Fmla
Family Medical Leave Act-Is it working for all Employees and Employers???
In 1993, President Bill Clinton established the Family Medical Leave Act which allows certain employees up to 12 weeks unpaid, job protected leave for a year. The Act was designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities by allowing the employee to take reasonable unpaid leave for certain family members and medical reasons. This could include a husband or wife to take time off to care for a new infant or adopted child. It could include a man or woman needing time off to care for a loved one, like a child, parent, or themselves. FMLA applies to all public agencies, all public and private schools, and companies with 50 or more employees. There are still uncertainties around FMLA and whether it’s being abused by some and needed by others. For example, an employee who needs time off for maternity leave but is only a part-time worker is not covered under FMLA. This employee is not guaranteed their position back after they take a leave of absence unless they meet the required hours of work and their company is covered under FMLA. Another employee who works full time and wants time off for Christmas and New Years but uses the FMLA to cover the days off as sick time, is misusing the act as a form of holiday pay. Comparing the two situations, one is needed more than the other. The first one might not be able to take off the recommended 6 weeks for maternity leave just because they are a part-time employee. In the second situation, the employee is abusing the system because they want time off for holiday and it’s not really a medical problem. I’m going to be looking at the pros and cons’s of FMLA and establish whether this Act is something that should continue with most companies with no changes or if the Act needs to be enhanced so that it better serves full time and part time employees and all employers. The first thing to discuss is the criteria that must
In 1993, President Bill Clinton established the Family Medical Leave Act which allows certain employees up to 12 weeks unpaid, job protected leave for a year. The Act was designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities by allowing the employee to take reasonable unpaid leave for certain family members and medical reasons. This could include a husband or wife to take time off to care for a new infant or adopted child. It could include a man or woman needing time off to care for a loved one, like a child, parent, or themselves. FMLA applies to all public agencies, all public and private schools, and companies with 50 or more employees. There are still uncertainties around FMLA and whether it’s being abused by some and needed by others. For example, an employee who needs time off for maternity leave but is only a part-time worker is not covered under FMLA. This employee is not guaranteed their position back after they take a leave of absence unless they meet the required hours of work and their company is covered under FMLA. Another employee who works full time and wants time off for Christmas and New Years but uses the FMLA to cover the days off as sick time, is misusing the act as a form of holiday pay. Comparing the two situations, one is needed more than the other. The first one might not be able to take off the recommended 6 weeks for maternity leave just because they are a part-time employee. In the second situation, the employee is abusing the system because they want time off for holiday and it’s not really a medical problem. I’m going to be looking at the pros and cons’s of FMLA and establish whether this Act is something that should continue with most companies with no changes or if the Act needs to be enhanced so that it better serves full time and part time employees and all employers. The first thing to discuss is the criteria that must
References: Congressional Research Theory: The Family Medical Leave Act: An Overview Mayer. Gerald. 28 September 2012 SHRM: What is the “Key” employee provision under FMLA? 11 May 2012 FMLA AI 2010-3, Press Release (JUNE 22, 2010) Public Law 103-3. February 5, 1999