Download Position Paper No. 606 below.
Introduction
Balancing the demands of work and family life can be a challenge for any worker. Events such as severe illness or the birth of a child can make working outside the home impossible. People overwhelmingly sympathize with those facing these challenging situations and want society to support such individuals during difficult times.
In recent decades, however, the question has turned not to how civil society can support individuals in times of need, but to how the federal government can dictate how employers must accommodate employees facing these situations. Existing laws require that large employers allow qualified employees to take unpaid leave when facing such circumstances. Some policymakers want to expand these regulations so that they apply to smaller employers and to mandate the availability of additional benefits, such as paid leave.
This paper examines the Family and Medical Leave Act, which mandates that businesses provide unpaid leave to their workers, and considers some of the problems associated with its application. It will also consider the potential consequences of expanding these regulations.
This paper highlights how private entities are voluntarily providing leave benefits and considers ways that policymakers can further encourage businesses and individuals to take actions that will make it easier for individuals in need of leave, without costly government mandates.
3 Comments
jeanruss | February 8, 2008, 2:26pm | #
just heard your groups rep on Thom Hartman's show and it made me ill. As a female entrepreneur for 30 years, I was disgusted at what she had to say. I don't need to provide crap jobs and pay to my employees to do well myself. I gladly have earned less for myself and taken good care of those who work for me. I have always paid much more than minimum wage and have provided healthcare. In return I have almost zero turnover, no pilferage and loyalty from those I employ. We are a team. Your "male" oriented approach is a real sellout. It is inhumane to treat people as chattel and you shame women everywhere by such a terrible attitude towards others. Your group is just another shill group for corporations that put profit over people and it is making the planet a terrible place to inhabit in every way. I am ashamed to share a gender with such unenlightened thinking. Profit over people is a terrible and impractical mindset. If you admire the way the guys have been running things why not switch genders and quit giving us a bad name?
Jane | February 11, 2008, 11:49am | #
Didn't "jeanruss" just make your point for you? Employers who can, already provide these things for their employees because it is just good business. Government doesn't have to tell us what makes good business.
jmn | February 14, 2008, 12:34pm | #
Yes, "jeanruss" does make a point: that some employers have good morals and business ethics and unfortunately, some don't. Hence the reason for the law, to regulate something that should be equal to everyone. What is really sad is that, even with the guarantee of a 12 week absence, the average american worker can't afford to NOT be paid for 12 weeks. And if IWF believes that people have a choice about where they work and what kind of benefits they have, they are living in fantasy land, and are sorely not in touch with us blue collar common folk, who make up the majority of the population of this fine nation.