New family leave law introduced in Congress (again)
April 7, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, FMLA, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Leave, Money, Pay and benefits, policies
Advocates of reimbursed family leave are giving their cause another go on Capitol Hill.
Last week, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would create a family leave insurance program giving eligible employees up to 12 weeks of paid family leave in a 12-month period.
The Family Leave Insurance Act of 2009 (H.R. 1723) piggybacks on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and adopts many of the definitions of that law, with certain exceptions:
- Generally, paid leave would be available to any employee of a covered employer who has worked at least 625 hours in the six months prior to filing an application for leave benefits. The legislation defines a “covered employer” as one that has two or more employees for 20 or more weeks during the current or preceding calendar year.
- Generally, leave would be available for the same reasons as provided in the FMLA – for the employee’s own serious health condition; to care for a family member (which, unlike the FMLA, includes domestic partners, including same sex domestic partners, and the child of a domestic partner) with a serious health condition; for the birth or placement of a child for adoption or foster care; to care for a family member who is a wounded veteran or because of a qualifying exigency resulting from the call to active duty of a family member (including a domestic partner).
- The program would be funded by equal contributions from the employer and employee of 0.2% (two-tenths of a percent) of employees’ wages, and employers would match employee payments.
- Benefit amounts would be tiered progressively according to income level and indexed for inflation under the Social Security wage index. The bill would allow employers with an equivalent or better paid-leave plan to opt out of participating in the insurance fund.
- The legislation also prohibits employers from interference, discrimination, or retaliation concerning an employee’s exercise of rights under the act, and would give employees a corresponding private right of action. The Secretary of Labor would have investigative authority and would be authorized to bring an administrative or civil action. The bill also provides criminal penalties for knowingly submitting or helping another to submit a false certification in order to fraudulently collect benefits.
Stark introduced similar legislation last year — before the election of President Obama – but that legislation failed to make it out of committee.
Tags: Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, H.R. 1723, Pete Stark
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HRMorning!
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
April 8th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Ugh.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:50 am
[...] Paid family leave bill introduced in Congress (again) | HRMorning … By Jim Giuliano Generally, leave would be available for the same reasons as provided in the FMLA – for the employee’s own serious health condition, to care for a family member (which, unlike the FMLA, includes domestic partners, including same sex … HRMorning.com – http://www.hrmorning.com/ [...]
April 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I hope this gets shot down. It would be unnecessary and a headache, and would add a lot more work and so much more liability. I am embarrassed that this was introduced by a Democrat and that I am a Democrat. Lawyers galore will be licking their chops if this gets passed. This act would get so abused. I’m also hoping that the supplemental insurance companies take a stand to shoot this down, as this would obviously hurt them when it comes to disability insurance etc. Sure, it’s nice to think that you’re giving someone income while they are unable to work, however, that kills a lot of motivation to return to work! Seriously, it’s just like unemployment compensation, those that get it spend an average of 14 weeks unemployed while those that don’t get unemployment compensation spend 2 weeks unemployed! We can’t promote or support unproductivity!
April 13th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I also strongly disagree with allowing this to apply to “domestic partner” benefits, except for where those same-sex couples can’t get married or there is intent to be married, ie engaged.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:11 am
So this is a benefit paid to the employee by the government, like unemployment insurance? And the employer has to pay a .2% tax to cover this expense? Is that how I read this?
When did we become a total welfare state?
April 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
FAMILY FIRST!!! If you have a family member at home that is ill or a spouse that is expecting, wouldn’t you want to be there for that family member, 100%? Most people don’t have the luxury of tapping into a savings account to support him/herself, dependants and a disabled/sick family member while out of work for 12 weeks. It’s a benefit that the working class will pay for and should be entitled to! If the working class can contribute more than half their lives to working and maybe a one week vacation per year, than a 12 week maximum (under FMLA law) to care for a sick family member is merely a pinch in an employee’s career. This law may actually reduce overall absenteeism and increase productivity. Employees won’t have to worry about sick family members while working; happy employees = productive employees!!!
“Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value.” – Albert Einstein
April 13th, 2009 at 11:21 am
CA already has something like that in place, though it is employee paid.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
CNS-Entitled? Are you kidding me? That’s the problem here, the only thing we are entitled to in life is a chance. This proposal is unnecessary and will be a burden; you can already buy supplemental insurance for coverage when you are sick, however extending the coverage for when loved one’s are sick would make sense. That’s what I’d push for, but the proposal above would just get abused, just like sick days and other disability benefits. There would be so many legal pitfalls for employers. Employee paid, yes, but employer paid (and legally tied down), no.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Could someone please tell me how this is SO different from Paid Family Leave? I get that PFL pays only a percentage of wages and is for 6 weeks, not 12. Perhaps this is what needs to be tweaked, rather than create yet another “benefit” that has it’s own rules and guidelines.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I wrote my Masters Thesis in 2000-2001 recommending a similar program; however, it was 100% Employee paid similar to having an Health Savings Account.
I would gladly send them my paper if I just knew where to send it. Any suggestions?
April 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Have you ever had to work while comforting a sick loved one (so you were only 5 percent at work and 200 percent at home)? How’s that for productivity!?
Would you “abuse” this benefit? Let’s hope you would never have to!
April 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Paid Family Leave may be applicable by state, I think CA is one of the states. The FLIA would be a Federal Law, requiring employers’ contributions towards employees.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Does this mean at a small office of 3 people that an employee could qualify for this? Does that also mean that the employer cannot permanently replace them while they are out? Right now, small employers do not qualify for FMLA because you have to have over 50 employees. Again, these programs are always hardest on the little guy.
I see this as more paperwork and oversight. How much are these employees going to receive in weekly benefits? Who is going to determine if the employee qualifies and when do they know if they have been rejected?
My business actually has a nice STD leave policy(1 week per year of employment/max 6 weeks pay per year at 100% compensation), but only for Full time employees. I wonder if we still have to participate in this. My feelings are that our payments are probably better for the tenured, loyal employee than this policy would be.
More ways for someone else to cover for lack of planning I suppose.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
It is not the role of government to provide for the citizen’s every need. I am not the business owner, but for companies who don’t make millions or billions annually, yet employ 50 or more employees, these kinds of rules are driving small business owners out of business. I think I’ve read as many as 70% of Americans are employed by small business owners; I don’t grasp why the federal government appears to create hurdles for small business owners, rather than empower them to succeed.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Amen Scherri!
April 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
The biggest problem with this is making it apply to businesses with as few as 2 employees. Such small businesses don’t have HR departments and may be forced to employ persons to cover for a sick employee when they do not have the cash flow to support the expenditure.
I think that we need to make reasonable accomodations for employees with sick family members. That being said, guaranteeing that a job will still be there is not in the cards for small employers. Implementing this could conceivably put small employers out of business.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am
The intent behind this proposed legislation is to enable employees who have situations that qualify for FMLA, but do not have enough paid leave, to actually take the leave without creating another hardship for their family because of the loss of income. STD is great for the employee but if you are using FMLA to take care of a ill family member your STD benefits will not apply. In organizations where employees can donate sick leave to another employee this type of paid leave would not be as critical but those types of programs are not very widespread. I think the idea of it being jointly paid by the employer and employee makes sense – both have an investment in the employee’s productivity. Of course, there will always be a small number of people who will try to use something like this in an unethical manner and those are the ones who make the situation so difficult for those who do need a “fill in the gap” program like this. One long term benefit would be more engaged and loyal employees who when they came back to work were not bitter, broke, or still sick. Thank your lucky stars if you never have to use your FMLA benefits where you end up on unpaid leave because that is a very difficult place to be. When my husband died in 2003, after a five month battle with stage four cancer, our son was 16 months old and I had just been promoted. I used all of my sick and vacation leave and then my employer worked with me so I only had a week or so of unpaid leave. When I did come back I was able to work hard and be successful in my new job because I knew that I had been able to be at home when I needed to be.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Employee paid, 100%. Make it fall in line with FMLA, especially in terms of numbers and no guarantee of getting job back unless employers have enough employees. The employer should not have to pay for it. There is also no guarantee that .4% tax total will cover it.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Patrice – Your employer took care of you in your time of need, and I am sure my employer would do the best the could as well, I think the issue is the fact that the government should not dictate these things to businesses. What happened to this nation being a community, people taking care of people, not government regulating every action of an individual or business? I am sure we can have story after story of the good, the bad, and the ugly of FMLA, family illnesses, etc. I just don’t think that we need yet another law levied against businesses. Why not offer up ideas for businesses to adopt as they are able, and perhaps provide tax relief or something for those who prove to take care of their employees as your employer did.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Patrice, you wouldn’t be an abuser. Your company did great things for you, which are admirable. However, there’s a difference between a “requirement/law” and a favor. I don’t think it’d make people feel more valued, just more entitled if it was legally guaranteed. There’s also no happiness brought about with things people feel entitled to. I can guarantee, also, that there would be more than just a small percentage of the actual users would abuse it. If you are on leave and still getting paid, what motivation do you have to return? Just like unemployment, if you’re getting it why go back to work?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Patrice, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Karin, I like that idea where the company is given an option to participate and the government would provide incentives should the company participate.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I’ve been searching on the search engines for sites like these. So glad I found it because it’s really informative. Do you have an rss feed so I don’t have to keep logging in?
June 11th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Your blog has some great information for small businesses. Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge!
June 14th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Great Post, Ever Heard about the documentary.. Who Killed the electric Car?
June 20th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Very nice. Thanks for this.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Very helpful information. Thanks for this.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 am
Keep it up, great job!
September 25th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Employers only take care of themselves which is why these laws are in effect. They only do it if forced – unless of course a serious illness happens to an executive and his family.