miller is the President of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store

Union, AFL-CIO and Vice President of the AFL-CIO. She is Chair of the AFLCIO Civil Rights Committee and Chair of the Jewish Labor Committee. In addition to her union activities, she is also Vice Chair of the President’s Committee on

Employment of People with Disabilities and a member of the President’s Committee on Tariffs and Trade.

SCOTTIE THERESA NEESE

Terry Neese owns and operates five companies dominated by Terry Neese Personnel Services and Terry Neese Temporaries, celebrating 20 years in business. She is

past president of the National Association of Women Business Owners, serves on

two federal commissions, is a leader in the Oklahoma Association of Personnel

Consultants, and pilots airplanes. She was honored by President Reagan as the

National Women in Business Advocate of the Year, inducted into the National

Women’s Hall of Fame, and recently received the National Association of Women

Business Owner’s Public Policy Advocate of the Year Award.

SECRETARY OF LABOR ROBERT B. REICH

(Ex-Officio Member)

Robert B. Reich is the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor. Before coming to the

Labor Department he was a member of the faculty at Harvard University’s John F.

Kennedy School of Government. He served as an assistant to the Solicitor General in the Ford Administration and headed the policy planning staff of the Federal

Trade Commission in the Carter Administration. He has written seven books and

more than 200 articles on the global economy and the U.S. workforce.
211

Appendix B

RICHARD REINHARDT

Richard Reinhardt is President and CEO Of PII Affiliates, Ltd. in Manchester,

Pennsylvania. An expert on small business and free enterprise economics, he is a

member of the Executive Committee for the National Federation of Independent

Business and the York County Industrial Development Board. He also sits on U.S.

Representative Goodling’s Health Advisory Board.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA SCHROEDER (D-CO)

Representative Schroeder is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the

National Security Committee. Representative Schroeder has served as the Chairwoman of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families and was

founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues. She is

author of Champion of the Great American Family, and was author of the first Family

and Medical Leave Act in 1985. Representative Schroeder was inducted into the

National Women’s Hall of Fame in 1995 for her work on family issues.

SECRETARY DONNA E. SHALALA (Ex-Officio Member)

Donna Shalala is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. She previously

served as the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was the first

woman to head a Big Ten University. She was also President of Hunter College at

the City University of New York and was Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research at the Department of Housing and Urban Development during

the Carter Administration. In 1992, Business Week named her one of the top five

managers in higher education.

MARY TAVENNER

Mary Tavenner is a senior associate with the firm of Boland and Madigan and is

Executive Director of the American Automotive Leasing Association. She previously served as the Senior Director of Government Relations for the National

Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
212
Appendix C

Commission Activities

213
214

Appendix C

A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chicago, IL Public Hearing

U.S. District Court,

Northern District of IL

May 8, 1995

Panel 1

Kenneth Weaver

Instrument and Electrical Technician

Lyondell Petrochemical Company

Victoria, TX

Patricia Connell

Supervisory Attorney

Legal Assistance Foundation of

Chicago

Chicago, IL

Linda Siebert Rapoport

Manager and Assistant Vice President

Work and Family Resource Center

First Chicago Corporation

Chicago, IL

Elliot Lehman

Co-Chairman, Emeritus

Fel-Pro, Inc.

Skokie, IL

David C. Kleiman

Director of Human Resources

La-Co Industries Inc./Markal Company

Elk Grove Village, IL

Panel 2

Albert R. Burns

Vice President, Retail, Wholesale, and

Department Store Union

Local 374

Battle Creek, MI

Stacey Ebel

Chicago Boys and Girls Club

Chicago, IL

Elizabeth Pedrick Sartain

Vice President, People Department

Southwest Airlines

Dallas, TX

Lloyd E. Falconer

Secretary-Treasurer

Seward Screw Products, Inc.

Seward, IL

Sharon R. Beard

Owner

Hurrican Fence Company

Springfield, IL

Panel 3

Elizabeth M. Carlson

Director, Human Resources

National Futures Association

Chicago, IL

Cynthia A. Cain

Director, Arbitration

National Futures Association

Chicago, IL

Lori R. Solberg

Project Administrator

National Futures Association

Chicago, IL

Nedra Ward

Administrative Assistant

National Futures Association

Chicago, IL

Joseph Tully

Records Technician II

National Futures Association

Chicago, IL
215

Appendix C

San Francisco, CA Public Hearing

St. Mary’s Medical Center

June 26, 1995

Panel 1

Mary Ann Thode

President and CEO

St. Mary’s Medical Center

San Francisco, CA

Valerie M. Pinkert

Vice President and Manager,

Employee Relations

Bank of America

San Francisco, CA

Marsha Brock

Human Resources Manager

Casto Travel, Inc.

Sunnyvale, CA

Velma Parness

Continuing Education Specialist

University of California

San Francisco, CA

Jonathan Zingman

Principal Engineer

Teknekron Communications

Systems, Inc.

Berkeley, CA

Ann G. Daniels

Acting Executive Director

California Abortion and Reproductive

Rights Action League, North

San Francisco, CA

Rosalie Ferested

Grocery Store worker

Shelby, MT

Kate Kelly

News Anchor

Channel 5 Eyewitness News

San Francisco, CA

Panel 2

Catherine A. Morris

Corporate Human Resources

Benefits,

Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO)

Los Angeles, CA

Rhoma Young

Principal

Rhoma Young & Associates

Oakland, CA

Margery Mayer

Principal

TeleConsultants, Inc.

Santa Clara, CA

Carol Griffin

Benefit Authorizor

Social Security Administrator

Richmond, CA

Kathy Gillespie

testified on behalf of two farmworkers

California Rural Legal

Assistance, Inc.

San Francisco, CA

Panel 3

Tina Benjamin

Disability Insurance Program

Manager III

California State Disability Insurance

Program

San Francisco, CA

Maria Blanco

Associate Professor and Supervising

Attorney

Women’s Employment Rights Clinic

Golden Gate University School of Law

San Francisco, CA

Paul Gill

CEO, Mousefeathers

San Francisco, CA

Stephanie Aaronson

Consulting Research Associate

Institute for Women’s Policy Research

Washington, DC
216

Appendix C

Washington, DC Public Hearing

U.S. Department of Commerce

August 4, 1995

Panel 1

Ronald Compton

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Aetna Life and Casualty Company

Harford, CT

Diane Duval

Corporate Benefits Manager

Lotus Development Corporation

Reading, MA

Terri Wolfe

Director of Human Resources

Patagonia, Inc.

Ventura, CA

Diane Atwood

Little Rock, AR

Chrisite Sens

First Grade Teacher

Fairfax County Public Schools

Arlington, VA

William Fish

Thompson Saginaw Ball and Screw

Company

Saginaw, MI

Debra and Christopher Ruffin

Hyattsville, MD

Panel 2

Marsha Lawrence

Vice President, Public and Operator

Services

Bell Atlantic

Silver Spring, MD

Nell Rivers

Human Resources Manager

Bell Atlantic

Silver Spring, MD

Denis R. Thompson

Director, Human Resources

Dallco Industries, Inc.

York, PA

Bernard P. Furin

Owner

Furin’s of Georgetown

Washington, DC

Kevin Knussman

Trooper, Maryland State Police

Easton, MD

Shirley Butler

New Orleans, LA

Douglas Rosenfeld

Attorney

Derwood, MD

Panel 3

Deborah Wilburn

Senior Editor

Working Mother

New York, NY

Jim Johnson

Owner, Jim Johnson Photography

Washington, DC

JC Shardo

President, JCS Entertainment, Inc.

Atlanta, GA

Andrew Shotwell

Stay-at-home-Dad

Washington, DC
217

Appendix C

B. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

WORKSHOP ON FAMILY LEAVE

Washington, DC, October 23-24, 1995

Discussant:

Morris Green

School of Medicine

Indiana University

Panel on Directions for Future

Research

Presenters:

Deanna Gelak

Society for Human Resource Mangement

Ellen Galinsky

Families and Work Institute

Moderator:

Lotte Baylin

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Presentation/Discussion of Employer

Survey

David Cantor

Westat, Inc.

Presentation/Discussion of Employee

Survey

Robert M. Groves

Institute for Social Research

Survey Research Center

University of Michigan

Katherine A. McGonagle

Institute for Social Research

Survey Research Center

University of Michigan

Panel on Cost/Benefits to

Employers

Presenter:

Gary Burtless

Brookings Instuitution

Discussants:

Linda Williams

Department of Economics

University of Maryland

Marica Brumit Kropf

Catalyst, Inc.

Panel on Cost/Benefits to Employees

Presenter:

Naomi Gerstel

Department of Sociology

University of Massachusetts/Amherst
218
Appendix D

Additional Views

219
220

Appendix D

The Commissioners decided that consensus views on “Future Directions” would appear

in the body of this report as Recommendations (see Chapter IX) and that additional

views would be included in the Appendix of this report. They appear in alphabetical

order by author.
221

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONERS

ELLEN BRAVO, PAMELA EGAN, DONNA LENHOFF,

LENORE MILLER, AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA

SCHROEDER

We fully agree with the policy recommendations passed by the Commission without dissent and presented in the body of this report. Our thanks to our fellow Commissioners and

the staffs of the Commission and the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor, without

whom this report would not have been possible.

At the same time, we believe that the FMLA has been such a success; that the ability to

meet work obligations and family responsibilities is so important to workers, families, and

communities; and that businesses can so easily be both family friendly and competitive —

that FMLA protections must be expanded to reach even more workers. To that end, we

offer the following additional views.

As the full Commission’s report details, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been a

significant first step in achieving job protection and maintenance of health benefits for

eligible workers who must take time off work in order to fulfill certain family responsibilities or cope with their own serious health condition. As the report also details, the FMLA

has achieved these goals without overburdening FMLA-covered employers. In fact, the

Commission’s Employer Survey shows that, by their own reports, most covered employers

have found zero to minimal cost increases associated with FMLA compliance, and most

have seen only slight to moderate increases in administrative burdens.

Given the well-financed lobbying effort mounted against federal family and medical leave

protection and the resulting delay in enactment of federal FMLA protections, the workers,

unions, community advocates, and elected officials who worked so hard for passage of the

FMLA deserve hearty congratulations for this achievement.

In addition to examining whether the FMLA achieved its specific goals of job protection

and maintenance of health benefits for covered eligible workers without undue burden on

their employers, the Commission on Leave was also asked to examine the whole fabric of

the country’s family and medical leave policies and lack thereof.

Approximately half of the workers in the United States (or about 45 percent according to

the Commission’s employee survey) are not protected by the Family and Medical Leave

Act at all because they work for “small” employers. And 11-13 percent of workers who are

covered by the FMLA are not eligible for FMLA protection at a given point in time because they do not meet the one year and/or 1,250 hour thresholds. There are also significant differences among ethnic groups in likelihood of coverage and eligibility under FMLA

with Latino workers being the least likely to be protected. In fact, the Commission’s research shows that workers who are most likely to be ineligible for FMLA protection, even

though they work for a covered employer, are women, younger workers, workers with low

family incomes, and those workers not protected by a collective bargaining agreement.

Of those workers who are both covered and eligible for FMLA protection, many needed

time off work for family or medical reasons but did not take it. According to Commission
222

Appendix D

research, 50 percent of those people had to forego caring for a seriously ill family member

or their own newborn child. In other cases, workers could not take time off work even for

their own serious health condition. In other cases, workers cut their leave short. Why? The

Commission’s research clearly shows that the major barrier to workers’ taking time off to

take care of family responsibilities or their own serious health condition is an economic

one. Too many workers simply cannot afford to take time off without wage replacement.

Of course, even those workers who are covered by the FMLA still lack protection for those

times when their family responsibilities fall outside the confines of “qualifying events”

outlined in the Act. The worker whose brother is seriously ill or the worker whose six-year

old must stay home from school sick, but is not considered to have a “serious health condition,” are dealing with family responsibilities which are not covered by the FMLA. And,

appallingly, workers whose injury or illness occurred on the job often have no job protection

under existing workers’ compensation systems once their 12 weeks of FMLA protection

run out.

It is in looking at these broader questions of family and medical leave that one begins to see

significant gaps in the protection available to American workers and their families. Clearly,

the most serious of those gaps fall generally under the categories of coverage, eligibility,

affordability, and leave-qualifying events.

To help close these and other gaps, we offer the following policy recommendations:

Coverage:

Amend the FMLA to lower the threshold of coverage to include employers with

15 or more employees making the FMLA consistent with other major employment laws

such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Eligibility:

Amend the FMLA to lower the one-year eligibility threshold to 26 weeks.

Eliminate the 1,250-hour eligibility threshold.

Affordability:

While we concur in the full Commission’s recommendations encouraging the

development of voluntary systems of wage replacement, we believe that voluntary systems

are unlikely to achieve access to wage replacement for the vast majority of workers. In fact,

the Commission’s research on family and medical leave policies in existence before passage

of the FMLA demonstrates that voluntary workplace policies in this area were both inconsistent and inadequate. Given the importance of wage replacement to workers’ ability to

use FMLA leave, we recommend that Congress, as well as the states, develop a uniform

system of wage replacement available to all employees based on one of the wage replacement systems outlined in the Commission’s recommendations, i.e.:

(1) the expansion of unemployment insurance eligibility criteria to include compensation during periods of FMLA-covered absences, or

(2) the expansion of existing temporary disability insurance (TDI) systems and

establishment of new TDI systems covering periods of FMLA-protected absences.
223

Appendix D

Leave-Qualifying Event:

Expand leave-qualifying events to include the serious health condition of siblings, domestic partners, parents-in-law, and grandparents.

Duration of Leave:

Extend job protection and health premium coverage in the case of employee’s

own serious health condition resulting from occupational illness or injury to one year.

Definition of Serious Health Condition:

Amend Department of Labor regulations to eliminate the requirement that a serious health condition last more than three days.

Substitution of Paid Leave:

Amend FMLA to allow workers, not employers, to choose whether paid leave will

be substituted for periods of unpaid FMLA leave.

Clarify that the FMLA allows for the substitution of sick leave in all cases of the

serious health condition of an employee’s family member and amend it to make such substitution available in all cases of birth, adoption or placement for foster care of a child.

Protect AFDC Recipients:

Protect recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children against loss of

AFDC eligibility and benefits when such recipients are required by state and federal law to

work outside the home but are unable to work due to an FMLA-qualifying event. Such

protection should be available to AFDC recipients regardless of whether they are otherwise eligible or their employer is covered by the FMLA.

Protection for Unemployed Workers:

Issue Department of Labor guidance to state unemployment compensation insurance programs to the effect that, when an employee loses her or his job because the employer denies leave or refuses reinstatement in violation of the FMLA, the employee should

not be disqualified from eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits.

Compliance Incentives:

Allow compensatory and punitive damage judgements in cases of FMLA violations to strengthen incentives for compliance.

More Generous State Policies:

Clarify that ERISA does not preempt state family and medical leave laws that are

more generous as to health insurance coverage than the federal FMLA (for example, the

District of Columbia and New Jersey, which require employers of fewer than 50 employees

to continue health insurance coverage during periods of leave).

Strengthen Enforcement:

Increase the budget allocated to the Department of Labor for FMLA enforcement.

 * * * * *
224

Appendix D

The reality for most families today is that all adults in the household must work in order to

pay the bills. American families are working more and more hours just to stay even. If

these families are to achieve a workable balance between their economic needs and their

family responsibilities, family and medical leave policies must include wage replacement,

must protect workers regardless of the size of their employer, must be available sooner after

employment begins, and must be expanded to cover more of the needs of working families.

The United States should be a world leader in such initiatives; we should not trail behind

the rest of the industrial world. Our fellow industrialized nations have addressed the health

and family needs of working people and still manage to compete in the global economy.

The United States can and should do so, too.
225

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

ELLEN BRAVO, COMMISSIONER

9to5, National Association of Working Women is proud to join with our colleagues on the Commission in contributing additional views on ways to strengthen the

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The studies conducted for the Commission and the testimony at the hearings

echo the experience of 9to5’s members and the women who call our toll free hotline. The

good news is that family-friendly policies are a win/win situation for employers and for

working families. The FMLA has allowed many workers to care for a family member and

stay employed — and insured. If a workable balance is desirable, however, that balance

must exist for all families, regardless of what they earn, where they work or how family

members are related.

Of the many statistics that emerged in this report, one particularly deserves notice. More than one out of every five workers with family income under $20,000 use

public assistance to support themselves while on leave. We need to make it possible for

working parents to care for a family member without having to go on welfare to do so. We

also need to make it possible for those leaving welfare to stay employed. Congress is about

to enact sweeping changes in welfare requiring women on AFDC to enter the workforce,

where by definition they will be ineligible for FMLA coverage for at least a year; many will

continue to be left out simply because they’ll be working for a company with fewer than 50

employees. It would be self-defeating to move women from welfare to work only to have

them be fired or have to return to assistance because they need to take some time to care

for a sick child.

It’s time to make a good measure better. We must make family and medical leave

accessible and affordable to those currently excluded.
226

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

U.S. SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG, COMMISSIONER

There is one item on which all members of the Commission on Leave agree: In

view of changes in world markets, the American labor force, and the American family,

greater “family-friendly” practices in the work place are good for employers, employees,

and families. Disagreement among Commissioners comes from differing views on the appropriate role of the federal government.

This disagreement mirrors — is actually an extension of — the debate that preceded, for about eight years, enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of

1993.

With creation of the Commission, Congress did something that is fairly novel for

Congress to do: It required an examination of, and report on, the actual, real-world impact of a law it passed.

Everyone on the Commission is, and everyone should be, a friend of such examination, when it is objective. Also, even those of us who proposed alternatives to the

FMLA when it was considered in Congress, recognize which bill became law and agree

that our laws should be carried out fairly, efficiently, and effectively.

This report includes much objective reporting of empirical data, and the report is

at its best in these areas.

The report contains a number of findings, conclusions, and recommendations

that do not represent the opinion of any one of the twelve voting Commissioners. But it

accurately reflects the fact that, with regard to these items, there was no one perspective

shared by the entire Commission — or, indeed, even a majority.

I felt it was important to emphasize, clarify, support, or express concern about

several particular areas.

Results of the Employer and Employee Surveys, In General.

The Commission was responsible for undertaking some very valuable research,

including valuable “first-ever” surveys.

It is not at all surprising that the hallmark finding was that the FMLA seems not

to have had a major impact, for good or ill. This is not surprising for four reasons.

(1) Many employers previously provided comparable or more generous benefits. This includes many who did not report having a “formal” policy, but responded to

employee needs on a case-by-case basis or a negotiated basis. Overall costs and benefits

may not have changed so much as policies became more formalized, more uniform, and less

flexible.
227

Appendix D

For example, my Washington, DC, office was among the first on Capitol Hill to

experience an employee leave-taking under the FMLA. The policy we previously had in

place was more generous than the FMLA mandate. The only differences caused by applying the FMLA were more paperwork for employer and employee, and more inconvenience

to the employee.

(2) The sector that would be expected to suffer the most negative impact of the

act was wisely excluded by Congress from its coverage: Small businesses with fewer

than 50 employees. Small employers are more likely to know their employees personally

and understand the unique and special circumstances in which employer and employee

both can find themselves. They are more likely to strive for and require flexibility in

helping employees to balance work and family responsibilities.

When Congress enacted the FMLA, it explicitly recognized that small businesses

do not have the economies of scale and the capacity to absorb regulatory overhead that

larger firms might. The “under-50 exemption” is an explicit admission that such a law does

create at least some burdens, and that these are disproportionately more difficult for small

businesses to bear.

Therefore, it is no surprise that surveys for this report found a fear of increased

cost, administrative, and performance burdens among small, uncovered employers significantly greater than what the Commission’s surveys managed to uncover among larger employers.

(3) The scope of the FMLA is relatively modest. This is especially true in the

version finally enacted into law, which was more limited than earlier versions. The FMLA

mandates the availability of a limited array of benefits. Indeed, if opponents of the FMLA

had thought that it would be the end, rather than the beginning, of the mandated-benefits

agenda, it would not have taken eight years to enact it.

Even ardent opponents of the legislation were more concerned with the temptation politicians would have to take the country down a slippery slope to more and more

mandated benefits, selling them as a “free lunch.” The concern was — and remains — that

the federal government could grow to become every employer’s personnel manager, to the

detriment of employee choice, job-creation, and competitiveness.

(4) Experience with the FMLA is still very new. There is evidence that some

employees do not know the benefit is available. Also, additional costs and complications

may not yet have been fully realized by employers. The data in the Commission’s research,

as excellent as it is, leaves gaps. These facts have helped make the entire Commission

comfortable in endorsing future, additional research.

For example: Depending on the category reported, between 0.2 percent and 7.2 percent of employers surveyed experienced negative effects from the FMLA on several kinds

of business or employee performance. However, the Commission and its staff did not have

the resources to determine how much overlap there was between employers reporting, for

example, loss of productivity and those experiencing increased absenteeism. The total

number of employers experiencing negative impacts may have been anywhere from 7.2 percent to almost 27 percent.
228

Appendix D

Similarly, there was no qualitative assessment of, nor a sufficient method of assigning weights to, the different costs and benefits reported. Does impaired business growth

outweigh reduced turnover or vice-versa?

We know, not surprisingly, that no one beneficial or detrimental effect occurred

to a serious degree for a large number of employers. Similarly, we know that some modest

number of employees now have access, under the FMLA, to benefits that they did not

previously enjoy. And we know that a significant number of employers have changed or

adopted formal policies in this area. But it is simply too soon to draw much in the way in

of conclusions.

These comments in no way diminish the distinguished work performed by the

Commission’s staff and the organizations that gathered survey data. What the data do

show is the difficulty in assessing the impact of a single national policy on the wide diversity of American workplaces, when that policy, however limited, is involved with an almost infinite number of individual circumstances, trade-offs, and intangibles. That fact, in

turn, suggests something about the efficacy and wisdom of the federal government treading

into such realms in the first place.

Government by Anecdote Remains Dangerous.

One disappointing feature of this report is the number and type of anecdotes about

the FMLA’s impact on employees.

In part, this reflects the limitations, mentioned just above, on trying to research

FMLA’s effects.

Quantitative data that is workplace-centered and concerns larger numbers of

employees is easier to come by through employer surveys — after all, one personnel director can answer questions about dozens, even hundreds, of employees. Information on the

impact on families and employees as individuals is more difficult and more costly to obtain

through standardized surveys. Anecdotal material, however limiting, at least provides illustrations of personal experiences with the FMLA.

In part, the nature of these anecdotes is a product of the charge given the Commission. The Commission was supposed to review the impact of the FMLA on employees.

Employees and families who have taken FMLA leave are identifiable and feel they can

point to identifiable benefits they have received. Thus, a pattern emerges that, intentional

or not, resembles endorsement and cheerleading.

Conversely, it is more difficult to find a wealth of anecdotal information on negative effects on employers or employees. The employee not hired because of impaired company performance is almost always impossible to locate and interview. The raises not given

because of increased benefit costs are seldom identifiable, even to the employer. The other

human resource needs unmet because of the time consumed by paperwork rarely show up

to testify at a hearing.
229

Appendix D

In any event, as much as an anecdote may tug at the heartstrings, government by

anecdote is a dangerous thing. Trying to mandate relief for a condition with a sympathetic

human face often involves trade-offs that are harder to identify on a personal level, but

that actually impose more suffering than they alleviate.

The more a so-called benefit is embodied in a one-size-fits-all mandate from a

distant government in Washington, DC, the greater the risk that real people in real workplaces will have less and less freedom to do what is best for their families, coworkers, employers, and employees, given their unique, individual, and local circumstances.

More experience with the FMLA and additional study of that experience will

begin to produce more quantitative data on the employee side (as well as the employer

side), and more anecdotes on the employer side. It is possible — indeed I hope — that this

future research shows the benefits of FMLA outweigh its costs — for employees and employers. I do not expect that to be the case, which is why I (and many others, including

several of my fellow Commissioners) advocated alternative approaches to achieve many of

the same goals as the FMLA.

Future Directions — Research.

It is easiest, in additional views, to focus on differences of opinion or concerns

with the body of the Commission’s report.

There is, I believe, unanimous agreement that increased public education is a

good thing.

So, too, without a doubt, is the idea of developing model record-keeping systems

so that employers and employees can proceed with greater certainty and less inconvenience when an FMLA leave-taking instance arises.

Coordination among federal agencies has the potential to increase awareness.

Improved awareness will improve compliance. The Commission’s report should not be

construed to suggest that other agencies police FMLA compliance and add to the complex,

often-contradictory mass of regulation already facing American employers.

Of particular interest would be additional research on how Congress effects, and

is affected by, application of the FMLA. It is the ultimate of arrogance for those who write

the laws to declare themselves above those laws. Beginning with passage of the FMLA in

1993, and accelerating with the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, an historic

commitment has begun to require Senators and Representatives to live and work under the

same laws as everyone else.

Earlier in my views, I commented briefly on my Senate office’s experience as an

“FMLA pioneer.” In fact, my office participated in the original Senate task force that

worked on exactly how to implement the FMLA in the Senate. I will address this same

area again, later, in comments on legislative proposals.
230

Appendix D

Overall, I want to caution those who may read the Commission’s call for further

research as the promise of endless federal employment or government grant money to conduct this study. Universal agreement that the federal government should be on-course

toward a balanced budget means several years of stern prioritizing. Research that cannot

be piggy-backed, easily and virtually without additional cost, onto other, ongoing data

collection (for example, Census surveys), will have to be conducted by non-federal researchers.

That’s good news. The private sector, foundations, and schools will have a great,

fresh diversity of ideas and perspectives. The Commission has now produced a good, first

body of data that would yield much to other researchers with the patience to plow through

it, and the creativity to be inspired to proceed in new directions.

Future Directions — Wage Replacement / Paid Leave.

This is the most controversial area discussed by the Commission and its report,

reflected by the strongly worded statement of no recommendation for or against paid leave.

The only statement that would have produced greater disagreement would have been a

statement making any recommendation, for or against. Every Commissioner has a strongly

held view here. The lack of recommendation indicates no lack of passion on the issue, but

rather a lack of agreement in the Commission.

It is important to make clear exactly what the Commission did state in this regard.

Two statements are intuitive and obvious: Employers, especially small employers,

who do not currently provide paid FMLA leave, fear the additional costs that would result;

and when an employee takes unpaid time off from work, a financial sacrifice results. Both

are statements of legitimate concern; neither is sufficient, alone, to begin to suggest a

policy recommendation.

However, paid leave certainly would entail different, much more serious tradeoffs than the current FMLA. The results of the Commission’s research are certainly too

tentative, given the very new experience we have with the FMLA, to support moving from

the status quo toward paid leave.

The area of agreement within the commission is best demonstrated by the use of

the word “voluntarily” three times, and the word “negotiating” once, within the recommendations on paid leave. I don’t think anyone disagrees with the proposition that, when

an employer can afford to provide paid leave, it’s good to do so. Similarly, I don’t think

anyone disagrees with the idea that the laboratories of the States are appropriate venues for

considering policies appropriate to the unique economy and circumstances of each State.

The Commission’s text in this section of the report was carefully chosen. Consideration of a “uniform system” of paid leave may mean uniformity within the policies of a

single employer.
231

Appendix D

Suggesting consideration of a variety of ideas in multiple forums is not a recommendation for a national, one-size-fits-all mandate. It should not be construed or represented as such. At the same time, no one should be afraid of the robust exchange of ideas

and opinions. I am comfortable saying that debate should be stimulated, and saying, in

that debate, that flirting with any new, national policy is premature.

Future Directions — Other Legislation.

I am not advocating any legislative activity in the area of family and medical

leave benefits at this time. Employers and employees have hardly had a chance to let

enactment of the FMLA sink in. But, should Congressional attention turn back to this

area in the future, several ideas are readily available as partial substitutes for the current law

and/or alternatives preferable to its expansion.

Threshold Changes. I welcome future research on the impact of FMLA-type

policies by size of employer. If small, covered employers prove to have more in common

with under-50-employee firms than with larger firms, that would argue in favor of raising

the threshold for FMLA coverage in the future. Congress may also want to consider some

other size standard. In some industries, a firm with 200 employees is, in every real sense, a

small business.

Congressional Pilot Program. Restrictive procedures in the House of Representatives stifled many creative amendments to the FMLA. One would have required that the

FMLA not take effect until Congress had two full years complying with its terms first.

Since that time, the “Congressional Accountability” movement has gained ground and

scored solid successes — most particularly in the 104th Congress. However, this “pilot

principle” would be appropriate to apply to any mandated benefit that might be proposed

for imposition on the private sector in the future, including any expansions of the FMLA.

Tax Incentives — The Carrot Instead of the Stick. During the 102nd Congress,

President Bush announced his support for creation of a Family Leave Tax Credit as an

alternative. This actually was based on a proposal made years earlier by, among others,

then-Representative Dan Coats and myself. I offered such a tax credit as the Craig-Dole

substitute during the 1992 and 1993 debates on the FMLA. Our bill, unlike the FMLA,

would have been available to employers of all sizes. Rather than an unfunded mandate, our

tax credit would have provided a win-win financial incentive — employers who felt they

could not afford to provide family leave benefits would have been able to do so.

Preferred Rehire. In the 101st Congress, Representative Charlie Stenholm and

Senator Orrin Hatch offered a creative alternative to the FMLA, based on the rehire preference extended to our nation’s Veterans returning from wars. Their proposal, the “American Family Protection Act,” was a “first-in-line” preference, not a mandated benefit. The

employer who could not immediately offer the returning employee his or her old job would

not have been forced to damage the company to do so, as is possible under the FMLA.

There would have been greater flexibility for employer, employee, and family. Unlike the

FMLA, their bill would have covered 100 percent of employees for a much longer period of

time.
232

Appendix D

Acknowledgements.

It is a tribute both to opponents of earlier, more one-sided, versions of the FMLA,

and to Senator Dodd, the Senate sponsor of the law enacted in 1993, that the ultimate

version created a commission with a limited mission, primarily for empirical research, and

had an evenly divided membership, in an attempt to avoid partisan predetermination of

the Commission’s findings or recommendations.

Senator Dodd became Chairman of the Commission and I congratulate him on

the completion of the two-year odyssey represented by this report.

All the Commissioners were constructive about seeking agreement when it could

be achieved and principled in any disagreements. I enjoyed serving with my fellow-Commissioners and commend them for their dedication.

Ann Bookman, the Commission’s Executive Director in the difficult, concluding

phase of bringing all the preceding work together, has been professional, hard-working,

and responsive, as has been her staff.

I also want to acknowledge and thank Commissioner Mary Tavenner, Suzanne

Day of Senator Dodd’s staff, and Commission Vice Chair Donna Lenhoff, who worked

with my office on the “technical task force” set up to help propose and review the research

conducted for the Commission, and later, painstakingly to review initial drafts of this report. During most of 1995, my office was represented on the technical task force by Legislative Fellow Roy Fairchild, whose own management experience and attention to detail

were invaluable to me and to the Commission.

All the Commission’s ex-officio members, as well as the staff reporting to the

Commission, were drawn from an administration that considered its first major legislative

victory to be passage of the FMLA. This might reasonably be expected to frame the perspective with which work was undertaken for the Commission. Such concerns would be

expected, from those on one side of the issue or the other, no matter which Administration

was in office. The fact that there was much agreement on the Commission’s final report is

a tribute to the efforts at fairness and balance on the part of all the Commissioners, staff,

and researchers.
233

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

LELAND B. CROSS, JR., COMMISSIONER

I have been honored by being named a Commissioner on the Commission on

Leave. I cannot recall working with brighter and more dedicated persons, including my

fellow Commissioners and our very excellent Executive Directors and their staffs. The

nature of the Commissioners’ final vote on our Recommendations to Congress is such that

I cannot in good conscience go behind that vote in any sense and will not do so.

I do have some observations and concerns which I have expressed to Commissioners at the time of the above vote which I will state again for the record:

1. Plainly, the FMLA is a very valuable piece of social legislation

which needs to be much better publicized than it has been to

date for further utilization.

2. Clearly, additional research should be done along the lines suggested in the Recommendations as the legislation is better publicized and more broadly used.

3. Any effort to contemplate the measures suggested in the Recommendations for engaging in steps toward consideration of

wage replacement should be only on a basis which fully recognizes that there are a great many employers who reasonably believe they cannot afford such additional expense for a variety of

economic reasons which may surely mean uniformity is not an

attainable goal. Of course, there are employees who do not take

unpaid leaves because they cannot afford to do so. This is a

simple fact of life. Of course, those employees that do take such

leaves may well suffer financial hardship when they take an

unpaid leave. This, too, is a simple fact of life. These factors,

alone, do not justify leaves provided under the Act becoming

paid in whole or in part in the interest of uniformity or justice.

One need only look to Europe and its ever-increasing social welfare benefit legislation for employees, its rapid growth of labor

costs and its resulting explosion in unemployment. In Europe

we have seen a sharp increase in temporary workers and a steadily

increasing underground economy as a result of such social welfare legislation. The very same signs are already beginning to

appear here in the U.S. The result of such social welfare legislation in Europe has been well stated by Gary S. Becker, 1992

Nobel Laureate who teaches at the University of Chicago, as

follows:

“... When labor is expensive, companies replace departing workers only slowly — and are reluctant to expand even

when the economy picks up. This is why it now takes much
234

Appendix D

longer than it did a decade ago to find a job in Europe if you are

a first-time job seeker, a mother returning to work after childbirth, or an immigrant. It also explains why the youth unemployment rate is so high and why those out of work for over a

year have grown to more than one-third of the unemployed.

During the past two decades, private employment in the European Community has barely increased: The public sector has

accounted for almost all growth in employment. Japan and the

U.S. have had the opposite experience: Private employment

has surged, while government employment has grown little.

“The long term unemployed, youths, temporary employees, and underground workers — none of these groups have

any opportunity to invest in job skills and training. The sharp

growth in these categories means that fewer workers are being

trained to work in modern economies, which demand high levels of skill and knowledge. The inadequate training that workers receive makes it still harder for them to find satisfactory longterm jobs.

***

“The European experience should be a lesson to the

U.S. and other countries: Employment is much more buoyant

when governments interfere less in labor market affairs. Let’s

hope that this lesson doesn’t have to be learned the hard way —

through higher unemployment.”

[Business Week, October 4, 1993]

Our legislative rush to replicate the European experience might

well be tempered by the results noted above by Becker.

4. Obviously, employers should take the necessary steps to insure

greater family- friendly policies. It is not merely the right thing

to do, but the smart thing to do to attract and keep the best

employees.

5. Finally, the federal government should lead by example and become a “family- friendly” employer.
235

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE GUNDERSON,

COMMISSIONER

I commend Chairman Dodd, the Commission Members, and the staff for their

diligence and commitment to meeting the Commission’s Congressional mandate set forth

in the Family and Medical Leave Act. These Additional Views notwithstanding, I believe

this report reflects a job well done, and I expect much of the information included here will

prove valuable as employees, employers and policy-makers evaluate the Family and Medical Leave Act in the future.

I submit these Additional Views in order to present my concerns with the

Commission’s final report. Specifically, I am concerned that the Commission, in Section

VI relating to the Impact on Employers and in the Section relating to Recommendations,

may have omitted some important information and may have made some overly broad

suggestions and in some cases, overstepped the bounds of its mandate. I am writing to call

attention to these issues.

Assessing the Impact of Family and Medical Leave Policies on Employers

In Chapter VI of its final report, the Commission presents information “to assess

the impact of family and medical leave policies in general, and of the FMLA in particular,

on employers.” I am concerned that the Commission has presented incomplete information here and, in doing so, may have colored its assessment in a way that does not adequately acknowledge employers’ problems in complying with the FMLA.

The Commission begins its discussion by indicating that testimony from various

employer representatives confirmed that the majority of employers found administration

of the FMLA to be “easy” or “somewhat easy.” The Commission then supports this finding

by highlighting testimony from one industry witness whose company has found the administrative burdens of the FMLA “very minimal.” The Commission failed to acknowledge,

however, the testimony of another hearing witness, Ms. Libby Sartain, Vice President for

People, Southwest Airlines, who noted that:

It is almost impossible to insure that the FMLA is consistently applied because it is so

complicated. We are a large company with many different departments and locations.

One third of our people spend their time in the air. To guarantee that we were maintaining

a consistent practice throughout the company we would have to hire and train an FMLA

administrator for each location. But we don’t have human resources people at each site.

So a support level person is often saddled with trying to make sense of the law. Even

though we have trained all of our managers, supervisors, and coordinators on the law, they

are bound to make mistakes in administering it because it is so complicated.

In addition, the Commission included ample testimony in that section of its report relating to the benefits employers have experienced in connection with the FMLA,

including excerpts from seven different witnesses, each extolling the Act’s virtues. Conversely, when discussing the costs of the FMLA to employers, the Commission mentioned
236

Appendix D

only one witness, and then, excluded a significant part of her testimony on the costs of the

Act to her company.

Finally, the Commission concludes its discussion on the FMLA’s effect on employers by stating that much of the difficulty employers have experienced in complying

with the Act - particularly larger employers - is “probably due in part to start up costs

involved in the implementation of the FMLA.” The Commission offers little factual information or data to substantiate this conclusion and hypothesizes that these problems “may

diminish over time.” I am concerned that the Commission has paid too little attention to

the newness of the Act, while encouraging an interpretation that is not supported by the

record. Compliance problems may be due to start up costs, but they may also result from

the changes required in an employer’s administrative and personnel practices. In short,

any conclusion is premature until employers and employees have had more time to fully

understand and “adapt” to their rights and responsibilities under the FMLA.

In conclusion, I am concerned that the Commission may have approached this

part of its final report already having concluded that the FMLA is working well for everyone, and highlighted that information which supports its conclusion. This certainly does

not comport with my review of the hearing testimony or the available anecdotal information. The fact is that federally-mandated family leave imposes additional burdens on employers of all sizes. To ignore that fact or to suggest otherwise is simply not accurate. At a

minimum, I believe the Commission should have underscored the fact that the FMLA is,

by all accounts, still in its infancy, and that employer reactions to the Act have been mixed.

Moreover, I would have preferred that the Commission had placed a greater emphasis on

the notion that further research will be necessary before we can fully assess the true impact

of the FMLA or draw any firm conclusion regarding its costs or benefits to employers.

Wage Replacement

In its Recommendations section, I am most concerned about the way the Commission handles the issue of wage replacement. Specifically, I am concerned that by asserting that “the development of a uniform system of wage replacement . . . be given serious

consideration . . .” the Commission is opening the door to a debate on federally mandated

paid leave, a debate which is premature according to the information collected by the

Commission and the statutory mandate.

In its recommendations on Wage Replacement, the Commission accurately reports that many employers already provide some form of paid leave to their employees,

“indicating both their recognition of their employees’ need and their own ability to provide paid leave...” The Commission also accurately reports, however, that “many employers — especially small employers — fear the additional costs that paid leave programs are

likely to impose on their businesses.”

The Commission then attempts to take the middle road on the issue of paid leave

by stating that “the Commission makes no recommendation for or against federally mandated paid leave.” I find this statement, in and of itself, somewhat troubling. Rather than

attempting to remain neutral on the issue of paid leave, I believe the Commission would

have been wholly justified — based on testimony received during the Commission hear-
237

Appendix D

ings — in including an affirmative statement rejecting federally-mandated paid leave as

premature and potentially harmful to employees and employers alike, especially when we

have not yet gauged the full effects of existing law.

More troubling, however, is the fact that after attempting to remain neutral on

the issue of paid leave, the Commission then goes on to recommend “that the development of a uniform system of wage replacement for periods of family and medical leave be

given serious consideration by employers, employee representatives, and others.” My primary concern is that by suggesting a “uniform system” of wage replacement, the Commission raises the same “one-size-fits-all” questions that made enactment of the FMLA so

difficult in the first place. The diversity of today’s American workplace simply doesn’t lend

itself to this kind of federal micro-management.

It is my belief that employers, employees and their representatives are already

giving “serious consideration” to the issue of wage replacement, just as they would to any

other matter affecting employees’ compensation or benefits. They are doing so without

any prompting from the federal government. My fear is that by making specific recommendations in this area, the Commission is abandoning its own neutrality on the issue of

paid leave and prompting a debate that is simply not necessary at this point on the federal

level.

I would also like to comment on another aspect of the Commission’s recommendations concerning Policy Directions. Specifically, the Commission recommends “that

other federal agencies (in addition to the Labor Department) identify steps they can take

to ensure full compliance with FMLA by companies with which they work.” I am unclear

as to the intended meaning of this recommendation. For example, is the Commission

recommending that when a company appears before the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) in connection with its potential Superfund liability, the EPA should also become

involved with that company’s compliance with the FMLA? What about the brokerage

company that appears before the Securities Exchange Commission concerning possible

insider-trading violations?

The statute designates the U.S. Department of Labor as the federal agency responsible for the implementation, administration and enforcement of the FMLA. Given

the limited resources available to all federal agencies for meeting their respective statutory

obligations, I see no compelling reason — nor statutory authority — for recommending

that agencies other than the Department of Labor be involved with the enforcement of the

FMLA.

Additional FMLA Education

 In the section of its recommendations entitled Public Education and Technical

Assistance, the Commission includes a broad recommendation that “the Labor Department do more to educate employees, employers and the public in general about the FMLA

. . .” As a general recommendation, I fully agree with Commission on this point. I believe

the information the Commission collected, through its hearings and survey research, clearly

shows that employees and employers alike are not yet fully aware of their rights or responsibilities under the FMLA. Clearly, further education is needed.

The Commission goes on, however, to articulate a number of specific ways in

which the Department should fulfill this particular recommendation. I am more con-
238

Appendix D

cerned by the specific suggestion that the Department conduct “special campaigns to educate doctors, social workers and other health professionals on their roles in the FMLA and

how they can help their clients use it . . .” Frankly, I am puzzled by the need to direct

Departmental resources, beyond those it would spend on other educational programs, to

assist social workers and others help their “clients” understand their benefits under the

FMLA. A campaign of this nature strikes me, at best, as somewhat redundant and, at

worst, as borderline advocacy. The final regulations that implement the FMLA have been

promulgated for less than one year. Thus, we should concentrate our resources more toward educating employers and employees so that the benefits provided by the FMLA are

implemented correctly.

I am also intrigued by the Commission’s attention to the so-called “cultural barriers” that may be preventing employees from taking family or medical leave. The Commission makes reference to these barriers in several instances, including one education-related

recommendation that federal agencies create a “national business/employee Round Table

to address corporate and cultural barriers” that prevent employees from taking leave; and,

another relating to future research that would examine approaches employers can take “to

reduce the cultural barriers to taking leave . . .”

It is unclear to me exactly what the Commission is trying to address with these

recommendations. If, by “cultural barriers” the Commission is referring to language problems experienced by immigrant workers who are new to the American workplace, then

efforts to address those problems may be worthwhile. Likewise, educating employers about

their responsibilities to employees under the law is desirable. If, however, the Commission

is suggesting that the federal government expend scarce federal resources to explore the

socioeconomic factors affecting employees in the workplace, then I must take exception. I

am simply not convinced that this is an appropriate role for the federal government.

Future Research

With regard to its recommendations on Directions for Future Research, I would

note that the Commission has made a number of useful suggestions. I concur that much of

the information this research would provide could prove valuable in making future assessments on the efficacy of the FMLA. I am struck, however, by the broad scope of some of

the Commission’s recommendations in this area. For example, in one instance, the Commission recommends macroeconomic research on the impact of family leave policies on

foreign countries, including consideration of “culture, demographics and medical practices.” Other than to perhaps assess the impact of leave policies on our foreign trading

partners, or, generally, on our international competitiveness, I am unsure as to what benefit

this type of research might provide.

Beyond questions regarding the scope of any future research, I would also make

the general suggestion that any future research in this area, especially federally funded

research either conducted by the government or on behalf of the government be deferred

until employers and employees have had sufficient time to “adapt” to the FMLA. By allowing sufficient implementation time, future studies can measure both employer’s technical

compliance and the FMLA’s long-term effect on cost and productivity, and employee usage, attitudes and morale. It may be several years before we can fully and accurately assess
239

Appendix D

the impact of the FMLA on employees or employers, and I am reluctant to encourage

costly research until such time that we are assured of receiving more complete information.

In conclusion, I believe the research conducted under the Commission’s direction

provides us with a useful start in studying the effects of the FMLA. The federal government established a threshold by passing the Family and Medical Leave Act. As employers

and employees learn about their rights and responsibilities under the Act, and the terms in

the regulations are defined, there will be need for further study. I believe it is very important that on the federal level, we look carefully at the effects of the current law on all

involved parties before expanding coverage.
240

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

DONNA R. LENHOFF, COMMISSION VICE CHAIR

I add these words to the comments that I joined with my colleagues. It is very

gratifying to me personally, and to the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, which led the coalition for enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act, that family and medical leave has

been such an extraordinarily successful policy. In just the three years since its implementation, it has already helped millions of American working families. Costs and burdens on

employers have been nonexistent to small; and now that initial implementation is over,

some of even those small costs can be expected to decrease.

The Family Leave Commission heard eloquent and poignant testimony from around

the country about how family leave helped working families cope with family tragedy. Of

course, family leave doesn’t prevent tragedies from happening. But it does help working

families stay together and survive such tragedies. It does keep families from losing their

livelihoods and their health insurance — even from falling into poverty or turning to

welfare — at times when family needs must take precedence over work responsibilities.

And it does that without undue cost to business — indeed, often it saves money!

That’s why it makes eminent sense for us as a nation to try to build upon this

successful policy. Our challenge is to figure out how to make family and medical leave

more available to more employees — those who work for small employers, those who are

recently hired, those who work few hours, those who can’t afford unpaid leave. America’s

working families will thank us for it.

Finally, a word of thanks to the people who worked so hard to ensure that this

Family Leave Commission would make a significant contribution to our knowledge base

— especially to Secretary Robert Reich, who provided the leadership and wonderful staff

essential to completing this work, and the people at the Labor Department’s Women’s

Bureau, who were that wonderful staff. While I can’t name everyone involved, special

thanks for devotion above and beyond the call of duty go to Susan King and Ann Bookman.

My colleagues on the Commission have been outstanding in their professionalism

and thoughtfulness. It has been a great pleasure to serve with them on this Commission.

And finally, none of this would have been possible without the extraordinary

commitment and leadership of the Commission’s Chairman, Senator Chris Dodd. For his

tireless efforts, wise and considered counsel, personal involvement, and principled caring,

America’s working families owe an incalculable debt.
241

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

SCOTTIE THERESA NEESE,COMMISSIONER

It has been an honor to serve as a Commissioner for the Commission on Family

and Medical Leave. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with fellow Commissioners

and congratulate Chairman Christopher Dodd for his commitment to complete the congressional mandate set forth in the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I am submitting these Additional Views from a female small business owners perspective; also as a young working mother and now as a “chronologically mature” working

grandmother with a daughter who is now a young working mother. As a small business

owner with a permanent and temporary personnel service; I have worked with thousands

and thousands of employees and employers over the last twenty-one years and believe I

have a solid grasp of workplace issues from both sides of the aisle, so to speak. I also submit

these Additional Views as a past president of the National Association of Women Business

Owners (NAWBO). NAWBO is not involved with the Commission on Family and Medical Leave and any attempt to perceive any of my views as a NAWBO statement would be

incorrect. Yet, because I was national president of NAWBO; I have a full sense of how a

large number of women business owners feel and think about caring for their families and

their businesses.

My Additional Views have been expressed to fellow Commissioners throughout

this process and I will state them again for the record:

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

A. Increased public education on The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

 The survey research completed for the Commission clearly indicates a lack of understanding of the Family and Medical Leave Act by both the employer and the employee.

I wholeheartedly agree with increasing public education of this Act. From my

perspective, it is extremely important that the education comes not from an “advocacy”

standpoint; but, an educational and training non-biased position. Therefore, outsourcing

this type of education and training would be preferable. Anytime the private-sector can

provide a product or service; it can generally be provided at a more reasonable rate. In

addition, it seems to me anytime you have the government providing education and training; that education and training inevitably becomes partisan. Finally, we must make sure

we are educating and training only those who are eligible to receive the benefits. The

employers covered under the FMLA Act need additional training so that the regulations

are implemented correctly. And positive private-sector education to those employers not

covered will motivate them to move into the 21st Century and protect their employees.

Bottom Line: Providing additional education on the Family and Medical Leave

Act is necessary. Let’s make sure in the education process that the employer and employee

does not learn how to abuse the Act. We also must make sure that the Labor Department

does not discriminate against anyone; including targeting “cultural barriers”.
242

Appendix D

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

I concur with much of the future research suggestions offered by the Commission;

but offer some additional opportunities.

(A) Additional research should be done to assess the impact of family leave policies

voluntarily provided by employers. And further, what are some additional family leave

policies that employers have put into practice. For example, telecommuting for employees

who have family responsibilities but need to continue to work.

(B) Assessing the impact of family leave policies on countries’ and companies’ overall

economic performance should supply some very interesting facts. Such as Europe. Europe,

with an increasing social legislative agenda, has hampered job creativity. Companies are

hiring huge numbers of temporary employees because they simply cannot afford to handle

the paperwork, pay benefits, match taxes, etc. for employees. These same issues are evolving in the United States. Frankly, since I own a temporary job placement firm, I should

really be for this type of social legislation. But I also realize that we must have a free market

economy with less government intrusion and government paperwork; or we will not have

permanent or temporary jobs at all!

(C) As a personnel service small business owner, I would welcome further research to

assess the impact of family leave policies on temporary, part-time, and contract workers. In

part, I would speculate you will find the main reason companies are using temporary, parttime, and contract workers is because of the rules and regulations imposed on the backs of

businesses by the government. Release these burdens and you will find more and more

businesses in a hiring frenzy. A large percentage of companies simply cannot provide every

benefit in the world to all employees and remain in business. Because of unnecessary

government regulations and mandates: we are experiencing the plight of downsizing or

“rightsizing”, layoffs and bankruptcies, and businesses closing their doors.

Finally, along these same lines, it is important to note that most of the temporary services

providing temporary and part-time workers, provide reasonable benefit packages. These

benefit packages include, but are not limited to, paid vacations, education and training

packages, certainly unpaid family and medical leave, and health care and life insurance.

(D) Additional research should be conducted on the short and long term costs, productivity and benefits of family and medical leave policies for employers. With the

Commissions’s hearings and survey research, I don’t believe we have begun to touch the

cost impact of this policy on employers because it is just too early in the Act to assess these

costs, nor have we had an opportunity to assess possible discrimination in hiring practices.

According to WESTAT, an employee-owned research corporation,

“given the relatively short time period since the law was passed, the provisions are still

being interpreted by U.S. employers and employees. Consequently, the following limitations on the data should be considered when interpreting the results: (1) employers may

have had to estimate quantities (e.g., for a particular work site when records were kept for

multiple sites); (2) much of the information collected on the impact of FMLA was collected in ordinal, rather than quantitative, form (e.g., small increase vs. large increase,
243

Appendix D

rather than the exact dollar figures producing quantitative information on how much the

costs have increased); and (3) the survey may have only tapped into the early effects of the

law. Once the law is in effect for a longer period of time and employers and employees

become more familiar with its provisions, the impacts may be different.”

Within the next 5 years, we should be able to get a clear view of the costs and

benefits of this Act. We also need to look at the costs involved when an employee abuses

the system. For example, an employee takes 12 weeks away from work and on the last day

of leave decides not to return to work. The employer has a temporary employee working

the entire 12 weeks. Then they have to start interviewing for a permanent employee. So,

maybe 16 to 18 weeks into this process, the employer finally has a permanent employee.

Since the employer had a temporary employee on the company payroll, that temporary

employee can now file unemployment on the company; thereby raising the companies

unemployment taxes. In Oklahoma, an employee only has to work 15 days to qualify for

unemployment. Research and survey study on these topics are extremely important.

And the Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center at The University

of Michigan mentions:

“One limitation that is characteristic of most telephone surveys such as the one

described in this report concerns the demographic make-up of the persons missed when

only those households with working telephone numbers are contacted. These persons

tend to be disproportionately elderly, of lower socioeconomic status and residents of rural

areas (for a review, see Groves and Lyberg, 1988). This limitation should be kept in mind

when examining the results of this survey. Future research should endeavor to replicate

these findings using the most representative sample possible.

A second limitation concerning the respondent coverage of this survey is that the

population base from which the sample is derived is comprised of persons aged 18 and older

who had been employed at any time at all in the time period between January 1, 1994 and

the interview (approximately 18 months). It is possible that some respondents are currently unemployed, a fact which should be kept in mind when comparing estimates derived from these data with estimates derived from other population bases.”

POLICY DIRECTIONS

A. More Family Friendly Policies

(1) I have the most problem with the Commission’s statement “recommending that

the development of a uniform system of wage replacement for periods of family and medical leave be given serious consideration by employers, employee representatives, and others”.

As the Commission held hearings, listened to the survey research data, and prepared to finalize their report, the issue of paid family and medical leave was always on the

fringes. I began to believe the old axiom “let the government get a foot in the door and

they’ll open it and enter”.
244

Appendix D

During one of the hearings, the message started becoming very clear. That message being, paid family and medical leave should be strongly considered. For small business

owners this message is devastating. Now, obviously I realize this Act only pertains to those

businesses who employ more than 50 employees. (By the way, is that why some companies

are only employing 49 people?) But when is that number going to change to include

smaller businesses? Being concerned about those types of issues, I asked Chairman Christopher Dodd during one of our hearings, if an attempt would soon be made to lower the

threshold and require paid leave? Please notice the Chairman’s response during the Washington, D.C. hearing held at the Department of Commerce on August 4, 1995.

“I’m going to say to my friend, Terry, down here: I no of no one who has any interest,

legislatively, at this juncture of adding pay leave to this but [inaudible]. I would say if we

could afford to do it and are able to do it, but there’s no movement that I know of. I would

oppose it if there were for the obvious reasons, at this point. [inaudible]. But we recognize

that would be a burden that could not be absorbed, so I know of no interest at this juncture

to move in that direction.” (Taken from the transcripts of Bayley Reporting, Inc., including all misspelled words.)

This was certainly great news!

In addition, the FMLA Survey results from the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan had this to say.

•Employee survey cannot measure impact of FMLA law, without a pre-FMLA measure.

•Low salience of the FMLA law among the lay public complicates learning people’s

experiences with FMLA leaves versus other leaves.

•Many of the demographic groups who tend to work in large firms also tend to

have distinctive leave taking patterns 1) when there are differences in leave experiences of

those in large, FMLA firms and those in small, nonFMLA firms, it’s not clear whether it’s a

result of the workers, size of firm, or the law, and 2) multivariate controls are crucial to

conclusions.

•After accounting for demographic differences, reason and length of leave, those

in large, FMLA firms tend to receive partial or full pay (versus no pay) during leaves. This

is especially true for those taking leave for their own or a relative’s health.

Further data indicates that “most worksites report that the FMLA has no noticeable effect on business performance. Between 86 and 96 percent report no noticeable

effect on productivity, profitability and growth. To the extent that employers do report an

effect, it is about equally likely be positive or negative on productivity, and more likely to

be negative regarding profitability and growth.”

Does this mean the FMLA is irrelevant?

(2) The suggestion that states should consider voluntarily extending unemployment

compensation qualifications to employees on family and medical leave is simply not doable. That is not what the unemployment compensation system was created to do! Another recommendation is that states should consider voluntarily establishing or expanding

existing temporary disability insurance (TDI) programs to provide wage replacement for
245

Appendix D

periods of family and medical leave. This is not feasible. Where will the money come from

and who and how will this activity be monitored?

When are we going to realize in this country that the city, county, state and federal government cannot do all and be all to every person in this land? President John

Kennedy said it best “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for

your country.” And we must empower people to take responsibility for their lives; realizing

that self-esteem is created through accomplishments.

At any rate, many employers are already providing not only paid family and medical leave but many other benefits. I sincerely believe if the government would protect our

shores, deliver the mail (which is questionable), and leave us alone, we would be more

productive citizens.

As a small business owner, I go the extra mile to protect my employees’ jobs;

thereby protecting my business. Right now, I have an employee with breast cancer. My

company is struggling without her because she is a key employee. I am holding her job for

as long as she wants it (not just 12 weeks). I am paying her a partial salary and even loaning

her money. I realize all employers are not that way. But why put additional burdensome

paperwork and regulations on me because of a few who do not protect their employees?

If you look at statistics and data survey research, you will find that women business ownership is skyrocketing. Women business owners today employ 35% more employees than the Fortune 500 companies WORLDWIDE! Since this is a fact, in a few short

years, most of the businesses will be owned by women and the data also indicates that

women manage their businesses differently, and treat their employees differently. Women

business owners provide high quality benefits, they nurture their employees and their businesses, and they are educated on the subject of family and medical leave (sandwich generation, etc.).

Bottom line: Soon there will not be a need for this type of burdensome regulation, as women business owners will own the majority of businesses in the United States

and will protect and nurture their employees.

(3) The federal government should lead the way by example.

The federal government should be a “family-friendly” employer, but the privatesector should lead the way.
246

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

MARY TAVENNER, COMMISSIONER

In any group made up of people with vastly disparate positions on an issue, there

must be compromise on both sides in order to arrive at a conclusion. So it was with the

deliberations of the Family and Medical Leave Commission.

The Commission’s membership was composed of those who were the strongest

advocates of the Family and Medical Leave Act and those who where equally adamant in

their opposition to the federal mandate contained in the Act. Every decision made by the

Commission and its Technical Task Force, of which I was a member, required concessions

by both sides.

We worked very hard to produce a report which was as balanced as possible. Certainly, those of us who cared most about employers’ concerns were at a distinct disadvantage, given that the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission are two of the nation’s most

committed advocates of the FMLA and the Labor Department facilitators of the Commission are Presidential appointees. There were many instances of partisanship, particularly

in conjunction with the Commission’s hearings, and I have very serious concerns at many

points in the process that it would be impossible to produce a report all of the Commissioner’s

could approve. However, when the Technical Task Force got down to the task of writing

survey questions and editing the Report, a spirit of cooperation prevailed. All of us made

compromises on almost every sentence of the Recommendations section.

There is a lot to dislike in this report, in its tone, its conclusions and its recommendations. It will no doubt evoke criticism from all of the FMLA stakeholders. However, there are also several positive conclusions reached in this report which respond to the

concerns raised by employers. The report provides some good news on employers’ response

to the changing demands of work and family. While the report acknowledges that employers have been forced to change their benefits policies as a result of the FMLA, sometimes

with mixed results, it also notes that the vast majority of employees have access to FMLA

and the overwhelming majority of employees who need leave are able to take it. We also

validated that many employers provide generous paid leave for employee illness.

That being said, I have some particular concerns about the report, which are as

follows:

1) Recommendation A, that special campaigns be instituted to educate

doctors, social workers and other health professionals on their role in the FMLA and how

they can help their clients use it. The Commission has heard from many corporations and

human resources professionals about the abuse of medical leave. Those businesses, particularly those with some of the most generous leave policies in the country, have asserted —

both formally and informally — that since enactment of the FMLA, employee medical

leave has skyrocketed. This is particularly true for those companies which provides paid

leave. Special campaigns to educate health professionals to encourage employees to use

medical leave is, in my opinion, not warranted.
247

Appendix D

2) Recommendation C (3) to create a national business/employee Round

Table to address corporate and general cultural barriers that prevent employees from taking

leave. None of the Commission’s research indicated that there is a problem in this area.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of employees who needed leave were able to take it.

Moreover, I strongly believe that it is not the government’s role to address “cultural” barriers to leave-taking.

3) Directions for Future Research — Recommendation (D) for additional

macroeconomic research to assess the impact of family leave policies on countries’ and

companies’ economic performance. U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to fund research

on other countries leave policies. There has been plenty of private research on this area

done already. Moreover, one of the basic arguments against this legislation during Congressional consideration was the fear that the U.S. was entering into a policy of “Europeanization” of employee benefits.

4) Policy Directions — Recommendation (B) that other federal agencies

identify steps they can take to ensure full compliance with FMLA companies with which

they work. This would impose yet another nightmarish federal condition on private contractors and is clearly outside the parameters of the Act’s enforcement mechanisms.

5) Wage Replacement Recommendations. I strongly advocated that the

Commission clearly state that it makes no recommendations on the issue of paid leave.

During negotiations, this statement was modified that the Commission make no recommendations for or against federally-mandated paid leave. I disagree with this statement

and strongly believe that we should have made a more concise recommendation against

paid leave. I also have serious concerns with regard to the recommendation that the development of a uniform system of wage replacement be given serious consideration, particularly in the area of expansion of temporary disability insurance. State disability programs

are already fraught with abuse and should not be expanded for FMLA purposes.

Moreover, we heard from many companies that adopted wage replacement programs prior to FMLA enactment which are now finding those programs to be unaffordable

now that employees are using FMLA to protect absences for such ordinary conditions as

bronchitis and migraines. Rather than expanding such wage-replacement programs, employers are now more likely to restrict or eliminate them.

In terms of input from industry groups, the Commission did receive testimony from several

human resources managers who stated that the Act did impose a myriad of administrative

burdens. Additionally, we received communications from industry groups, such as the

National Association of Manufacturers and the Society for Human Resource Managers,

two organizations with extensive knowledge of the Act and its implications whose members are currently administering the Act within their own organizations. It is important to

take serious note of their concerns, something the body of this report fails to do.

The following were the most often-mentioned problems cited by industry groups with regard to administration of the FMLA:

1) DEFINITION OF CHRONIC ILLNESS: Section 825, 114 (a)(2)(iii) adds a

new provision to the definition of serious illness to include a chronic condition. Under the
248

Appendix D

interim regulations, serious illness generally required absences of three or more days. Now

an absence of one day could qualify as FMLA leave for a chronic condition. The definition

of chronic condition is so broad that asthma, migraine headaches, and bad back or other

similar occurrences can qualify. Many of those conditions would be expected to be covered

by an employer’s sick leave policy rather than FMLA leave.

2) NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: A complex interplay of regulations make the

administration of an employer’s FMLA policy difficult. An employee can take FMLA

leave in daily — or even hourly — increments if they have a chronic condition. The

employee need not indicate and intention to take FMLA leave. Instead, the employer

must draw this conclusion based upon information volunteered by the employee.

3) DECLARING FMLA LEAVE: The designation of FMLA leave remains the

responsibility of the employer. The FMLA requires employees to give employers 30 days

notice when leave is foreseeable. But the statute and its legislative history are silent as to

the notice requirements for unforeseeable leave. In Manuel v. West Lake Polymers Corporation, the court held that to require employees to foresee their need for leave and to expressly invoke the FMLA’s protection would significantly burden employees.

However, forcing an employer to designate FMLA is not only time-consuming

and uncertain, it also stands in direct contrast with the Americans with Disabilities Act,

since it could put a supervisor in the awkward position of questioning employees about

their medical-related absences to determine if the absence qualifies under the FMLA.

Employees should have the basic responsibility for asking for the kind of leave they think

they need.

4) GOOD ATTENDANCE RECORDS: Under federal regulations, employees who

take FMLA remain eligible for perfect attendance, safety and similar bonuses. While the

purpose of the Act is to provide job protection for employees who need to take leave, its

consequence should not be to award employees for taking leave. If this rule remains intact,

“good attendance” awards will become meaningless since employees who have not missed

a day of work all year will be receiving the same awards as employees who have been absent

for up to 12 weeks.

5) FEDERAL PREEMPTION: Nothing in the FMLA pre-empts any provision of

any state or local law that provides greater family or medical leave rights than the rights

under FMLA. Because of this “non-preemption” language, the determination of whether

state or federal law applies should be examined. Federal preemption would eliminate the

confusion that currently exists for multi-state employers.

Finally, I am concerned that the recommendations of the Commission seem to indicate

that a need is not being met. The data we received not only does not indicate that, but

seems to suggest the opposite. While over 65 percent of employees work for employers who

are covered by the FMLA, less than one-fifth of the employee population surveyed actually

took advantage of FMLA and only 3.4 percent needed it but didn’t take it. Recommending that wage replacement policies be seriously considered to address an assumption that

this extremely small group of “leave-needers” did not take the leave because they could not

afford to do so is like trying to kill a fly with a jack hammer.
249

Appendix D

That being said, the Commission’s work has produced some solid research which should be

re-examined in the years ahead. Our nations’s experience with the FMLA is still in its

infancy and hopefully we will be able to take another snapshot of its costs and benefits at

some point in the future.

Clearly, this report is not perfect. Had any one of us on the Commission been able to write

it alone it would have read quite differently. What impact, if any, it will have on future

policies remains to be seen. It is critical for those who refer to it now and in the future

understand that it is a compromise document.

I am personally very grateful for having had the opportunity to served on this Commission

and extend my deep appreciation to my fellow Commissioners and their staff — particularly Suzanne Day of Senator Dodd’s staff and Damon Tobias of Senator Craig’s staff — for

making this one of the more interesting and thought-provoking experiences of my career.
250

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

ANN BOOKMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COMMISSION ON LEAVE

It has been a great honor to serve as Executive Director of the Commission on Leave under

the leadership of Chairman Christopher Dodd. I have admired for many years the way he

championed the Family and Medical Leave Act and the needs of children and working

families. The energy and dedication Senator Dodd and Vice Chair Donna Lenhoff brought

to the Commission’s work has truly been an inspiration and made my job a real pleasure. I

also wish to thank the other Commissioners for their active participation and involvement, and in particular the members of the bipartisan Technical Task Force who, despite

their differences in point of view, worked closely and collaboratively with each other and

with me in crafting this report.

When President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act into law in 1993, I felt

a deep sense of appreciation, both in my professional capacity and as a working mother.

The country owes a debt of gratitude to Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich and Wage and

Hour Administrator Maria Echavete for their leadership and swift implementation of the

FMLA, ensuring that more working Americans than ever before are being supported in

their commitment to both their jobs and their families.

The experience of working with the Commission on Leave has provided me with several

new insights. First, I have a deeper appreciation for the concerns of the business community. I have listened carefully to the issues raised by business people from firms of all sizes,

and have been encouraged to learn that the problems they have encountered are raised in

the context of their support for the Act’s overriding goals. I am also encouraged by the

findings of the Employer Survey which make clear that - after two years of experience with

the new law - a large majority of employers are not incurring significant costs or problems.

Second, I have a renewed appreciation of what the FMLA means to working families: the

testimony of leave-takers was always compelling, and in some cases heart wrenching. The

stories of these employees and the findings of the Employee Survey provide concrete evidence that we need to remove the barriers that still prevent some workers from using the

FMLA. Whether it is a re-examination of the eligibility criteria, or serious consideration

of a national system of wage replacement, I hope future commissions and policy makers

will ensure that every worker who needs the FMLA has access to its benefits. I believe that

a family-friendly workplace, with FMLA as a cornerstone policy, will prove essential to

American business and American families in the 21st century.
251

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

IRASEMA GARZA, SECRETARY, U.S. NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COMMISSION ON LEAVE

I am pleased that the Commission on Leave has completed its important mission of studying and issuing a report to Congress on the effects of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993

(FMLA).

I believe that FMLA is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Congress has

enacted in recent history. The enactment of FMLA is a formal recognition by our government that employees are entitled to basic employment protection when required to temporarily leave their employment because of a personal or family illness.

It was a pleasure for me to have served as the first Executive Director of the Commission on

Leave. With the support of Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and the leadership and assistance of the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor, I was able to assist the Commission in establishing the foundation for the commencement of its important work. I am

pleased to have identified some existing data sources both within the federal government

and in other non-government institutions, to have collaborated with other government

agencies engaged in related research, and use these resources to assist the Commission in

the development of its workplan.

It was an honor for me to have worked with Senator Dodd and the other distinguished

members of the Commission on Leave.
252

Appendix D

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF

SUSAN ROBINSON KING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF LABOR

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Dodd:

The Family and Medical Leave Act helps American families work better. Workers know it.

Some bosses know it. I learned this valuable lesson from both workers and bosses during my

short tenure while Executive Director of the Family and Medical Leave Commission.

It was a ten month experience that convinced me of the power of the Act and the importance

of government service. I want to thank you Senator Dodd and the Commissioners for that

experience, as well as citizens who gave their time to create this public record.

As the Executive Director during the period where Congress generously funded the Commission’s

work, I carried out the mandate from the Commission to hold nation-wide hearings that would

supplement the professional research project demanded by Congress.

We heard from workers and bosses, large corporations and small business owners. We heard

stories that were moving, sometimes sad, often very funny, always relevant. I knew from personal experience the power this law could make in one’s life. I took advantage of the adoption

provisions of DC’s law, when I became a new Mom. The law allowed me to be both Mother and

professional. Working for the Commission was an act of love and an immensely important and

satisfying experience for me.

This law does not exist in the abstract. It is part of thousand’s of workers everyday lives. American families are working families and though they may not need FMLA often, we found, when

they needed it, the law was a life saver. In Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, companies

also testified about real world experiences. Though some told us they might opt for changes in

regulations, there was consensus from business participants (even those who were critical) that

the law was a workplace plus.

Diane Quinn, Linda Paris and Stacey Oliphant worked tirelessly to contact individuals and

companies who would testify and clarify the issues. The commission owes them a debt of gratitude. Becky Griffin, who has served the Commission from the beginning, was a guiding influence for us all.

My only regret about my Commission tenure was its length. I left before its work was complete.

But Ann Bookman, as Research Director for the Women’s Bureau, was my mentor from the

beginning. As academic, steeped in family and medical leave issues, I think she was the perfect

person to bring the work of the Commission to a close. This final report is a document for

tomorrow’s planning and a reflection of her talent.

I believe, this bi-partisan group of twelve, men and women who stood for ten years on opposite

sides of the fight over the legislation, have produced a baseline of research which will serve

future evaluations of the act. The Commission has served America well.

The Family and Medical Leave Act is protection from losing one’s job. And as the Commission

discovered, this is a right that few are willing to abuse.

Sincerely,

Susan Robinson King

Assistant Secretary of Labor
Appendix E

Tables

253
254

Appendix E

Covered

All Non-Covered Covered and Eligible

ALL RESPONDENTS n =1 122,000,000 41,350,000 80,650,000 66,940,000

100.0% 33.9% 66.1% 54.9%

GENDER

Male 100.0% 36.5% 63.5% 54.2%

Female 100.0% 30.9% 69.1% 55.6%

AGE

18-24 100.0% 37.0% 63.0% 34.4%

25-34 100.0% 30.3% 69.7% 59.5%

35-49 100.0% 32.1% 67.9% 60.5%

50-64 100.0% 37.7% 62.3% 54.3%

65 or over 100.0% 47.1% 52.9% 40.3%

RACE

Latino 100.0% 40.6% 59.4% 48.5%

African American 100.0% 18.1% 81.9% 74.1%

Non-Latino White 100.0% 35.1% 64.9% 53.5%

Other 100.0% 20.1% 73.9% 51.5%

MARITAL STATUS

Married 100.0% 35.0% 65.0% 56.7%

Living w/Partner 100.0% 33.6% 66.4% 59.5%

Separated 100.0% 23.7% 76.3% 72.6%

Divorced 100.0% 29.8% 70.2% 61.0%

Widowed 100.0% 24.5% 75.5% 63.0%

Never been Married 100.0% 34.5% 65.5% 40.8%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 100.0% 35.6% 64.4% 52.3%

One or more 100.0% 31.7% 68.4% 58.3%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 100.0% 46.9% 53.1% 47.0%

High School Graduate 100.0% 35.1% 64.9% 54.4%

Some College 100.0% 35.3% 64.8% 54.6%

Four Years of College or more 100.0% 28.4% 71.6% 57.6%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 100.0% 37.3% 62.7% 42.8%

$20 - 30,000 100.0% 31.9% 68.1% 57.5%

$30 - 50,000 100.0% 29.3% 70.7% 60.8%

$50 - 75,000 100.0% 27.7% 72.3% 64.1%

$75,000 or more 100.0% 30.0% 70.0% 60.4%

NA/Unknown 100.0% 41.6% 58.4% 48.8%

TYPE OF COMPENSATION

Salaried 100.0% 30.7% 69.3% 61.7%

Hourly 100.0% 28.7% 71.3% 56.5%

Other 100.0% 67.2% 32.8% 24.9%

UNION STATUS

Union 100.0% 10.2% 89.8% 81.3%

Non-union 100.0% 38.3% 61.7% 49.9%

T A B L E 4 . A

Demographic Profile of Employees

by Coverage Status under FMLA

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: The “unknown” or “no answer” responses accounted for less than 2% of total responses in

all catagories except income, where they have been included in the table.

1

The emplyee survey contains interviews from a representative sample of 2255 employees from

all sectors of the economy in the 48 contiguous states in which the survey was conducted. Their

responses have been weighed to reflect the total number of employees in this population at the

time of the survey - 122 million.
255

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . B

Percentage of Worksites Changing Family and Medical Leave

Policies by Type of Change(1)

LEAVE IS NOW JOB-GUARANTEED

Yes 54.8%

No 45.2%

HEALTH INSURANCE CONTINUED DURING

LEAVE OR LONGER PERIOD

Yes 52.9%

No 47.1%

LEAVE CAN BE TAKEN FOR MORE REASONS

Yes 76.9%

No 23.1%

LEAVE CAN BE TAKEN FOR A LONGER

PERIOD OF TIME

Yes 66.4%

No 33.6%

MALES TAKING LEAVE TO CARE FOR ILL

OR NEWBORN CHILDREN

Yes 69.3%

No 30.7%

EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

HAVE BEEN EASED

Yes 46.7%

No 53.3%

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages in table refer to FMLA-covered worksites whose policies changed due to FMLA.
256

Appendix E

DATE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE POLICIES ESTABLISHED

SIZE OF Before In After No Don’t

WORKSITE All 1993 1993 1993 Policies Know

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 7,342,784 1,448,871 610,840 84,803 4,882,456 315,814

100.0% 19.7% 8.3% 1.2% 66.5% 4.3%

FMLA-COVERED* 38.7% 40.0% 3.3% 8.8% 9.1%

1-10 30.5% 48.9% 2.9% 0.0% 17.7%

11-25 33.7% 45.2% 0.6% 13.6% 6.9%

26-49 46.9% 44.1% 0.0% 4.5% 4.5%

50 or more 46.2% 29.4% 6.0% 13.3% 5.0%

FMLA-NON-COVERED 17.4% 4.5% 0.9% 73.5% 3.7%

1-10 14.9% 3.7% 0.2% 77.3% 3.9%

11-25 27.0% 9.2% 1.2% 60.0% 2.7%

26-49 35.3% 5.3% 12.0% 45.0% 2.6%

50 or more 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T A B L E 4 . C

Date of Establishment of Family and Medical Leave Policies

by Size of Worksite, FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

*Worksites of fewer than 50 employees are covered under FMLA if the firm has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.
257

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . D

Availability of Up to 12 Weeks of Leave:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites

FMLA- FMLA- Total

Covered Non-Covered

EMPLOYEE’S OWN SERIOUS HEALTH

CONDITION (EXCEPT MATERNITYDISABILITY (1)

Yes 92.6% 45.7% 50.8%

No 3.6% 41.8% 37.6%

Depends on Circumstances 3.8% 12.6% 11.6%

MOTHERS FOR MATERNITYDISABILITY (1)

Yes 96.6% 42.3% 48.4%

No 2.9% 46.9% 42.0%

Depends on Circumstances 0.5% 10.9% 9.7%

PARENTS TO CARE FOR A

NEWBORN (1)

Yes 92.5% 32.3% 38.9%

No 6.0% 53.9% 48.6%

Depends on Circumstances 1.6% 13.9% 12.5%

PARENTS TO CARE FOR ADOPTED OR

FOSTER CHILD (1)

Yes 91.3% 29.0% 35.5%

No 7.7% 57.4% 52.2%

Depends on Circumstances 1.0% 13.7% 12.4%

CARE OF ILL CHILD, SPOUSE, OR

PARENT (1)

Yes 94.2% 41.7% 47.4%

No 4.4% 46.8% 42.2%

Depends on Circumstances 1.4% 11.6% 10.5%

IS THE LEAVE AVAILABLE FOR ALL

OF THE FMLA REASONS? (1)

Yes 88.0% 20.7% 27.9%

No 12.0% 79.3% 72.1%

ARE HEALTH BENEFITS (IF OFFERED)

CONTINUED DURING LEAVE FOR:

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant as p< .05.
258

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . E

Continuation of Health Benefits During Leave:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites (1)

FMLA- FMLA- Total

Covered Non-Covered

EMPLOYEE’S OWN SERIOUS HEALTH

CONDITION (EXCEPT MATERNITYDISABILITY) (2)

Yes 95.3% 77.9% 82.2%

No 1.3% 9.1% 7.2%

Depends on Circumstances 3.5% 13.0% 10.6%

MOTHERS FOR MATERNITYDISABILITY (2)

Yes 96.3% 86.3% 88.9%

No 1.2% 4.3% 3.5%

Depends on Circumstances 2.5% 9.4% 7.6%

PARENTS TO CARE FOR

A NEWBORN (2)

Yes 95.7% 72.5% 78.8%

No 0.9% 7.7% 5.9%

Depends on Circumstances 3.4% 19.8% 15.3%

PARENTS TO CARE FOR ADOPTED OR

FOSTER CHILD (2)

Yes 95.8% 75.9% 81.7%

No 1.0% 10.4% 7.7%

Depends on Circumstances 3.2% 13.7% 10.6%

CARE OF ILL CHILD, SPOUSE, OR

 PARENT (2)

Yes 95.2% 69.0% 75.9%

No 1.5% 11.7% 9.0%

Depends on Circumstances 3.3% 19.3% 15.1%

ARE HEALTH BENEFITS (IF OFFERED)

CONTINUED DURING LEAVE FOR:

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages refer to worksites that make up to 12 weeks of leave available (or that it depends

on circumstances).

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.
259

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . F

Are Employees Guaranteed Jobs Upon Return From Leave?

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites (1)

FMLA- FMLA- Total

Covered Non-Covered

EMPLOYEE’S OWN SERIOUS HEALTH

CONDITION (EXCEPT MATERNITYDISABILITY)

Yes 94.7% 86.8% 88.1%

No 0.7% 1.7% 1.5%

Depends on Circumstances 4.6% 11.6% 10.4%

MOTHERS FOR

MATERNITY-DISABILITY (2)

Yes 99.2% 87.3% 89.5%

No 0.0% 2.1% 1.7%

Depends on Circumstances 0.8% 10.6% 8.8%

PARENTS TO CARE FOR A

NEWBORN (2)

Yes 99.2% 83.8% 86.9%

No 0.0% 2.0% 1.6%

Depends on Circumstances 0.8% 14.2% 11.5%

PARENTS TO CARE FOR

ADOPTED OR FOSTER CHILD (2)

Yes 99.0% 85.5% 88.2%

No 0.0% 3.3% 2.7%

Depends on Circumstances 1.0% 11.2% 9.2%

CARE OF ILL CHILD, SPOUSE, OR

PARENT (2)

Yes 98.9% 86.0% 88.3%

No 0.0% 2.6% 2.1%

Depends on Circumstances 1.1% 11.4% 9.5%

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages in table refer to worksites that make up to 12 weeks of leave available (or that it

depends on circumstances).

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.
260

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . G

Additional Family and Medical Leave Benefits

Provided to Employees: FMLA-Covered and

Non-Covered Worksites (1)

FMLA- FMLA- Total

Covered Non-Covered

JOB-GUARANTEED LEAVE FOR

MORE THAN 12 WEEKS A YEAR (2)

Yes 25.5% 25.6% 25.6%

No 58.2% 43.2% 45.7%

Depends on Circumstances 16.3% 31.2% 28.7%

JOB-GUARANTEED LEAVE TO

EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE WORKED

FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION LESS

THAN 12 MONTHS (3)

Yes 37.3% 25.9% 27.7%

No 47.2% 46.7% 46.8%

Depends on Circumstances 15.5% 27.5% 25.5%

JOB-GUARANTEED LEAVE TO

EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE WORKED

FOR YOU LESS THAN 1,250 HOURS

IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (2)

Yes 31.1% 33.0% 32.7%

No 55.6% 41.0% 43.5%

Depends on Circumstances 13.3% 26.0% 23.8%

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OFFER:

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages refer to worksites which make up to 12 weeks of job-guaranteed leave available

(or that depends on circumstances) for at least one of the reasons listed in Appendix E, Table 4.D.

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.

(3) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .10.
261

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . H

Additional Family and Medical Leave Benefits

Provided to Employees, by Size of Worksite

(FMLA-COVERED WORKSITES ONLY) (1)

Up to 250 More than 250 Total

Employees Employees

JOB-GUARANTEED LEAVE FOR

MORE THAN 12 WEEKS A YEAR (2)

Yes 25.0% 34.1% 25.5%

No 59.3% 36.9% 58.2%

Depends on Circumstances 12.0% 7.4% 11.8%

JOB-GUARANTEED LEAVE TO

EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE WORKED

FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION LESS

THAN 12 MONTHS (3)

Yes 37.0% 43.2% 37.3%

No 47.9% 33.8% 47.2%

Depends on Circumstances 15.7% 29.0% 16.3%

JOB-GUARANTEED LEAVE TO

EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE WORKED

FOR YOU LESS THAN 1,250 HOURS

IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (2)

Yes 30.6% 40.4% 31.1%

No 56.3% 40.9% 55.6%

Depends on Circumstances 13.1% 18.7% 13.3%

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OFFER:

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Percentages refer to worksites that make up to 12 weeks of job-guaranteed leave available (or

that it depends on circumstances) for at least one of the reasons listed in Appendix E, Table 4.D.

(2) Difference between the worksite sizes of FMLA-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.

(3) Difference between the business sizes of FMLA-covered worksites is significant at p< .10.
262

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . I

Continuation of Pay and Benefits During Leave: FMLACovered and Non-Covered Worksites

FMLA- FMLA- Total

Covered Non-Covered

ORGANIZATION PROVIDES PAID

LEAVE, SUCH AS SICK OR VACATION

LEAVE, OR DISABILITY INSURANCE

Yes 85.0% 53.8% 57.5%

No 3.2% 41.6% 37.0%

Depends on Circumstances 11.8% 4.6% 5.5%

ORGANIZATION CONTINUES ITS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO A PENSION

OR RETIREMENT PLAN (IF OFFERED)

Yes 62.6% 38.1% 41.7%

No 20.4% 59.0% 53.2%

Depends on Circumstances 17.1% 3.0% 5.1%

ORGANIZATION CONTINUES ITS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO LIFE INSURANCE

(IF OFFERED) (1)

Yes 84.7% 50.4% 56.1%

No 12.3% 48.3% 42.3%

Depends on Circumstances 3.0% 1.3% 1.6%

ORGANIZATION CONTINUES ITS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO DISABILITY

INSURANCE (IF OFFERED) (1)

Yes 87.6% 55.7% 60.3%

No 8.9% 41.2% 36.5%

Depends on Circumstances 3.6% 3.1% 3.2%

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.
263

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . J

Continuation of Pay and Benefits During Leave,

 by Size of Business

(FMLA-COVERED WORKSITES ONLY)

Up to 250 More than 250 Total

Employees Employees

ORGANIZATION PROVIDES PAID

LEAVE, SUCH AS SICK OR VACATION

LEAVE, OR DISABILITY INSURANCE

Yes 84.8% 89.6% 85.0%

No 3.3% 3.0% 3.2%

Depends on Circumstances 12.0% 7.4% 11.8%

ORGANIZATION CONTINUES ITS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO A PENSION

OR RETIREMENT PLAN (IF OFFERED)

Yes 62.2% 67.5% 62.6%

No 20.6% 17.1% 20.4%

Depends on Circumstances 17.2% 15.4% 17.1%

ORGANIZATION CONTINUES ITS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO LIFE INSURANCE

(IF OFFERED) (1)

Yes 84.6% 86.2% 84.7%

No 12.6% 5.1% 12.3%

Depends on Circumstances 2.8% 8.7% 3.0%

ORGANIZATION CONTINUES ITS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO DISABILITY

INSURANCE (IF OFFERED) (1)

Yes 87.8% 83.1% 87.6%

No 9.0% 7.2% 8.9%

Depends on Circumstances 3.3% 9.7% 3.6%

SOURCE: WESTAT INC. TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

(1) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p< .05.
264

Appendix E

T A B L E 4 . K

Employee’s Knowledege of the Family and Medical Leave Act

Knowledge of FMLA

Yes No Unknown

ALL 55.5% 43.4% 1.1%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 63.3% 35.7% 1.0%

Hourly 50.0% 48.6% 1.4%

Piecework or Commission 42.9% 56.7% 0.4%

UNION STATUS

Union 60.3% 38.7% 0.0%

Non-Union 54.7% 44.3% 0.0%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 27.2% 71.3% 1.5%

High School Graduate 41.7% 57.4% 0.9%

Some College 59.1% 39.2% 1.7%

Four Years of College or more 70.4% 28.8% 0.8%

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.
265

Appendix E

 LEAVE STATUS

HOW LEARNED All Leave- Leave- Other

Takers Needers Employees

All 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Media 67.5% 61.1% 68.9% 68.7%

Coworkers 4.8% 6.0% 4.9% 4.6%

Employer 23.3% 27.5% 21.3% 22.5%

Family Member 2.0% 3.3% 3.1% 1.7%

Union 0.8% 1.3% 1.8% 0.7%

Unknown 1.5% 0.8% 0.0% 1.7%

T A B L E 4 . L

How Employees Learned About FMLA, by Leave Status

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: 54,921,448 respondents are not included in this table because they report no knowledge of

the FMLA.
266

Appendix E

Leave- Leave- EmployedAll Taker Needer Only

ALL RESPONDENTS(1) n= 121,940,000 20,439,974 4,129,261 97,368,848

100.0% 16.8% 3.4% 79.8%

GENDER

Male 53.6% 41.8% 51.7% 56.2%

Female 46.3% 58.2% 48.1% 43.8%

AGE

18-24 13.8% 11.5% 8.9% 14.5%

25-34 22.8% 29.6% 27.5% 21.2%

35-49 41.5% 40.8% 42.9% 41.6%

50-64 18.7% 15.3% 19.5% 19.4%

65 or over 3.2% 2.9% 1.0% 3.3%

RACE

Latino 6.8% 8.8% 8.3% 6.3%

African American 8.6% 10.5% 16.5% 7.9%

Non-Latino White 80.5% 75.5% 70.3% 82.0%

Other 2.0% 1.9% 2.8% 1.9%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 69.0% 70.7% 65.5% 68.8%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 13.5% 16.5% 21.2% 12.5%

Never been Married 17.3% 12.5% 12.7% 18.5%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 56.6% 46.1% 47.5% 59.2%

One or more 43.1% 53.8% 52.4% 40.5%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 7.7% 10.4% 9.1% 7.0%

High School Graduate 29.1% 26.7% 25.5% 29.8%

Some College 28.8% 30.0% 35.7% 28.3%

4 Years of College or more 34.0% 32.6% 29.5% 34.5%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME(2)

Less than $20,000 15.4% 17.5% 22.0% 14.7%

$20-30,000 12.4% 15.8% 17.3% 11.5%

$30-50,000 24.3% 25.3% 25.9% 24.1%

$50-75,000 11.3% 11.8% 11.4% 11.2%

$75,000 or more 11.0% 10.1% 8.9% 11.3%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 37.5% 35.5% 29.7% 38.3%

Hourly 50.7% 55.2% 59.9% 49.4%

Other 11.7% 9.2% 10.3% 12.3%

UNION STATUS

Union 16.2% 17.7% 16.7% 15.8%

Non-union 83.1% 81.8% 82.1% 83.5%

T A B L E 5 . A

Demographic and Job Characteristic Profile of All

Employees Surveyed, by Leave Status

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

(1)The total number of employees in this table is somewhat less than 122 million (121,940,000), because three respondents could not

be classified into one of the three catagories (“leave-takers,” “leave-needers” or “employed-only”).

(2)Annual Income figures do not add up to 100% because 25% of respondents did not answer this question.
267

Appendix E

Care For Care For Care For Care For Care For

DEMOGRAPHIC AND Own Maternity- Newborn, Adopted Ill Ill Ill Ill Relative

JOB CHARACTERISTICS Health Disability or Foster Child Child Spouse Parent or Other

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 8,886,950 563,153 1,972,861 1,123,486 542,298 1,271,182 455,510

60.0% 3.8% 13.3% 7.6% 3.7% 8.6% 3.1%

GENDER

Male 65.1% 0.0% 14.5% 6.5% 5.5% 6.6% 1.5%

Female 56.4% 6.3% 12.5% 8.3% 2.3% 10.0% 4.1%

AGE

18-24 54.6% 8.4% 18.2% 6.1% 1.8% 3.4% 7.5%

25-34 44.0% 7.7% 24.9% 12.8% 2.0% 7.2% 1.4%

35-49 65.4% 1.2% 8.9% 6.0% 3.9% 11.8% 2.8%

50-64 77.9% 0.0% 0.6% 3.8% 6.2% 7.6% 4.0%

65 or over 81.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0% 4.5% 0.0%

RACE

Latino 54.9% 2.4% 14.7% 17.0% 0.0% 8.5% 2.5%

African American 66.4% 5.8% 8.2% 5.6% 5.6% 6.7% 1.8%

Non-Latino White 59.7% 3.6% 14.0% 6.6% 3.8% 8.9% 3.4%

Other 42.1% 0.0% 26.4% 15.2% 0.0% 16.3% 0.0%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 52.4% 4.7% 16.7% 9.5% 4.3% 8.8% 3.6%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 74.4% 0.6% 6.4% 4.6% 4.0% 7.9% 2.3%

Never been Married 78.4% 3.6% 5.9% 2.1% 0.0% 8.4% 1.6%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 77.6% 0.4% 0.4% 1.9% 4.0% 11.4% 4.3%

One or more 44.2% 6.8% 24.9% 12.7% 3.4% 6.0% 2.0%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 73.0% 1.1% 5.0% 11.7% 4.0% 4.1% 1.1%

High School Graduate 64.6% 3.0% 14.7% 5.3% 4.0% 4.4% 4.0%

Some College 57.3% 4.4% 9.5% 7.8% 5.4% 10.2% 5.4%

4 Years of College or more 54.7% 4.7% 18.1% 8.0% 1.8% 11.8% 0.9%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 69.5% 2.8% 12.8% 6.4% 2.3% 5.1% 1.1%

$20-30,000 60.6% 2.5% 11.2% 11.4% 5.7% 6.5% 2.0%

$30-50,000 60.0% 5.1% 13.6% 5.5% 4.3% 6.3% 5.3%

$50-75,000 52.4% 3.0% 13.8% 7.6% 6.4% 12.7% 4.1%

$75,000 or more 52.7% 5.0% 21.9% 7.0% 0.9% 10.0% 2.5%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 53.5% 5.9% 18.1% 6.8% 2.0% 12.9% 0.6%

Hourly 64.7% 2.5% 10.4% 8.3% 4.9% 4.7% 4.5%

Other 49.5% 4.1% 13.2% 4.0% 0.0% 24.6% 4.4%

UNION STATUS

Union 69.5% 2.7% 10.0% 5.3% 4.5% 5.8% 2.3%

Non-union 57.1% 4.2% 14.3% 8.3% 3.4% 9.5% 3.2%

T A B L E 5 . B

Leave-Takers at FMLA-Covered Worksites: Demographic and Job Characteristics,

by Reason for Leave

(NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND PERCENTAGE OF ALL LEAVE-TAKERS REPORTING EACH REASON)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.
268

Appendix E

Care for Care for Care for Care for Care for

DEMOGRAPHIC AND Own Maternity- Newborn, Adopted Ill Ill Ill Ill Relative

JOB CHARACTERISTICS Health Disability or Foster Child Child Spouse Parent or Other

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 3,140,551 385,556 822,955 558,738 144,917 226,624 316,442

56.1% 6.9% 14.7% 10.0% 2.6% 4.1% 5.7%

GENDER

Male 65.2% 0.0% 15.4% 6.3% 4.3% 4.0% 4.9%

Female 49.3% 12.1% 14.2% 12.8% 1.3% 4.1% 6.2%

AGE

18-24 52.5% 12.1% 12.0% 12.4% 0.0% 5.4% 5.6%

25-34 35.7% 14.4% 34.1% 9.9% 3.8% 0.0% 2.2%

35-49 59.7% 3.7% 9.1% 11.8% 1.8% 6.7% 7.2%

50-64 76.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 5.6% 4.2% 8.1%

65 or over 94.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1%

RACE

Latino 49.6% 18.4% 6.2% 5.7% 0.0% 3.4% 16.8%

African American 35.2% 0.0% 8.4% 46.7% 0.0% 4.9% 4.9%

Non-Latino White 57.0% 5.9% 16.2% 8.3% 3.3% 4.4% 4.9%

Other 40.5% 38.7% 21.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 51.3% 8.6% 18.1% 10.8% 3.0% 3.1% 5.1%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 68.5% 2.2% 4.1% 8.6% 1.9% 6.5% 8.3%

Never been Married 77.4% 0.0% 2.5% 5.1% 0.0% 8.4% 6.5%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 83.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 1.8% 3.8% 7.1%

One or more 36.0% 12.1% 25.5% 14.3% 3.3% 4.3% 4.6%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 57.9%% 5.0% 6.9% 5.3% 4.6% 7.6% 12.7%

High School Graduate 65.0% 3.7% 8.4% 13.9% 1.9% 3.9% 3.1%

Some College 53.7% 7.5% 20.2% 8.3% 2.4% 1.76% 6.3%

Four Years of College or more 48.5% 10.3% 18.2% 9.9% 2.8% 5.5% 4.9%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 64.7% 4.9% 14.2% 4.6% 1.6% 1.8% 8.3%

$20-30,000 56.6% 8.3% 6.7% 8.8% 5.0% 3.4% 11.7%

$30-50,000 54.0% 5.5% 26.9% 7.8% 2.2% 3.5% 0.0%

$50-75,000 55.1% 12.8% 16.1% 9.9% 2.9% 3.2% 0.0%

$75,000 or more 43.4% 8.3% 13.7% 13.4% 2.7% 7.8% 11.0%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 50.0% 6.9% 19.4% 7.8% 5.2% 7.7% 3.1%

Hourly 52.6% 8.3% 14.5% 13.1% 1.2% 2.5% 7.8%

Other 72.9% 4.1% 7.7% 7.3% 1.3% 1.3% 5.5%

UNION STATUS

Union 56.6% 6.8% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 7.7%

Non-union 56.1% 6.9% 14.5% 10.5% 2.7% 3.7% 5.6%

T A B L E 5 . C

Leave-Takers at Non-Covered Worksites: Demographic and Job Characteristics,

by Reason for Leave

(NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND PERCENTAGE OF ALL LEAVE-TAKERS REPORTING EACH REASON)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.
269

Appendix E

ALL REASONS n= 14,820,000 5,964,2,09 2,486,777 1.311,014 3,196,064 1,857,375

100.0% 40.3% 16.8% 8.9% 21.6% 12.5%

REASON FOR LEAVE

Own Health 100.0% 34.4% 17.2% 10.8% 24.0% 13.6%

Maternity-Disability 100.0% 10.4% 7.3% 5.7% 34.2% 42.4%

Care for Newborn,

Adopted or Foster Child 100.0% 23.7% 17.1% 7.0% 36.0% 16.2%

Care for Ill Child 100.0% 76.3% 15.6% 5.3% 1.4% 1.4%

Care for Ill Spouse 100.0% 65.5% 16.1% 2.7% 7.9% 7.9%

Care for Ill Parent 100.0% 56.3% 24.6% 8.4% 8.3% 2.4%

T A B L E 5 . D

Leave-Takers at FMLA-Covered Worksites:

Length of Leave by Reasons for Leave

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

All 1-7 8-14 15-28 29-84 85+

Days Days Days Days Days

LENGTH OF LEAVE

 Care for Ill Relative

 or Other 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
270

Appendix E

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 5,595,782 2,440,595 759,429 509,933 818,637 1,067,189

100.0% 44.6% 13.6% 9.1% 14.6% 19.1%

REASON FOR LEAVE

Own Health 100.0% 36.7% 17.1% 12.4% 13.4% 20.4%

Maternity-Disability 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 50.2% 46.0%

Care for Newborn,

Adopted or Foster Child 100.0% 37.1% 9.2% 10.9% 22.9% 20.0%

Care for Ill Child 100.0% 79.5% 8.0% 2.8% 0.0% 9.7%

 Care for Ill Spouse 100.0% 58.9% 30.8% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3%

Care for Ill Parent 100.0% 59.7% 26.2% 0.0% 6.6% 7.5%

Care for Sick relative or 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other

T A B L E 5 . E

Leave-Takers at Non-Covered Worksites:

Length of Leave by Reasons for Leave

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

LENGTH OF LEAVE

All 1-7 8-14 15-28 29-84 85+

Days Days Days Days Days
271

Appendix E

T A B L E 5 . F

All Leave-Takers: Demographic and Job Characteristics by Length of Leave

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 20,439,974 8,433,556 3,246,206 1,820,947 4,014,701 2,924,564

100.0% 41.3% 15.9% 8.9% 19.6% 14.3%

GENDER

Male 100.0% 46.7% 19.8% 7.7% 13.2% 12.6%

Female 100.0% 37.3% 13.1% 9.8% 24.3% 15.5%

AGE

18-24 100.0% 41.6% 13.8% 9.0% 21.0% 14.5%

25-34 100.0% 41.1% 13.3% 8.5% 22.4% 14.8%

35-49 100.0% 41.8% 18.6% 8.4% 17.6% 13.7%

50-64 100.0% 40.8% 14.0% 10.1% 19.3% 15.8%

65 or over 100.0% 36.7% 21.9% 14.3% 17.3% 9.9%

RACE

Latino 100.0% 56.3% 7.0% 5.1% 16.3% 15.3%

African American 100.0% 49.5% 12.6% 4.7% 17.6% 15.6%

Non-Latino White 100.0% 38.8% 17.6% 9.8% 20.7% 13.2%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 100.0% 42.9% 11.2% 5.0% 23.4% 17.6%

High School Graduate 100.0% 37.5% 16.3% 7.9% 22.2% 16.1%

Some College 100.0% 38.4% 19.0% 9.1% 19.0% 14.6%

4 Years of College or more 100.0% 46.0% 14.2% 11.0% 17.2% 11.7%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than 20,000 100.0% 41.7% 14.0% 6.6% 19.0% 18.6%

$20-30,000 100.0% 48.5% 15.6% 6.8% 15.3% 13.8%

$30-50,000 100.0% 41.4% 14.4% 10.3% 21.4% 12.6%

$50-75,000 100.0% 34.6% 23.6% 10.0% 21.8% 10.0%

$75,000 or more 100.0% 45.8% 14.1% 8.7% 19.4% 12.0

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 100.0% 47.2% 15.7% 9.2% 16.9% 11.1%

Hourly 100.0% 39.5% 15.2% 8.6% 21.3% 15.3%

Other 100.0% 29.5% 20.6% 9.2% 19.6% 21.1%

LENGTH OF LEAVE

All 1-7 8-14 15-28 29-84 85+

Days Days Days Days Days

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because of missing data for some cells, the total varies for different variables.
272

Appendix E

T A B L E 5 . G

Reason for Needing Leave Among Employees Who Needed

but Did Not Take Leave, by Demographic and Job Characteristics

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF ALL LEAVE-NEEDERS REPORTING EACH REASON)

Care for Care for

Newborn Ill Child, Care for Ill

DEMOGRAPHIC AND All Leave- Own Maternity- Adopted or Spouse, or Relative or

JOB CHARACTERISTICS Needers Health Disability Foster Child Parent Other

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 4,129,261 1,797,814 19,762 345,096 1,721,782 424,200

100.0% 43.7% 0.5% 8.4% 41.7% 10.2%

GENDER

Male 100.0% 41.6% 0.0% 14.4% 39.5% 10.0%

Female 100.0% 45.1% 1.0% 2.1% 44.0% 10.3%

AGE

18-24 100.0% 52.8% 0.0% 16.7% 25.3% 5.6%

25-34 100.0% 45.0% 0.0% 14.4% 39.6% 4.5%

35-49 100.0% 36.4% 1.2% 5.2% 49.1% 12.7%

50-64 100.0% 51.9% 0.0% 2.5% 38.2% 15.2%

65 or over 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

RACE

Non-Latino White 100.0% 42.6% 0.7% 7.7% 42.4% 11.3%

All Other 100.0% 44.5% 0.0% 10.9% 40.1% 8.2%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 100.0% 35.6% 0.0% 11.7% 44.0% 12.9%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 100.0% 54.7% 2.3% 0.0% 45.3% 4.7%

Never been Married 100.0% 68.6% 0.0% 3.9% 25.5% 3.9%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 100.0% 56.8% 0.0% 1.0% 31.1% 15.1%

One or more 100.0% 31.6% 0.9% 15.1% 51.3% 6.1%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 100.0% 67.6% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 10.8%

High School Graduate 100.0% 42.7% 1.9% 11.7% 38.5% 8.7%

Some College 100.0% 41.7% 0.0% 7.6% 45.5% 7.6%

4 Years of College or more 100.0% 39.5% 0.0% 8.4% 45.6% 15.1%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 100.0% 52.8% 0.0% 9.0% 33.1% 9.0%

$20-30,000 100.0% 48.6% 0.0% 2.9% 45.5% 12.9%

$30-50,000 100.0% 39.4% 1.9% 7.7% 45.9% 10.6%

$50-75,000 100.0% 32.6% 0.0% 17.4% 46.0% 4.3%

$75,000 or more 100.0% 36.1% 0.0% 5.6% 53.2% 5.6%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 100.0% 41.7% 0.0% 8.3% 40.7% 9.2%

Hourly 100.0% 44.2% 0.0% 9.1% 44.0% 9.9%

Other 100.0% 100.0% 4.8% 4.8% 31.6% 14.3%

UNION STATUS

Union 100.0% 46.3% 0.0% 14.9% 31.2% 17.9%

Non-union 100.0% 42.8% 0.6% 7.2% 43.8% 9.0%

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Row totals do not add to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.
273

Appendix E

Might Might Employer Wanted

Might Hurt Job Lose Not Denied Couldn’t to Save Work Too

REASONS All Lose Job Advancement Seniority Eligible Request Afford Leave Time Important

ALL RESPONDENTS 4,129,261 29.2% 22.0% 14.1% 13.9% 9.9% 63.9% 27.5% 39.4%

Own health 100.0% 37.5% 22.7% 15.3% 13.6% 10.8% 64.8% 15.9% 43.8%

Maternity- 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Disability

Care for Newborn,

Adopted or 100.0% 23.5% 29.4% 23.5% 5.9% 11.8% 64.7% 26.5% 44.1%

Foster Child

Care for Ill Child 100.0% 34.8% 33.3% 15.9% 18.8% 15.9% 72.5% 40.6% 34.8%

Care for Ill Spouse 100.0% 13.5% 35.1% 24.3% 24.3% 0.0% 64.9% 54.1% 59.5%

Care for Ill Parent 100.0% 17.6% 10.8% 5.4% 9.5% 10.8% 60.8% 35.1% 31.1%

T A B L E 5 . H

Reasons for Not Taking Leave Among All Leave-Needers by Reason for Needing Leave

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.
274

Appendix E

T A B L E 5 . I

Likelihood of Needing Leave Over the Next

Five Years by Demographics Among All Employees

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

DEMOGRAPHIC AND Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

JOB CHARACTERISTICS All Likely Likely Unlikely Unlikely

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 119,360,000 21,381,391 25,680,000 31,060,000 41,235,398

100.0% 17.9% 21.5% 26.0% 34.6%

GENDER

Male 100.0% 15.4% 19.6% 30.0% 35.0%

Female 100.0% 20.8% 23.7% 21.4% 34.1%

AGE

18-24 100.0% 13.5% 21.4% 30.5% 34.6%

25-34 100.0% 21.4% 26.5% 25.5% 26.6%

35-49 100.0% 18.1% 21.3% 25.8% 34.8%

50-64 100.0% 15.6% 15.2% 24.7% 44.5%

65 or over 100.0% 23.0% 26.0% 20.3% 30.8%

RACE

Latino 100.0% 24.4% 22.1% 17.9% 35.7%

African American 100.0% 21.4% 22.8% 16.6% 39.2%

Non-Latino White 100.0% 16.9% 21.5% 28.2% 33.4%

Other 100.0% 18.7% 24.4% 11.1% 45.8%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 100.0% 19.0% 21.9% 25.8% 33.4%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 100.0% 20.4% 19.0% 20.4% 40.2%

Never been Married 100.0% 12.0% 22.2% 30.9% 34.9%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 100.0% 17.2% 20.4% 25.6% 36.8%

One or more 100.0% 18.9% 23.0% 26.5 31.6%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 100.0% 23.8% 13.1% 25.6% 37.5%

High School Graduate 100.0% 15.6% 18.1% 29.4% 36.8%

Some College 100.0% 15.8% 23.6% 23.1% 37.5%

4 Years of College or more 100.0% 20.4% 24.5% 25.4% 29.6%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 100.0% 20.3% 21.3% 23.0% 35.5%

$20-30,000 100.0% 19.1% 23.5% 28.1% 29.3%

$30-50,000 100.0% 21.5% 21.3% 27.3% 29.9%

$50-75,000 100.0% 22.2% 20.0% 26.8% 31.0%

$75,000 or more 100.0% 16.1% 27.5% 21.9% 34.5%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 100.0% 18.5% 23.7% 24.3% 33.6%

Hourly 100.0% 17.7% 20.0% 27.2% 35.1%

Other 100.0% 17.2% 21.6% 25.6% 35.6%

UNION STATUS

Union 100.0% 14.5% 18.2% 26.7% 40.5%

Non-union 100.0% 18.7% 22.2% 25.7% 33.5%

SOURCE:AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total number of respondents.
275

Appendix E

Care for Newborn, Care Care Care Care for

DEMOGRAPHIC AND Own Adopted or for Ill for Ill for Ill Ill Relative

JOB CHARACTERISTICS All Health Foster Child Child Spouse Parent or Other

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 31,290,000 9,238,045 6,916,687 3,405,913 3,262,013 12,130,000 2,745,261

100.0% 29.5% 22.1% 10.9% 10.4% 38.8% 8.8%

GENDER

Male 100.0% 33.7% 16.2% 9.7% 17.4% 35.2% 10.6%

Female 100.0% 25.3% 28.2% 12.1% 3.2% 42.5% 6.9%

AGE

18-24 100.0% 21.0% 47.6% 3.1% 0.0% 25.5% 16.1%

25-34 100.0% 23.4% 33.2% 14.0% 10.7% 23.7% 4.8%

35-49 100.0% 26.3% 15.1% 13.3% 12.9% 48.7% 11.8%

50-64 100.0% 39.9% 3.4% 8.8% 12.6% 58.0% 0.0%

65 or over 100.0% 82.9% 8.5% 0.0% 9.1% 17.0% 9.9%

RACE

Latino 100.0% 20.5% 18.7% 5.9% 0.7% 43.5% 18.9%

African American 100.0% 45.1% 31.9% 11.6% 19.7% 21.6% 10.1%

Non-Latino White 100.0% 28.3% 21.9% 10.7% 9.6% 40.2% 7.0%

Other 100.0% 61.3% 0.0% 19.0% 19.0% 38.7% 41.2%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 100.0% 28.3% 22.9% 12.9% 14.0% 37.8% 7.5%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 100.0% 37.8% 7.1% 7.4% 3.3% 48.8% 11.7%

Never been Married 100.0% 29.2% 32.7% 4.8% 0.0% 36.2% 12.1%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 100.0% 35.5% 24.5% 4.4% 9.3% 36.8% 8.8%

One or more 100.0% 21.3% 18.9% 19.8% 11.9% 41.4% 8.8%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 100.0% 25.6% 20.5% 1.7% 16.2% 22.4% 16.3%

High School Graduate 100.0% 39.9% 19.2% 11.6% 11.0% 31.6% 6.2%

Some College 100.0% 27.2% 17.2% 12.6% 7.8% 39.1% 11.9%

4 Years of College or more 100.0% 25.5% 27.4% 10.6% 11.1% 45.1% 7.1%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 100.0% 34.8% 18.7% 6.0% 8.1% 32.1% 14.0%

$20-30,000 100.0% 39.3% 17.2% 14.0% 10.3% 31.1% 10.0%

$30-50,000 100.0% 29.7% 29.9% 10.1% 11.1% 34.2% 5.9%

$50-75,000 100.0% 23.7% 16.9% 17.3% 19.7% 45.8% 9.6%

$75,000 or more 100.0% 29.8% 21.5% 9.3% 9.1% 45.4% 3.1%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 100.0% 34.0% 27.5% 8.4% 11.4% 36.1% 4.2%

Hourly 100.0% 29.1% 19.4% 14.2% 6.8% 40.9% 10.7%

Other 100.0% 15.4% 13.4% 7.3% 20.9% 40.1% 17.5%

UNION STATUS

Union 100.0% 38.3% 13.9% 11.7% 11.3% 47.8% 0.4%

Non-union 100.0% 28.0% 23.3% 10.8% 10.4% 37.7% 10.0%

T A B L E 5 . J

Anticipated Need for Leave Among Employees Who Are Very or Somewhat Likely to

Need Leave in the Next Five Years, by Demographic and Job Characteristics by Reason

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF NON-TAKING, NON-NEEDING EMPLOYEES REPORTING EACH REASON FOR NEEDING LEAVE)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one catagory.
276

Appendix E

DEMOGRAPHIC AND Other Temporary Permanent

JOB CHARACTERISTICS Employees Replacement Replacement Other

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 13,796,225 3,231,614 1,204,742 2,334,961

67.5% 15.8% 5.9% 11.4%

GENDER

Male 68.0% 9.1% 5.4% 11.4%

Female 67.1% 20.7% 6.3% 11.4%

AGE

18-24 70.3% 13.5% 10.9% 9.6%

25-34 65.7% 16.6% 7.3% 14.7%

35-49 69.8% 17.5% 4.9% 9.6%

50-64 64.6% 11.5% 3.0% 9.8%

65 or over 57.9% 14.0% 1.8% 19.3%

RACE

Latino 61.9% 14.2% 7.4% 6.3%

African American 68.9% 23.9% 7.2% 13.4%

Non-Latino White 68.0% 14.2% 5.6% 11.7%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 70.2% 19.2% 6.3% 6.3%

High School Graduate 74.5% 13.5% 7.1% 9.8%

Some College 69.1% 13.4% 8.3% 11.5%

4 Years of College or more 59.6% 18.9% 2.5% 14.4%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 74.8% 17.5% 11.2% 9.2%

$20-30,000 64.9% 12.7% 7.0% 7.6%

$30-50,000 67.9% 14.1% 5.7% 11.7%

$50-75,000 72.9% 18.6% 3.0% 12.7%

$75,000 or more 57.2% 17.9% 1.5% 17.9%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 63.2% 16.3% 3.1% 13.7%

Hourly 72.6% 15.5% 7.6% 9.8%

UNION STATUS

Union 74.9% 17.2% 4.0% 10.5%

Non-union 66.1% 15.6% 6.4% 11.7%

T A B L E 5 . K

Methods Used to Cover Work of Leave-TakersWhile They

Were Off the Job, by Demographic and Job Characteristics

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.
277

Appendix E

INDUSTRY Other Temporary Permanent Put Work Employee

SECTOR All Employees Replacement Replacement On Hold Work at Home Other

All Sectors 7,342,784 69.4% 37.4% 9.1% 32.9% 20.1% 2.6%

Manufacturing 479,112 87.5% 37.7% 4.1% 41.1% 23.5% 2.9%

Retail 1,669,897 69.7% 33.0% 15.2% 36.3% 18.0% 2.4%

Services 2,705,346 61.0% 37.2% 6.0% 29.0% 20.0% 4.9%

All other industries 2,488,429 74.8% 40.5% 9.4% 33.3% 21.0% 0.1%

T A B L E 5 . L

Methods Used to Cover Work of Leave-Takers

While They Were off the Job, by Sector (As Reported by Worksites)

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF WORKSITES REPORTING EACH METHOD)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.
278

Appendix E

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Other Temporary Permanent Put Work Employee

AT WORKSITE All Employees Replacement Replacement On Hold Work at Home Other

ALL WORKSITES 7,342,784 69.4% 37.4% 9.1% 32.9% 20.1% 2.6%

0-9 5,440,578 61.8% 33.5% 6.8% 39.8% 21.6% 2.5%

10-24 1,141,357 90.4% 48.7% 20.5% 13.9% 11.8% 1.0%

25-49 4,498,686 88.7% 38.9% 6.2% 13.2% 26.6% 7.3%

50-99 1,701,899 97.8% 61.8% 10.7% 7.9% 12.5% 1.0%

100-249 101,229 96.3% 60.8% 15.6% 9.1% 15.5% 7.8%

250-499 24,006 99.3% 66.3% 15.7% 16.0% 19.4% 4.0%

500-999 9744 96.8% 68.0% 14.7% 13.4% 25.2% 2.5%

1000 or more 5813 99.1% 79.8% 14.0% 23.1% 27.6% 5.9%

T A B L E 5 . M

Methods to Cover the Work of Leave-Takers

While They Were Off the Job (As Reported by Worksites)

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF WORK SITES REPORTING EACH METHOD)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.
279

Appendix E

ARE HEALTH BENEFITS (IF OFFERED) FMLA- Non- Total

CONTINUED DURING LEAVE FOR: Covered Covered

EMPLOYEE’S OWN SERIOUS

HEALTH CONDITION (EXCEPT

MATERNITY-DISABILITY) (2)

Yes 95.3% 77.9% 82.2%

No 1.3% 9.1% 7.2%

Depends on Circumstances 3.5% 13.0% 10.6%

MOTHERS FOR MATERNITYDISABILITY (2)

Yes 96.3% 86.3% 88.9%

No 1.2% 4.3% 3.5%

Depends on Circumstances 2.5% 9.4% 7.6%

PARENTS, TO CARE FOR A

NEWBORN (2)

Yes 95.7% 72.5% 78.8%

No 0.9% 7.7% 5.9%

Depends on Circumstances 3.4% 19.8% 15.3%

PARENTS TO CARE FOR

ADOPTED OR FOSTER CHILD (2)

Yes 95.8% 75.9% 81.7%

No 1.0% 10.4% 7.7%

Depends on Circumstances 3.2% 13.7% 10.6%

CARE OF ILL CHILD, SPOUSE OR

PARENT (2)

Yes 95.2% 69.0% 75.9%

No 1.5% 11.7% 9.0%

Depends on Circumstances 3.3% 19.3% 15.1%

T A B L E 5 . N

Continuation of Health Benefits During Leave:

FMLA-Covered and Non-Covered Worksites (1)

(1) Percentages in table refer to worksites offering health benefits to employees and that make up

to 12 weeks of leave available (or that it depends on circumstances).

(2) Difference between FMLA-covered and non-covered worksites is significant at p<.05.
280

Appendix E

Fully Partially

REASONS FOR LEAVE Paid Paid Unpaid

ALL REASONS n= 7,397,664 3,064,680 3,790,157

51.9% 21.5% 26.6%

Own Health 53.3% 23.2% 23.5%

Maternity-Disability 29.1% 42.2% 28.7%

Care for Newborn, Adopted 46.2% 23.3% 30.5%

or Foster Child

Care for Ill Child 55.6% 16.0% 28.4%

Care for Ill Spouse 51.7% 2.5% 45.8%

Care for Ill Parent 57.6% 10.9% 31.6%

T A B L E 5 . O

Leave-Takers at FMLA-Covered Worksites: Extent to Which

Leave Was Paid, by Reason for Leave

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total

number of respondents.
281

Appendix E

Fully Partially

REASONS FOR LEAVE Paid Paid Unpaid

ALL REASONS n= 1,712,379 757,336 2,779,636

32.6% 14.4% 53.0%

Own health 32.8% 14.9% 52.4%

Maternity-Disability 15.4% 26.3% 58.3%

Care for Newborn, Adopted 37.0% 16.1% 46.9%

or Foster Child

Care for Ill Child 21.5% 11.0% 67.6%

Care for Ill Spouse 60.7% 0.0% 39.3%

Care for Ill Parent 53.4% 0.0% 46.6%

T A B L E 5 . P

Leave-Takers at Non-Covered Worksites:

Extent to Which Leave Was Paid, by Reason for Leave

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF LEAVE)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total

number of respondents.
282

Appendix E

DEMOGRAPHIC AND Fully Partially

JOB CHARACTERISTICS Paid Paid Unpaid

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 9,110,043 3,822,016 6,569,793

46.7% 19.6% 33.7%

GENDER

Male 53.5% 15.1% 31.4%

Female 41.7% 23.0% 35.3%

AGE

18-24 35.8% 15.1% 49.1%

25-34 43.4% 24.0% 32.5%

35-49 48.1% 17.1% 34.9%

50-64 59.6% 22.0% 18.5%

65 or over 38.9% 13.0% 48.1%

RACE

Latino 42.0% 11.7% 46.3%

African American 45.5% 21.8% 32.7%

Non-Latino White 47.4% 20.5% 32.2%

Other 55.3% 7.9% 36.8%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 46.9% 19.0% 34.0%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 47.9% 24.6% 27.4%

Never been Married 43.2% 15.8% 41.1%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 49.7% 18.7% 31.7%

One or more 44.3% 20.3% 35.4%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 34.5% 19.3% 46.2%

High School Graduate 31.8% 26.1% 42.1%

Some College 45.3% 17.9% 36.9%

4 Years of College or more 63.7% 15.9% 20.4%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 27.8% 22.8% 49.4%

$20-30,000 43.5% 17.6% 38.9%

$30-50,000 53.1% 22.1% 24.8%

$50-75,000 58.1% 18.3% 23.6%

$75,000 or more 64.1% 15.1% 20.8%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 76.4% 13.0% 10.5%

Hourly 32.5% 24.7% 42.8%

Other 12.9% 15.3% 71.8%

UNION STATUS

Union 56.5% 25.2% 18.3%

Non-union 44.6% 18.3% 37.1%

T A B L E 5 . Q

All Leave-Takers: Extent to Which Leave Was Paid, by

Demographic and Job Characteristics

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total

number of respondents.
283

Appendix E

T A B L E 5 . R

Leave-Takers’(1) Methods of Covering Lost Wages

by Demographic and Job Characteristics

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

Savings Put Off

DEMOGRAPHIC AND JOB Earmarked Other Borrow Public Limit Paying Cut Leave

CHARACTERISTICS for Leave Savings Money Assistance Extras Bills Short

ALL CHARACTERISTICS n= 4,530,339 4,194,365 2,591,633 930,656 7,835,715 4,023,382 4,164,643

43.7% 40.6% 25.1% 9.0% 75.5% 38.8% 40.3%

GENDER

Male 44.9% 44.3% 24.9% 4.5% 70.8% 33.6% 36.9%

Female 42.9% 38.3% 25.1% 11.6% 78.3% 41.8% 42.4%

AGE

18-24 47.2% 37.4% 31.2% 16.1% 73.9% 32.6% 31.0%

25-34 46.1% 39.7% 27.8% 11.4% 79.3% 42.2% 36.1%

35-49 39.0% 42.8% 23.5% 6.1% 77.3% 44.8% 52.8%

50-64 50.7% 43.3% 21.4% 6.1% 67.0% 25.5% 24.8%

65 or over 37.7% 24.3% 4.1% 0.0% 54.0% 4.2% 25.1%

RACE

Latino 52.3% 50.2% 36.3% 11.5% 79.2% 45.9% 55.0%

African American 55.7% 59.9% 31.1% 13.8% 79.8% 54.0% 43.3%

Non-Latino White 40.2% 37.0% 22.8% 8.0% 75.0% 34.8% 36.6%

Other 90.8% 82.2% 19.2% 8.9% 81.6% 28.1% 53.9%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 36.9% 38.9% 19.1% 4.8% 68.9% 34.0% 41.1%

One or more 48.7% 41.1% 29.6% 12.2% 80.5% 42.4% 39.8%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 49.0% 40.3% 24.2% 14.9% 80.8% 38.8% 44.7%

High School Graduate 38.5% 35.3% 24.8% 7.0% 74.4% 47.1% 42.9%

Some College 42.0% 47.9% 29.7% 11.3% 75.1% 41.9% 41.2%

4 Years of College or more 51.1% 39.4% 20.2% 5.7% 75.8% 22.7% 32.8%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 49.0% 46.9% 37.8% 20.9% 87.9% 52.0% 43.8%

$20-30,000 38.6% 43.0% 28.0% 5.0% 82.3% 50.3% 43.8%

$30-50,000 45.0% 40.4% 28.8% 3.9% 73.8% 29.8% 31.4%

$50-75,000 44.7% 34.2% 12.6% 1.5% 71.5% 29.3% 49.1%

$75,000 or more 38.6% 30.3% 8.8% 2.1% 58.7% 17.6% 34.2%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 48.8% 36.4% 20.9% 4.3% 70.7% 27.3% 27.1%

Hourly 44.4% 43.7% 28.1% 10.4% 78.9% 41.9% 42.0%

Other 34.6% 30.1% 15.5% 7.5% 64.3% 36.9% 47.7%

UNION STATUS

Union 34.7% 40.2% 24.4% 4.9% 77.2% 47.4% 36.5%

Non-union 45.3% 40.7% 25.0% 9.6% 75.2% 37.4% 41.1%

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.

(1)Only leave-takers who report partial wage replacement or no wage replacement were asked about methods of covering lost wages.
284

Appendix E

Returned to Work After Leave

DEMOGRAPHIC AND Returned to Same Did Not Still on

JOB CHARACTERISTICS Employer Return Leave

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 16,537,522 1,098,540 2,048,117

84.0% 5.6% 10.4%

FMLA-COVERED EMPLOYEES

No 79.4% 10.9% 9.7%

Yes 87.2% 1.9% 10.9%

GENDER

Male 86.7% 4.2% 9.1%

Female 82.0% 6.6% 11.4%

AGE

18-24 75.0% 6.7% 18.2%

25-34 82.0% 7.4% 10.5%

35-49 87.5% 4.0% 8.5%

50-64 85.5% 4.4% 10.0%

65 or over 82.4% 10.0% 7.6%

RACE

Latino 81.2% 11.1% 7.7%

African American 78.4% 6.5% 15.2%

Non-Latino White 84.6% 5.0% 10.4%

Other 95.9% 4.1% 0.0%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 85.2% 5.6% 9.1%

Seperated/Divorced/Widowed 81.7% 5.5% 12.8%

Never been Married 80.4% 4.8% 14.7%

CHILDREN UNDER 18

None 84.8% 4.7% 10.5%

One or more 83.3% 6.3% 10.4%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 80.7% 4.5% 14.9%

High School Graduate 82.9% 5.1% 11.9%

Some College 82.1% 6.7% 11.2%

4 Years of College or more 87.7% 5.3% 7.0%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 72.5% 9.8% 17.8%

$20-30,000 84.6% 5.3% 10.0%

$30-50,000 85.3% 5.5% 9.2%

$50-75,000 89.0% 3.2% 7.8%

$75,000 or more 91.3% 1.5% 7.2%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 89.3% 3.7% 7.0%

Hourly 80.3% 7.0% 12.7%

Other 86.0% 3.8% 10.2%

UNION STATUS

Union 87.6% 2.5% 9.9%

Non-union 83.5% 6.2% 10.3%

LEAVE PAID

Fully Paid 94.2% 2.0% 3.8%

Partially Paid 73.8% 6.3% 19.9%

Unpaid 76.5% 10.3% 13.1%

T A B L E 5 . S

Leave-Takers Returning to Work, by Coverage Status,

Demographic and Job Characteristics and Extent of Pay

(NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents could choose more than one category.

Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total number of

respondents.
285

Appendix E

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

EASE OF PERFORMING FMLA All Small Worksites* Medium Worksites Large Worksites

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 0-10 11-25 26-49 50-99 100-250 251-500 501-999 1000+

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 687,812 195,575 153,115 58,210 157,386 87,715 21,126 8925 5761

DETERMINE WORKSITESITE

COVERAGE

Very/Somewhat Easy 91.8% 85.0% 98.1% 93.1% 93.4% 90.9% 97.6% 90.1% 90.9%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 8.2% 15.0% 1.2% 6.9% 6.6% 9.1% 2.4% 9.1% 9.1%

DETERMINE EMPLOYEE

ELIGIBILITY

Very/Somewhat Easy 92.0% 98.9% 92.8% 98.0% 89.7% 79.4% 83.1% 82.7% 68.4%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 8.0% 1.1% 7.2% 2.0% 10.3% 20.6% 16.9% 17.3% 31.6%

MAINTAIN ADDITIONAL

RECORDS

Very/Somewhat Easy 76.0% 86.2% 72.4% 63.1% 82.8% 66.2% 56.3% 25.8% 25.9%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 24.0% 13.8% 27.6% 36.9% 17.2% 33.8% 43.7% 74.0% 74.1%

COORDINATE STATE AND

FEDERAL LEAVE LAWS

Very/Somewhat Easy 81.1% 72.9% 85.8% 78.5% 89.7% 80.6% 80.1% 71.3% 68.6%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 18.9% 27.1% 14.2% 21.5% 10.3% 19.4% 19.9% 28.7% 31.4%

COORDINATE WITH

OTHER FEDERAL LAWS

Very/Somewhat Easy 74.3% 69.5% 76.1% 73.3% 87.1% 67.2% 63.1% 50.4% 46.1%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 25.7% 30.5% 23.9% 26.7% 12.9% 32.8% 36.9% 49.6% 53.9%

COORDINATE WITH

PRE-EXISTING LEAVE

POLICIES

Very/Somewhat Easy 78.9% 73.7% 91.2% 82.5% 76.1% 77.3% 75.5% 79.4% 57.2%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 21.1% 26.3% 8.8% 17.5% 23.9% 22.7% 24.5% 20.6% 42.8%

MANAGE INTERMITTENT

USE OF LEAVE

Very/Somewhat Easy 60.8% 68.5% 74.1% 37.9% 51.2% 59.9% 49.1% 44.1% 22.9%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 39.2% 31.5% 25.9% 62.1% 48.8% 40.1% 50.9% 55.9% 77.1%

T A B L E 6 . A

Ease of Performing FMLA Administrative Activities:

The Impact of FMLA on Covered Worksites by Size

* Worksites of fewer than 50 employees are covered under FMLA if the worksite has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.
286

Appendix E

n %

Employees Taking Leave 20,439,974 100.0%

Continuous Leave 17,247,838 84.4%

Intermittent Leave 2,358,099 11.5%

Unknown 834,037 4.1%

T A B L E 6 . B

Leave-Takers: Continuous vs. Intermittent Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY

OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.
287

Appendix E

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

EXTENT OF Small Worksites* Medium Worksites Large Worksites

COST All 0-10 11-25 26-49 50-99 100-250 251-500 501-999 1000+

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 687,812 195,575 153,115 58,210 157,386 87,715 21,126 8925 5761

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

No/Small Increase 89.2% 100.0% 90.7% 74.6% 88.8% 80.6% 74.4% 71.5% 58.3%

Moderate/Large Increase 10.8% 0.0% 9.4% 25.4% 11.2% 19.4% 25.6% 28.5% 41.7%

BENEFITS COSTS

No/Small Increase 93.3% 98.4% 99.8% 88.8% 90.9% 82.4% 82.3% 86.9% 71.0%

Moderate/Large Increase 6.7% 1.6% 0.2% 11.2% 9.1% 17.7% 17.7% 13.1% 28.9%

HIRING/TRAINING

COSTS

No/Small Increase 94.8% 100.0% 100.0% 83.2% 95.1% 83.4% 88.6% 88.3% 85.9%

Moderate/Large Increase 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 16.8% 4.9% 16.6% 11.4% 11.7% 14.2%

OTHER COSTS

No/Small Increase 98.5% 99.4% 100.0% 95.1% 98.7% 97.0% 97.7% 91.8% 95.7%

Moderate/Large Increase 1.5% 0.6% 0.0% 4.9% 1.3% 3.0% 2.3% 8.2% 4.3%

T A B L E 6 . C

Cost to Employers: The Impact of FMLA on Covered Worksites by Size

(PERCENTAGE OF WORKSITES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

*Worksites of fewer than 50 employees are covered under FMLA if the worksite has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.
288

Appendix E

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

COST SAVINGS Small Worksites* Medium Worksites Large Worksites

All 0-10 11-25 26-49 50-99 100-250 251-500 501-999 1000+

ALL RESPONDENTS n = 687,812 195,575 153,115 58,210 157,386 87,715 21,126 8925 5761

All 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Any Savings 2.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 4.0% 11.0% 1.3% 3.8%

No Savings 97.5% 98.4% 100.0% 100.0% 95.1% 96.0% 89.0% 98.7% 96.2%

T A B L E 6 . D

Cost Savings: The Impact of FMLA on Covered Worksites by Size

(PERCENT OF WORKSITES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

* Worksites of fewer than 50 employees are covered under FMLA if the worksite has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.
289

Appendix E

T A B L E 6 . E

Business and Employee Performance:

Effects of FMLA on Covered Worksites by Standard Industrial Classification

All Other

Manufacturing Retail Services Industries Total

BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY

Positive Effect 8.0% 1.7% 16.8% 1.0% 6.4%

Negative Effect 11.3% 6.7% 9.9% 4.3% 7.3%

No Noticeable Effect 80.7% 91.7% 73.3% 94.7% 86.4%

BUSINESS PROFITABILITY

Positive Effect 0.9% 0.3% 1.6% 1.7% 1.2%

Negative Effect 13.5% 3.6% 8.6% 4.2% 6.3%

No Noticeable Effect 85.5% 96.1% 89.8% 94.1% 92.5%

BUSINESS GROWTH

Positive Effect 1.8% 0.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1%

Negative Effect 6.2% 0.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.1%

No Noticeable Effect 92.0% 98.9% 95.1% 95.0% 95.8%

EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY (1)

Positive Effect 11.0% 12.5% 25.8% 2.3% 12.6%

Negative Effect 12.4% 5.4% 4.1% 2.4% 4.7%

No Noticeable Effect 76.6% 82.1% 70.0% 95.4% 82.7%

EMPLOYEE ABSENCES

Positive Effect 2.1% 4.6% 13.6% 1.6% 5.9%

Negative Effect 12.2% 3.4% 4.9% 3.1% 4.6%

No Noticeable Effect 85.8% 92.1% 81.5% 95.2% 89.5%

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER (1)

Positive Effect 3.2% 2.6% 11.7% 1.4% 4.9%

Negative Effect 2.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4%

No Noticeable Effect 94.6% 97.0% 88.0% 98.6% 94.7%

EMPLOYEES’ ABILITY TO CARE

FOR FAMILY MEMBERS

Positive Effect 46.1% 30.1% 42.0% 26.3% 34.1%

Negative Effect 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2%

No Noticeable Effect 53.9% 69.9% 57.9% 73.4% 65.7%

EMPLOYEE CAREER ADVANCEMENT

Positive Effect 0.8% 22.1% 4.7% 2.9% 8.3%

Negative Effect 3.7% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.8%

No Noticeable Effect 95.5% 77.9% 95.2% 96.1% 91.0%

SOURCE:AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

(1) Difference between the industries of FMLA-covered worksites is significant at p<.10. BUSINESS PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
290

Appendix E

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Small Worksites* Medium Worksites Large Worksites

All 0-10 11-25 26-49 50-99 100-250 251-500 501-999 1000+

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 687,812 195,575 153,115 58,210 157,386 87,715 21,126 8925 5761

BUSINESS

PRODUCTIVITY

Positive Effect 6.4% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 19.9% 7.7% 7.5% 3.3% 5.3%

Negative Effect 7.3% 0.0% 2.6% 26.2% 4.9% 19.1% 15.4% 18.3% 27.6%

No Noticeable Effect 86.4% 97.7% 97.4% 73.8% 75.3% 73.3% 77.1% 78.4% 67.1%

BUSINESS

PROFITABILITY

Positive Effect 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 1.7% 1.9% 3.3% 3.6% 3.1%

Negative Effect 6.3% 0.6% 1.9% 20.9% 7.8% 11.9% 14.5% 5.7% 21.5%

No Noticeable Effect 92.5% 99.4% 98.1% 74.2% 90.8% 86.2% 82.1% 90.7% 75.4%

BUSINESS GROWTH

Positive Effect 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 0.7% 3.9% 1.8% 0.0% 3.0%

Negative Effect 3.1% 0.0% 4.0% 10.6% 2.6% 3.6% 5.1% 3.1% 2.1%

No Noticeable Effect 95.8% 100.0% 96.0% 84.4% 96.7% 92.5% 93.0% 96.9% 94.9%

EMPLOYEE

PRODUCTIVITY

Positive Effect 12.6% 2.1% 15.2% 9.2% 24.7% 12.5% 12.9% 13.3% 11.9%

Negative Effect 4.7% 0.6% 1.9% 7.3% 4.9% 11.3% 15.2% 28.6% 17.4%

No Noticeable Effect 82.7% 97.3% 83.0% 83.5% 70.3% 76.2% 71.9% 58.1% 70.8%

EMPLOYEE ABSENCES

Positive Effect 5.9% 1.6% 11.9% 5.4% 6.5% 4.2% 5.0% 9.5% 6.4%

Negative Effect 4.6% 0.6% 0.0% 5.3% 5.8% 13.2% 17.8% 18.4% 37.0%

No Noticeable Effect 89.5% 97.9% 88.1% 89.3% 87.7% 82.6% 77.2% 72.2% 56.6%

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

Positive Effect 4.9% 1.6% 10.0% 0.1% 6.3% 3.5% 4.7% 8.2% 5.7%

Negative Effect 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.4% 1.9% 1.7% 0.8%

No Noticeable Effect 94.7% 98.4% 90.0% 99.9% 92.4% 96.0% 93.4% 90.1% 93.6%

EMPLOYEE’S ABILITY

TO CARE FOR

FAMILY MEMBERS

Positive Effect 34.1% 11.5% 34.0% 31.9% 43.9% 49.4% 55.5% 67.9% 70.9%

Negative Effect 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.9%

No Noticeable Effect 65.7% 88.6% 66.0% 68.2% 55.6% 50.6% 43.4% 32.1% 28.2%

EMPLOYEE CAREER

ADVANCEMENT

Positive Effect 8.3% 3.4% 25.2% 0.0% 4.7% 2.9% 3.5% 2.5% 7.5%

Negative Effect 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2.1%

No Noticeable Effect 91.0% 96.6% 74.8% 100.0% 92.2% 97.2% 95.4% 97.5% 90.4%

T A B L E 6 . F

Business and Employee Performance:

Effects of FMLA on Covered Worksites by Size

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

* Worksites of fewer than 50 employees are covered under FMLA if the worksite has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.
291

Appendix E

All Covered Voluntary(1) Complying(2)

Employers Employers Employers

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 609,365 206,193 403,173

DETERMINE WORKSITE COVERAGE

Very/Somewhat Easy 91.8% 96.3% 89.1%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 8.2% 3.7% 10.9%

DETERMINE EMPLOYEE

ELIGIBILITY

Very/Somewhat Easy 92.0% 93.6% 91.1%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 8.0% 6.5% 8.9%

MAINTAIN ADDITIONAL

RECORDS

Very/Somewhat Easy 76.0% 83.3% 72.3%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 24.0% 16.7% 27.7%

COORDINATE STATE AND FEDERAL

LEAVE LAWS

Very/Somewhat Easy 81.1% 88.8% 77.5%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 18.9% 11.3% 22.5%

COORDINATE WITH OTHER

FEDERAL LAWS

Very/Somewhat Easy 74.3% 89.7% 66.2%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 25.7% 10.3% 33.8%

COORDINATE WITH PREEXISTING LEAVE POLICIES

Very/Somewhat Easy 78.9% 83.0% 76.7%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 21.1% 17.0% 23.3%

MANAGE INTERMITTENT USE

OF LEAVE

Very/Somewhat Easy 60.8% 76.7% 52.7%

Very/Somewhat Difficult 39.2% 23.3% 47.3%

T A B L E 6 . G

Ease of Performing FMLA Administrative Activities,

by Type of Covered Worksite

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total

number of respondents.

(1)Voluntaryemployers are those who had a family and medical leave policy comparable to or

more generous than FMLA before 1993.

(2)Complying employers are those who had to initiate or expand an existing family and medical

leave policy after enactment of the FMLA.
292

Appendix E

All Covered Voluntary Complying

Worksites Worksites Worksites

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 687,812 255,642 432,170

BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY

Positive Effect 6.6% 13.3% 3.2%

Negative Effect 7.2% 2.5% 9.6%

No Noticeable Effect 86.2% 84.2% 87.2%

BUSINESS PROFITABILITY

Positive Effect 0.8% 1.6% 0.4%

Negative Effect 6.6% 2.3% 8.7%

No Noticeable Effect 92.7% 96.1% 91.0%

BUSINESS GROWTH

Positive Effect 0.7% 1.0% 0.5%

Negative Effect 3.2% 0.6% 4.5%

No Noticeable Effect 96.1% 98.3% 94.9%

EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY

Positive Effect 12.6% 24.8% 6.4%

Negative Effect 4.7% 2.9% 5.6%

No Noticeable Effect 82.7% 72.2% 88.0%

EMPLOYEE ABSENCES

Positive Effect 5.7% 6.3% 5.4%

Negative Effect 4.7% 2.6% 5.8%

No Noticeable Effect 89.6% 91.1% 88.9%

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

Positive Effect 4.6% 4.4% 4.7%

Negative Effect 0.4% 1.0% 0.1%

No Noticeable Effect 95.2% 94.6% 95.2%

EMPLOYEE ABILITY TO

CARE FOR

FAMILY MEMBER

Positive Effect 34.4% 42.9% 29.9%

Negative Effect 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

No Noticeable Effect 65.4% 57.0% 69.9%

EMPLOYEE CAREER

ADVANCEMENT

Positive Effect 8.6% 22.3% 1.7%

Negative Effect 0.8% 0.1% 1.1%

No Noticeable Effect 90.7% 77.6% 97.2%

T A B L E 6 . H

Effects of Complying With FMLA on Business and Employee

Performance by Type of Covered Employee

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.
293

Appendix E

Has Has Not Total

Had Leave- Had Leave- for All

Takers Takers Employers

T A B L E 6 . I

Ease of Performing FMLA Administrative

Activities by Leave-Taker Status

(PERCENTAGE OF COVERED WORKSITES)

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.

DETERMINE WORKSITE COVERAGE

Very Easy 59.1% 63.0% 61.7%

Somewhat Easy 34.3% 27.4% 29.7%

Somewhat Difficult 3.5% 9.4% 7.4%

Very Difficult 3.2% 0.2% 1.2%

DETERMINE EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY

Very Easy 59.0% 38.3% 45.4%

Somewhat Easy 28.1% 57.5% 47.5%

Somewhat Difficult 11.1% 3.8% 6.3%

Very Difficult 1.8% 0.3% 0.8%

MAINTAIN ADDITIONAL RECORDS

Very Easy 23.3% 44.0% 36.6%

Somewhat Easy 40.2% 41.4% 41.0%

Somewhat Difficult 29.6% 11.3% 17.8%

Very Difficult 6.9% 3.3% 4.6%

COORDINATE STATE AND FEDERAL

LEAVE LAWS

Very Easy 41.4% 45.1% 43.8%

Somewhat Easy 43.1% 35.2% 38.0%

Somewhat Difficult 9.9% 18.7% 15.5%

Very Difficult 5.6% 1.0% 2.6%

COORDINATE WITH OTHER FEDERAL LAWS

Very Easy 33.0% 38.6% 36.6%

Somewhat Easy 33.4% 41.4% 38.8%

Somewhat Difficult 27.4% 16.0% 20.1%

Very Difficult 5.2% 4.1% 4.5%

COORDINATE WITH PRE-EXISTING LEAVE

POLICIES

Very Easy 42.7% 46.1% 44.9%

Somewhat Easy 38.4% 31.7% 34.1%

Somewhat Difficult 15.4% 21.0% 19.0%

Very Difficult 3.5% 1.3% 2.1%

MANAGE INTERMITTENT USE OF LEAVE

Very Easy 27.4% 38.4% 34.4%

Somewhat Easy 24.1% 31.1% 28.6%

Somewhat Difficult 35.9% 19.5% 25.5%

Very Difficult 12.6% 11.0% 11.6%
294

Appendix E

Has Had Has Not Total

EXTENT OF COST Leave- Had Leave- for All

Takers Takers Worksites

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

None 42.6% 57.3% 52.2%

Small 39.7% 36.4% 37.5%

Moderate 14.3% 6.3% 9.0%

Large 3.4% 0.1% 1.3%

BENEFIT COSTS

None 56.2% 70.5% 65.7%

Small 29.3% 27.3% 28.0%

Moderate 10.5% 2.0% 4.9%

Large 3.9% 0.2% 1.5%

HIRING COSTS

None 67.0% 83.2% 77.7%

Small 25.5% 13.7% 17.7%

Moderate 6.1% 2.3% 3.6%

Large 1.3% 0.7% 0.9%

T A B L E 6 . J

Cost to Covered Worksites by Leave-Taker Status

SOURCE:AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.
295

Appendix E

Has Has Not Total

Had Leave- Had Leave- for All

Takers Takers Worksites

BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY

Positive 10.2% 5.1% 6.8%

Negative 9.0% 5.4% 6.6%

No Noticeable Effect 80.8% 89.6% 86.6%

BUSINESS PROFITABILITY

Positive 2.5% 0.7% 1.3%

Negative 9.5% 4.3% 6.0%

No Noticeable Effect 88.0% 95.1% 92.7%

BUSINESS GROWTH

Positive 2.2% 0.7% 1.2%

Negative 5.5% 1.7% 2.3%

No Noticeable Effect 92.3% 97.7% 95.9%

EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY

Positive 21.1% 9.2% 13.2%

Negative 7.6% 2.0% 3.9%

No Noticeable Effect 71.3% 88.8% 82.9%

EMPLOYEE ABSENCES

Positive 14.1% 2.3% 6.3%

Negative 8.3% 1.8% 3.9%

No Noticeable Effect 77.6% 95.9% 89.8%

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

Positive 13.9% 0.7% 5.2%

Negative 1.2% 0.1% 0.5%

No Noticeable Effect 84.8% 99.2% 94.4%

EMPLOYEE ABILITY TO

CARE FOR FAMILY

Positive 57.4% 22.9% 34.9%

Negative 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

No Noticeable Effect 42.6% 77.0% 65.1%

EMPLOYEE CAREER ADVANCEMENT

Positive 10.3% 8.0% 8.8%

Negative 1.9% 0.1% 0.7%

No Noticeable Effect 87.8% 91.9% 90.5%

T A B L E 6 . K

Business and Employee Performance: Effects of FMLA on

Covered Worksites by Leave-Taker Status

(PERCENTAGE OF COVERED WORKSITES)

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATIONS OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.
296

Appendix E

COSTS FMLA-Covered Non-Covered

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

No Increase 52.8% 35.2%

Small Increase 36.4% 22.4%

Moderate Increase 9.4% 25.5%

Large Increase 1.4% 16.9%

HIRING/TRAINING COSTS

No Increase 76.3% 43.2%

Small Increase 18.5% 20.8%

Moderate Increase 4.2% 17.8%

Large Increase 1.0% 18.2%

OTHER COSTS

No Increase 97.8% 92.7%

Small Increase 0.7% 1.4%

Moderate Increase 1.2% 4.1%

Large Increase 0.3% 1.7%

T A B L E 6 . L

Comparison of Costs Experienced by FMLA-Covered

Worksites with Costs Anticipated by Non-Covered Worksites

SOURCE: WESTAT, INC. TABULTION OF DATA FROM WESTAT INC., SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS, 1995.
297

Appendix E

All Respondents Covered Non-Covered

Very Easy 64.8% 66.8% 59.5%

Somewhat Easy 16.3% 15.3% 19.3%

Neither Easy Nor Difficult 6.7% 6.8% 6.4%

Somewhat Difficult 6.7% 5.8% 9.1%

Very Difficult 5.4% 5.3% 5.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

T A B L E 7. A

Covered Versus Non-Covered Worksites: Leave-Taking

Employees’ Ease/Difficulty of Arranging Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.
298

Appendix E

Neither

Very Somewhat Easy nor Somewhat Very

Easy Easy Difficult Difficult Difficult

ALL RESPONDENTS n = 12,490,000 3,144,178 1,293,311 1,291,098 1,045,081

64.8% 16.3% 6.7% 6.7% 5.4%

GENDER

Male 72.3% 13.9% 5.8% 4.8% 3.2%

Female 59.5% 18.1% 7.3% 8.0% 7.1%

AGE

18-24 65.4% 16.1% 7.6% 7.1% 3.8%

25-34 58.6% 19.4% 8.0% 6.9% 7.1%

35-49 64.1% 16.4% 6.2% 7.7% 5.7%

50-64 77.0% 11.7% 4.3% 3.5% 3.5%

65 or over 77.8% 7.4% 9.3% 5.6% 0.0%

RACE

Latino 57.6% 21.5% 8.9% 5.1% 7.0%

African American 51.3% 23.1% 8.0% 6.0% 11.6%

Non-Latino White 69.0% 14.4% 6.3% 5.9% 4.3%

Other 48.6% 22.9% 8.6% 11.4% 8.6%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 75.3% 11.3% 5.2% 3.6% 4.6%

High School Graduate 58.7% 19.8% 6.5% 9.9% 5.1%

Some College 63.7% 15.1% 7.9% 7.4% 5.9%

4 Years of College or more 67.5% 16.3% 6.3% 4.6% 5.4%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 58.1% 17.1% 9.0% 9.0% 6.9%

$20-30,000 62.8% 17.4% 6.0% 8.7% 5.0%

$30-50,000 67.8% 14.7% 9.2% 3.4% 5.1%

$50-75,000 67.1% 18.4% 3.9% 7.0% 3.5%

$75,000 or more 68.3% 9.5% 9.0% 3.7% 9.5%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 68.7% 17.2% 5.7% 4.8% 3.6%

Hourly 62.1% 16.9% 7.0% 7.0% 6.8%

Other 65.5% 9.5% 8.9% 12.5% 3.6%

UNION STATUS

Union 66.0% 18.8% 7.0% 4.4% 3.8%

Non-union 64.5% 15.9% 6.7% 7.2% 5.8%

T A B L E 7. B

Leave-Takers’ Ease/Difficulty of Getting Leave,

by Demographic Characteristics

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total number of respondents.
299

Appendix E

Might Lose Job Might Hurt Job Advancement Might Lose Seniority

YES NO YES NO YES NO

ALL RESPONDENTS n = 4,257,224 15,050,000 4,225,971 15,110,000 2,459,485 16,840,000

22.0% 78.0% 21.9% 78.1% 12.7% 87.3%

GENDER

Male 16.1% 83.9% 17.5% 82.5% 10.7% 89.3%

Female 26.3% 73.7% 24.9% 75.1% 14.3% 85.7%

AGE

18-24 28.0% 72.0% 27.4% 72.6% 14.2% 85.8%

25-34 25.6% 74.4% 23.7% 76.3% 17.4% 82.6%

35-49 23.1% 76.9% 24.5% 75.5% 13.0% 87.0%

50-64 10.6% 89.4% 10.2% 89.8% 4.2% 95.8%

65 or over 5.5% 94.5% 5.5% 94.5% 0.0% 100.0%

RACE

Latino 36.5% 63.5% 33.3% 66.7% 23.9% 76.1%

African American 39.5% 60.5% 28.4% 71.6% 17.4% 82.6%

Non-Latino White 18.4% 81.6% 19.4% 80.6% 10.4% 89.6%

Other 25.0% 75.0% 32.4% 67.6% 25.0% 75.0%

MARITAL STATUS

Married/Living w/Partner 19.1% 80.9% 19.8% 80.2% 11.3% 88.7%

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 22.4% 77.6% 22.7% 77.3% 14.9% 85.1%

Never been Married 37.4% 62.6% 30.9% 69.1% 17.7% 82.3%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 28.0% 72.0% 28.9% 71.1% 25.3% 74.7%

High School Graduate 26.2% 73.8% 21.2% 78.8% 14.6% 85.4%

Some College 25.5% 74.5% 26.5% 73.5% 11.9% 88.1%

4 Years of College or more 13.9% 86.1% 16.0% 84.0% 8.4% 91.6%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 35.3% 64.7% 35.0% 65.0% 25.1% 74.9%

$20-30,000 25.8% 74.2% 39.7% 60.3% 15.2% 84.8%

$30-50,000 17.9% 82.1% 18.9% 81.1% 10.8% 89.2%

$50-75,000 13.2% 86.8% 15.5% 84.5% 5.3% 94.7%

$75,000 or more 18.1% 81.9% 16.9% 83.1% 9.0% 91.0%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 11.6% 88.4% 17.9% 82.1% 9.1% 90.9%

Hourly 29.3% 70.7% 25.2% 74.8% 16.0% 84.0%

Other 21.1% 78.9% 17.5% 82.5% 7.6% 92.4%

T A B L E 7. C

Leave-Taking Employees’ Worries About Taking Leave, by Demographic Characteristics

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total number of respondents.
300

Appendix E

All Respondents FMLA-Covered Non-Covered

Might Lose Job 22.1% 21.8% 22.6%

Might Hurt Job Advancement 21.9% 23.0% 18.7%

Might Lose Seniority 12.8% 13.9% 9.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

T A B L E 7. D

FMLA-Covered Versus Non-Covered Leave-Takers’

Worries About Taking Leave

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.
301

Appendix E

Neither

Very Somewhat Satisfied Nor Somewhat Very

Satisfied Satisfied Disatisfied Disatisfied Dissatisfied

ALL RESPONDENTS n= 9,265,796 5,406,857 1,250,754 2,287,250 1,083,524

48.0% 28.0% 6.5% 11.9% 5.6%

GENDER

Male 54.2% 22.8% 7.1% 11.7% 4.1%

Female 43.6% 31.7% 6.1% 11.9% 6.7%

AGE

18-24 49.3% 28.9% 6.6% 7.6% 7.6%

25-34 44.5% 26.1% 7.8% 14.2% 7.4%

35-49 43.3% 30.7% 7.0% 14.1% 5.0%

50-64 63.6% 23.7% 3.2% 6.4% 3.2%

65 or over 64.8% 31.5% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0%

RACE

Latino 47.5% 30.4% 3.8% 10.8% 7.6%

African American 35.8% 38.8% 5.0% 12.9% 7.5%

Non-Latino White 51.1% 26.2% 6.0% 11.8% 5.0%

Other 29.7% 45.9% 13.5% 8.1% 2.7%

EDUCATION

Less than High School 46.9% 30.4% 6.2% 9.8% 6.7%

High School Graduate 44.4% 27.7% 6.3% 15.4% 6.3%

Some College 46.7% 30.1% 7.7% 9.3% 6.3%

4 Years of College or More 52.2% 26.2% 5.6% 12.1% 4.0%

ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Less than $20,000 35.5% 36.1% 6.6% 10.1% 11.6%

$20-30,000 46.5% 26.1% 7.0% 16.7% 3.7%

$30-50,000 53.3% 25.4% 5.5% 10.8% 5.1%

$50-75,000 50.7% 31.1% 4.4% 11.1% 2.7%

$75,000 or more 52.1% 21.3% 6.4% 16.5% 3.7%

COMPENSATION TYPE

Salaried 57.1% 25.4% 5.6% 8.1% 3.8%

Hourly 43.7% 29.8% 5.4% 14.5% 6.6%

Other 36.1% 27.8% 17.2% 11.2% 7.7%

T A B L E 7 . E

Leave-Taking Employees’ Satisfaction With the Amount of Leave they Took,

by Demographic Characteristics

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

Note: Because missing data are excluded, totals in subgroups do not always equal the total number of respondents.
302

Appendix E

All Respondents Covered Non-Covered

Very Satisfied 48.0% 50.5% 41.4%

Somewhat Satisfied 28.0% 27.4% 29.8%

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 6.5% 5.2% 10.0%

Somewhat Dissatisfied 11.9% 11.4% 13.2%

Very Dissatisfied 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

T A B L E 7. F

Covered Versus Non-Covered Leave-Taking Employees’

Satisfaction With the Amount of Leave They Took

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.
303

Appendix E

All Salaried Hourly Other

EXTENT OF PAID LEAVE(1)

Fully Paid 46.7% 76.4% 32.6% 13.2%

Partially Paid 19.6% 13.1% 24.7% 15.5%

Unpaid 33.6% 10.5% 42.8% 71.4%

METHOD OF COVERING

LOST WAGES(2)

Earmarked Savings 43.7% 48.8% 44.4% 34.6%

Other Savings 40.6% 36.4% 43.7% 30.1%

Borrow Money 25.1% 20.9% 28.1% 15.5%

Public Assistance 9.0% 4.3% 10.4% 7.5%

Limit Extras 75.5% 70.7% 78.9% 64.3%

Put off Bills 38.8% 27.3% 41.9% 36.9%

Cut Leave Short 40.4% 27.1% 41.9% 47.7%

Other 12.8% 12.6% 13.2% 10.8%

RETURN TO WORK(1)

Return to Same Employer 84.1% 89.3% 80.3% 86.0%

Did Not Return to Same Employer 5.5% 3.7% 7.0% 3.8%

Still on Leave 10.4% 7.0% 12.7% 10.2%

T A B L E 7 . G

Leave-Takers: Pay Issues and Return to Work,

by Type of Compensation

SOURCE: AGUIRRE INTERNATIONAL TABULATION OF DATA FROM INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES, 1995.

(1)These questions were asked of all leave-takers.

(2)This question was asked only of leave-takers who said they received partial pay or no pay while

on leave. Respondents could choose more than one category.

Type of Compensation
304
Appendix F

Information on Survey Instruments

305
306

Appendix F

The survey instrument used to conduct the Employer Survey is reprinted in full in:

David Cantor, et al., The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act: A Survey of

Employers. Rockville, MD.:Westat, Inc., October 1995.

The survey instrument used to conduct the Employee Survey is reprinted in full in:

Katherine A. McGonagle, et al. Commission on Leave Survey of Employees on Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Institute for Social Research, Survey

Research Center, The University of Michigan, October 1995.

Both of these reports are available upon request from:

The Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite S-3002

Washington, DC 20210

Tel. 202 219-6611

The questions on family and medical leave policies and practices included in the

Census Bureau’s Characteristic of Business Owner’s Survey are available on request from:

Office of Policy Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW Room 5854

Washington, DC 20230
Appendix G

Bibliography

307
308

Appendix G

Transcripts from Commission on Leave Public Hearing on Family and Medical Leave.

Chicago, Illinois, May 8, 1995.

Transcripts from Commission on Leave Public Hearing on Family and Medical Leave. San

Francisco, California, June 26, 1995.

Transcripts from Commission on Leave Public Hearing on Family and Medical Leave.

Washington, D.C., August 4, 1995.

9to5, National Association of Working Women. Family and Medical Leave Act at the Oneyear Mark. Cleveland, Ohio: 9to5, National Association of Working Women, 1994.

Aaronson, Stephanie. “Providing Paid Family Leave: Estimating the Cost of Expanding

California’s Disability Insurance Program,” prepared for the Institute for Women’s Policy

Research. Testimony before the Commission on Leave, San Francisco, California, June 26,

1995.

Addison, J. T. and W. S. Siebert. Cited in C. J. Ruhm & J. L. Teague. Parental Leave

Policies in Europe and North America. Unpublished manuscript. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina, 1993.

American Association of Retired Persons and Administration on Aging. A Profile of Older

Americans. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Retired Persons, 1993.

American Society of Personnel Administrators. Employers and Child Care: The Human

Resource Professional’s View. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Personnel Administration, 1993.

American Society of Personnel Administrators. The Resource Survey of Membership. Alexandria, Virginia: American Society of Personnel Administrators, 1987.

Blank, Rebecca M., ed. Social Protection versus Economic Flexibility: Is There a Trade-Off?

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Blau, F. D., and M. A. Ferber. The Economics of Women, Men, and Work. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.

Bond, James T. “Access to Leave Benefits Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of

1993.” Unpublished paper. New York: Families and Work Institute, April 1995.

Bond, J. T., E. Galinsky, M. Lord, G. L. Staines, & K. R. Brown. Beyond the Parental

Leave Debate: The Impact of Laws in Four States. New York: Families and Work Institute,

1991.

Buckley, John E., et al. State by State Guide to Human Resources Law. New York: Panel

Publishers, 1995.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee Benefits Survey,Bulletin 2459. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Labor, 1995.
309

Appendix G

Bureau of National Affairs (The). Daily Labor Report Special Report No. 236. Washington,

D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, December 12, 1994.

Butler, Barbara, and Janis Wasserman. “Parental Leave: Attitudes and Practices in Small

Businesses,” in The Parental Leave Crisis: Toward a National Policy, eds. Edward F. Ziegler

and Meryl Frank. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988, pp. 223-232.

Catalyst. Catalyst Report on a Study of Parental Leaves. New York: Catalyst, 1986.

Cohen, Bronwen. “Taking Time Off: Leave Provision in the European Community for

Parents of School-age Children,” in Women’s Studies International Forum, Volume 14, Issue

6. 1991, pp. 585-598.

Conference Board (The). “Work Family Roundtable: Family and Medical Leave,” 4:4.

New York, New York: The Conference Board, Winter 1994.

“Pros & Cons: Should Congress Override the Veto of the Family and Medical Leave Act?” in

Congressional Digest, Volume 72, Number 4. January 1993.

“Pros & Cons: Should the Congress Approve the Family and Medical Leave Act?” In

Congressional Digest, Volume 70, Number 4. April 1991.

Costello, Cynthia and Anne Stone, eds. The American Woman 1994-95. New York:

Norton, 1994.

Desai, Sonalde, and Linda J. Waite. “Women’s Employment During Pregnancy and After the

First Birth: Occupational Characteristics and Work Commitment,” in American Sociological

Review, Volume 56. 1991, pp. 551-566.

DiMona, Lisa, and Constance Herndon, eds. Women’s Sourcebook: Resources and Information to Use Every Day. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Cader Co. and Seth Godin Productions, 1994.

Dorman, Patricia M. “Maternity Benefits in Idaho: A Two County Study,” in The Social

Science Journal, Volume 31, Issue 1. 1994, pp. 1-15.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social

Affairs. “Social Europe: Flexibility and Work Organization, Supplement I.” Luxembourg:

European Commission, 1995.

Families and Work Institute. Parental Leave Benefits for American Workers. Unpublished

report. New York: Families and Work Institute, 1993.

Families and Work Institute. “Report to the Executive Director of the Commission on Leave:

Existing and Potential Data Sources for Addressing FMLA Research Questions.” New York,

New York: Families and Work Institute, September 1994.

Families and Work Institute. The State Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs for State

Employees. New York: Families and Work Institute, 1991.
310

Appendix G

Ferber, M. A., B. O’Farrell, and L. R. Allen, eds. Work and Family Policies for a Changing

Work Force. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991.

Frank, Meryl. “Cost, Financing, and Implementation Mechanisms of Parental Leave Policies,” in The Parental Leave Crisis: Toward a National Policy, eds. Edward F. Ziegler and

Meryl Frank. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, pp. 315-325.

Galinsky, Ellen. “The Implementation of Flexible Time Leave Policies: Observations from

European Employers.” Paper prepared for the Panel on Employer Policies and Working

Families. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1989. Cited in M.A. Ferber, B.

O’Farrell, & L. R. Allen, eds. Work and Family: Policies for a Changing Work Force.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991.

Galinsky, E., and P. J. Stein. “The Impact of Human Resource Policies on Employees:

Balancing work/family life,” in Journal of Family Issues, Volume, 11. 1990, pp. 368-383.

Garrett, Patricia, Deeann Wenk, and Sally Lubeck. “Working Around Childbirth: Comparative Empirical Perspectives on Parental-Leave Policy,” in Child Welfare, LXIX, Issue 5. 1990,

pp. 401-413.

General Accounting Office. The Changing Workforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal

Work-Family Programs and Approaches. Report to Congressional Committees of the U.S.

General Accounting Office. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1992.

Gerald, Lynn B. “Paid Family Caregiving: A Review of Progress and Policies,” in Journal of

Aging and Social Policy (Special Issue on International Perspectives on State and Family

Support for the Elderly), Volume 5, Issue 1/2, 1993.

Glass, Jennifer. “Job Quits and Job Changes: The Effects of Young Women’s Work Conditions and Family Factors,” in Gender and Society, Volume 2, Issue 2. 1988, pp. 228-240.

Gruber, Jonathan. “The Financing Costs and Insurance Benefits of Social Insurance Programs,” in NBER Reporter. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Policy, 1995.

Haas, Linda. “Swedish Family Leave Benefits,” compliation of statistics from the Swedish

Social Insurance Office, personal notes, 1995.

Hartmann, Heidi, Young-Hee Yoon, Roberta Spalter-Roth, and Lois Shaw. “Temporary

Disability Insurance: A Model to Provide Income Security for Women Over the Life Cycle.”

Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, January 1995. Paper presented at

“Women’s Lives and Economic Participation,” 1995 Annual Meeting of the American

Economics Association and Allied Social Science Associations.

Hewitt Associates. “On Employee Benefits: Employer Response to Family and Medical Leave

Legislation.” Scottsdale, Arizona: Management Compensation Services, a division of Hewitt

Associates, February 1993.

Hofferth, S. L., A. Brayfield, S. Deich, and P. Holcomb. “National Child Care Survey,

1990,” in Urban Institute Report 91-5. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1991.
311

Appendix G

Hughes, D. and E. Galinsky. “Balancing Work and Family Life: Research and Corporate

Application,” in Maternal Employment and Children’s Development: Longitudinal Research,

eds A. E. Gottfried and A. W. Gottfried. New York: Plenum, 1988, pp. 233-268.

Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “Research-in-Brief: Using Temporary Disability

Insurance to Provide Paid Family Leave: A Comparison with the Family and Medical Leave

Act.” Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 1995.

International Labour Organization. Maternity Benefits in the 80’s: An ILO Survey (1964-

84). Geneva: International Labour Organization, 1985.

Kamerman, Sheila B. “Maternity and Parenting Benefits: An International Overview,” in

The Parental Leave Crisis: Toward a National Policy, eds. Edward F. Ziegler and Meryl

Frank. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988, pp. 235-244.

Kamerman, Sheila B., and Alfred J. Kahn. Unpublished memorandum to Commission on

Leave. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work, September 29, 1995.

Kamerman, Sheila B., Alfred J. Kahn, and Paul Kingston. Maternity Policies and Working

Women. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.

Kennedy, M. M. “How to Live and Let Leave, in Across the Board, Volume 31. February

1994, pp. 10-11.

Klerman, Jacob Alex. National Longitudinal Surveys. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor

Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, December 1993.

KPMG Peat Marwick. “Information Briefing: Family and Medical Leave Act - Regulations

and Guidance.” Washington, D.C.: KPMG Peat Marwick, 1993.

Labor Project for Working Families. “The Case for Paid Leave, in Labor News for Working

Families. Fall 1994, pp. 1-2.

Marra, R., and J. Lindner. “The True Cost of Parental Leave: The Parental Leave Cost

Model, in Parental Leave and Productivity: Current Research, eds. D. E. Friedman, E.

Galinsky, & V. Plowden. New York: Families and Work Institute, 1992.

Martin, Patricia Yancey, et al. “Work-Family Policies: Corporate, Union, Feminist and ProFamily Leaders’ Views,” in Gender and Society, Volume 2, Issue 3. 1988, pp. 385-400.

McGuiness, Jeffrey C. “FMLA Survey Highlights Difficult Compliance Issues.” Unpublished

memorandum. Washington, D.C.: Labor Policy Association, January 1995.

McSweeney, M. H. Costing State Family Medical Leave Legislation: The Case of New

Jersey Small Business. Unpublished manuscript. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson,

University, 1993.
312

Appendix G

Mercer, William M. Effective Employer Policies for Family Leave. New York: William M.

Mercer, Inc, 1993.

Mercer, William M., Inc. “Results of Survey on AB77.” San Francisco, California: William

M. Mercer, Inc., April 1992.

Mercer, William M., Inc. and University of California, Berkeley. “Survey Results: Family

and Medical Leave Act.” San Francisco, California, and Berkeley, California: William M.

Mercer, Inc., and University of California, Berkeley, January 1994.

Meyers, Mike. “Taking Pregnancy Leaves, in The Star Tribune, St. Paul and Minneapolis,

MN, February 6, 1995.

National Council for Jewish Women. Accommodating Pregnancy in the Workplace. New

York: National Council for Jewish Women Center for the Child, 1987.

National Council on Jewish Women Center for the Child. Medical and Family Leave:

Benefits Available to Female Workers in the United States. New York: National Council of

Jewish Women, 1987.

National Foundation for Women Business Owners. “Employee Benefits Offered by Womenowned Businesses: A Framework for Compassion.” Washington, D.C.: The National

Foundation for Women Business Owners, May 1994.

New England Work and Family Association. NEWFA Survey: Family and Medical Leave

Act. Boston, MA: NEWFA, 1993.

New England Work and Family Association. NEWFA Survey: Family and Medical Leave

Act. Boston, MA: NEWFA, 1994.

Perlman, L. Testimony at Congressional Hearings. Cited in “Pros & Cons: Should Congress

Override the Veto of the Family and Medical Leave Act?” Congressional Digest, Volume 72.

January 1993.

Phillips, J. D., and B. Reisman. “Turnover and Return on Investment Models for Family

Leave, in Parental Leave and Productivity: Current Research, eds. D. E. Friedman, E.

Galinsky, and V. Plowden. New York: Families and Work Institute, 1992, pp. 33-53.

Pleck, Joseph H. “Fathers and Infant Care Leave, in The Parental Leave Crisis: Toward a

National Leave Policy, eds Edward F. Ziegler and Meryl Frank. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press, 1988, pp. 177-191.

Pleck, Joseph. “Work-Family Policies in the United States,” in Women’s Work and Women’s

Lives: The Continuing Struggle Worldwide, eds. Hilda Kahne and Janet Z. Giele. San

Francisco: Westview Press, 1992, pp. 170-191.

Romito, Patrizia and Marie-Josephe Saurel-Cubizolles. “Fair Law, Unfair Practices: Benefitting from Protective Legislation for Pregnant Workers in Italy and France,” in Social Science

Medicine, Volume 35, Issue 12. 1992, pp. 1485-1495.
313

Appendix G

Ruhm, C. J. and J. L. Teague. Parental Leave Policies in Europe and North America.

Greensboro, NC: Department of Economics, University of North Carolina, 1993.

Scharlach, Andrew E. “The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: Analysis and Appraisal.” Boston, Massachusetts: Center on Work & Family, Boston University, 1995.

Scharlach, Andrew and K. I. Fredriksen. “Elder Care versus Adult Care: Does Care

Recipient Age Make a Difference?” in Research on Aging, Volume 16. 1994, pp. 43-68.

Schlarlach, A. E. and J. Stanger. Mandated Family and Medical Leave: Boon or Bane?

Unpublished manuscript. Berkeley, California: Andrew Scharlach, 1994.

Scharlach, Andrew E., B. F. Lowe, and E. L. Schneider. Elder Care and the Work Force:

Blueprint for Action. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1991.

Scharlach, Andrew E., Stephanie L. Sansom, and Janice Stanger. “The Family and Medical

Leave Act of 1993: How Fully is Business Complying?” in California Management Review,

Volume 37, Issue 2. Winter 1995, pp. 66-79.

Shallenberger, S. “On the Job: A Guide to the New Federal Leave Act,” in Parenting,

Volume 7, Number 7. August 1993, pp. 27-29.

Shaller, E. H. and M. K. Qualiana. “The Family and Medical Leave Act: Key Positions and

Potential Problems.” Employer Relations Law Journal, Volume 19. Summer 1993, pp. 5-22.

Stone, R., G. L. Cafferata, and J. Sangl. “Caregivers to the Frail Elderly: A National

Profile,” in The Gerontologist, Volume 27. 1987, pp. 616-626.

Towers Perrin. Family and Medical Leave Programs: Before and After the New Federal Law.

New York: Towers Perrin, July 1993.

Trzcinski, E. “Family and Medical Leave, Contingent Employment, and Flexibility: A

Feminist Critique of the U.S. Approach to Work and Family Policy.” Journal of Family and

Economis Issues, Volume 16, Spring 1995.

Trzcinski, E. and W. T. Alpert. “The Economics of Family and Medical Leave in Canada and

the United States.” Paper prepared for the W.E. Upjohn Insitutue Conference on Employee

Benefits, Labor Costs, and Labor Markets in Canada and the U.S., November 3-5, 1994.

Trzcinski, E. and W. T. Alpert. “Handling Work During Leave: Strategies and Costs,”

Journal of Managerial Issues, Issue 3. 1991, pp. 403-426.

Trzcinski, E. and W. T. Alpert. Job Guaranteed Medical Leave: Reducing Termination Costs

to Business, August 1992. Paper presented at the 1992 World Congress on the Family,

Columbus, Ohio.

Trzcinski, E. and W. T. Alpert. Leave Policies in Small Business: Findings from the U.S.

Small Business Administration Employee Leave Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Small

Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, 1990.
314

Appendix G

Trzcinski, E. and M. Finn-Stevenson. “A Response to Arguments Against Mandated Parental

Leave: Findings from the Connecticut Survey of Parental Leave Policies,” in Journal of

Marriage and the Family, Volume 53. 1991, pp. 445-459.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Cited in E. Trzcinski & W. T. Alpert. “Handling Work During

Leave: Strategies and Costs,” in Journal of Managerial Issues, Volume 3. 1991, pp. 403-426.

United States Department of Labor. “Labor Force Participation Unchanged Among Mothers

with Young Children,” in News, Volume 88. September 1988, p. 431.

United States Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour

Division. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: Federal Regulations Part 825. White

House Publication 1419. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, May 1993, p. 2.

United States General Accounting Office. Workplace Regulation: Information on Selected

Employer and Union Experiences, Volume I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting

Office, 1994.

United States General Accounting Office. Workplace Regulation: Information on Selected

Employer and Union Experiences, Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting

Office, 1994.

United States House of Representatives, Select Committee on Aging. Exploding the Myth:

Caregiving in America, Committee Publication No. 99-611. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1987.

Uslander, Gerald L. “The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: Overview and Significant

Issues.” Washington, D.C.: Washington Resource Group, William M. Mercer, Inc., 1995.

Paper presented at “Working Women Count: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” Women’s

Bureau 75th Anniversary Leadership Conference, May 1995.

Women’s Legal Defense Fund. Family and Medical Leave: Working Families Speak: Case

Studies of Americans Who Needed Family & Medical Leave. Washington, D.C.: Women’s

Legal Defense Fund, n.d..

Women’s Legal Defense Fund, Fact Sheets: “Costs of Not Having Family Leave,” “Current

Leave Practices,” “Elder and Spousal Care,” “FMLA Is Good Business,” “Low-income

Workers,” “Medical Leave,” “State Leave Laws,” “Women and Families Need the FMLA.”

Washington, D.C.: Women’s Legal Defense Fund, 1993.

Work/Family Directions. Recommitting the Work Force: maximizing employee contribution in

an environment of constant change. Boston, Massachusetts: Work/Family Directions, Inc.,

1993

Work and Family Trend Report (The). “The Family Leave Law—Taking a Closer Look, in

Work and Family Trend Report, March 1993.
Additional copies are available from:

The Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite S-3002

Washington, DC 20210

Tel. 202 219-6611