Policy Papers
Policy Brief #27: FMLA Benefits for Part-Time Workers Would Hurt Those They Are Supposed to Help
Executive
Summary
Part-time workers typically receive fewer benefits than
full-time workers, and are not covered by some labor laws that apply to
full-time workers. Some suggest that
this is unfair to part-time workers, and urge the federal government to extend
federal laws, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, so that part-time
workers receive the same benefits as others.
Yet extending employment regulations to part-time workers would backfire on
many. Mandated benefits raise the cost
of employment. As a result of these new
costs, businesses may reduce take home pay, combine jobs to eliminate part-time
positions, or seek to outsource work.
One of the most troubling potential outcomes is that expanding employment
regulations could reduce job opportunities.
Many young Americans get their first job experience through a part-time
position. These part-time jobs help them
build necessary job skills and experience.
Women with children also often seek out part-time positions, and if
employers have more incentive to eliminate part-time jobs in favor of full-time
slots, more women will face that difficult choice of whether to work full-time
or stay home with kids, without a compromise option. Lower skilled workers are also likely to suffer
as a result of rising employment costs and the increased administrative burden
associated with such regulations.
Part-time work is the preferred option of millions of
Americans. Even those part-time workers
who would prefer full-time jobs are better off when at least part-time work is
available. Particularly in this economic
down-turn, policymakers need to focus on lowering, not raising, the cost of
creating jobs.
Attached Files
- Policy Brief #27: FMLA Benefits for Part-Time Workers Would Hurt Those They Are Supposed to Help, PDF, 192 KB
by Carrie L. Lukas, Download Brief # 27






1 Comment
Dennis | January 8, 2010, 2:01pm | #
The naivete of lawmakers concerning basic economics is mindboggling. Like the minimum wage, policies like this adversely impact just those the laws are trying to help. Increasing personnel costs to employers is antithetical to increasing employment (or preventing layoffs). As noted, many part time employees are supplementing the income of the primary wage earner and do not want a full time job. Mandated benefits to all part time employees increases the cost for every position, forcing employers to consider eliminating those workers--they certainly aren't going to increase part time positions. There simply is no free lunch.