Employers: "Family Med. Leave Act"...Blessing or curse?

[Okla-homey]

discuss.

[OUHOMER]

great for the employee, but it would be bad for my operation. our head count is where it needs to be. i would be crippled if one left and would have to hire someone to take their place. then lay them off when employee comes back. The hiring and training cost is very high and would have to be done. So not so good for a small operation

[handcrafted]

Pure silliness. Most people can't afford to take 12 weeks off without pay. It's a typical liberal "touchy-feely" law that makes them look like they care without really solving any problems and in the process causing more. It's a headache for HR folks, it created more regulation and lawsuits, and it doesn't do the employees much good. "Gee, my wife and I just had a baby, can I take off work and not get paid for 3 months? That's just what we need!"

:rolleyes:

[yermom]

yeah, that is kinda what i think about it...

of course, what are you going to do, pay them for the time off? fire anyone that has a kid?

i'm sure it only applies to companies of a certain size though, right?

[handcrafted]

yeah, that is kinda what i think about it...

of course, what are you going to do, pay them for the time off? fire anyone that has a kid?

i'm sure it only applies to companies of a certain size though, right?

Yeah, the company has to have at least 50 employees.

[BoogercountySooner]

If you are a caregiver to a parent or other family member it can come in handy when you have to periodicaly take them to dr.'s appointments and hospital and such. I'm a person of authority where I work and it gives your employee's a piece of mind when one of life's challenges comes up.

[MamaMia]

Excluding my husband and myself, we only have 4 employees. Each and every person has a totally different job than does the other. We can handle covering for someone for a week or so, as we are all multi taskers, but we wouldnt be able to properly function for longer than that without falling way behind. No two clinics are alike. I have hired people who have experience working in other clinics and it still took me at least 6 months to properly train them.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

WAY Madness, a BIG GOVERNMENT assault on American business that is totally WRONG! A constant reminder of the Clinton mentality.

[yermom]

Excluding my husband and myself, we only have 4 employees. Each and every person has a totally different job than does the other. We can handle covering for someone for a week or so, as we are all multi taskers, but we wouldnt be able to properly function for longer than that without falling way behind. No two clinics are alike. I have hired people who have experience working in other clinics and it still took me at least 6 months to properly train them.


that's why it wouldn't apply to you ;)

[soonerscuba]

WAY Madness, a BIG GOVERNMENT assault on American business that is totally WRONG! A constant reminder of the Clinton mentality.

I'm guessing you are also against people in the military reserve having their job protected by government regulation as well. Could this not also be wrongly surmised as an attack on American business?

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm guessing you are also against people in the military reserve having their job protected by government regulation as well. Could this not also be wrongly surmised as an attack on American business?

The difference is that no where in the constitution does it give Congress the power and authority to regulate an employee's vacation time. I don't think that the Family Medical Leave Act is quite what the framers had in mind when they envisioned a limited role for the Federal government.

Now, if this law were on the state level (and prior to the FMLA some states did have similar laws) then it might be a different matter.

As for the military, I would emphasize that service in defense of our nation is somewhat more of a federal priority then making sure some woman gets a week off to take her kid to the doctor for a runny nose.

[soonerscuba]

But are both not a personal choice of where to place a commitment of time? The constitution also doesn't enumerate the power of agency, but I think we can all agree that Mississippi has no business designing nuclear safety regulations, but I digress. I think the government also has a strong interest in the growth or decline of population and making sure that children are taken care of when sick. Not to say that people would choose their job over the health of a child without such a measure, but I think it is in the best interest of the workforce to ensure that such choices are made somewhat pain free.

[Okla-homey]

But are both not a personal choice of where to place a commitment of time? The constitution also doesn't enumerate the power of agency, but I think we can all agree that Mississippi has no business designing nuclear safety regulations, but I digress. I think the government also has a strong interest in the growth or decline of population and making sure that children are taken care of when sick. Not to say that people would choose their job over the health of a child without such a measure, but I think it is in the best interest of the workforce to ensure that such choices are made somewhat pain free.

regarding Congress' authority under the Constitution to do this sort of thing, its well settled since about 1937 that Congress can make such "necessary and proper" laws because they can be rationally linked to Congress' power to advance the notion of a happy and stable work force under the commerce clause. I admit its a stretch, but there it is.

[Scott D]

Pure silliness. Most people can't afford to take 12 weeks off without pay. It's a typical liberal "touchy-feely" law that makes them look like they care without really solving any problems and in the process causing more. It's a headache for HR folks, it created more regulation and lawsuits, and it doesn't do the employees much good. "Gee, my wife and I just had a baby, can I take off work and not get paid for 3 months? That's just what we need!"

:rolleyes:

god forbid you ever find a need to use it, to find out that the company screws around with the way this time off is calculated which results in you losing your job.

[Sooner_Bob]

Synopsis of Law

Covered employers (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_825/29CFR825.104.htm) must grant an eligible employee (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_825/29CFR825.110.htm) 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;
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. Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/fmla/faq.asp)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not seeing the terms of employment as the business of government, and certainly not on the federel level, ala SicEm's suggestion. This law is intrusion, pure and simple. Govt. overstepping it's intended authority.

[Scott D]

yeah it's all fine and dandy until it affects you eh william ostrich?

[Sooner_Bob]

I'm not seeing the terms of employment as the business of government, and certainly not on the federel level, ala SicEm's suggestion. This law is intrusion, pure and simple. Govt. overstepping it's intended authority.


Should the DOL should just ignore private businesses in all aspects or just this particular area?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

yeah it's all fine and dandy until it affects you eh william ostrich?HAHA. I don't think you have addressed the point. Intentionally?

[soonerscuba]

I'm not seeing the terms of employment as the business of government, and certainly not on the federel level, ala SicEm's suggestion. This law is intrusion, pure and simple. Govt. overstepping it's intended authority.

So reservists should lose their job when they go to Iraq for a tour? I mean, it was a personal choice to join the military.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Should the DOL should just ignore private businesses in all aspects or just this particular area?Frivolous?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So reservists should lose their job when they go to Iraq for a tour? I mean, it was a personal choice to join the military.If the employer is fool enough to fire them, he should have that right. I don't imagine it would be good for his business to fire a reservist for going on active duty, but he should be able to. It's his company, not govt.-run business that doesn't have to make a profit to survive.

[Scott D]

HAHA. I don't think you have addressed the point. Intentionally?

Do you personally know anyone whom has had to make use of the Family Medical Leave Act? Or are you just regurgitating partisan based rhetoric that was belched out by Oxycotin Limbaugh?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Do you personally know anyone whom has had to make use of the Family Medical Leave Act? Or are you just regurgitating partisan based rhetoric that was belched out by Oxycotin Limbaugh?Heh, we must be bored, eh? Unfortunately, nanny-statism isn't just for dims, anymore.

[Scott D]

Heh, we must be bored, eh? Unfortunately, nanny-statism isn't just for dims, anymore.

Bored? Why do we avoid answering my question? Because you don't have a leg to stand on other than rhetoric?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bored? Why do we avoid answering my question? Because you don't have a leg to stand on other than rhetoric? Do you think I don't believe what I'm saying, or what?

[Scott D]

Do you think I don't believe what I'm saying, or what?

Oh I'm positive you believe what you are saying, just as I'm positive you believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh as fact. I don't see what's so difficult in you answering if you have ever personally known anyone whom has had to make use of the Family Medical Leave Act...unless you are afraid that it undermines your farcical argument in the first place.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh I'm positive you believe what you are saying, just as I'm positive you believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh as fact. I don't see what's so difficult in you answering if you have ever personally known anyone whom has had to make use of the Family Medical Leave Act...unless you are afraid that it undermines your farcical argument in the first place.I don't personally know of anyone who has told me they have applied for a leave of absence that was governed by this nanny-state law. WHY do you think my argument is wrong?
BTW, One of the reasons Rush is so popular, is because he is almost always right, as determined by independent fact checkers. I know you have made your mind up, but you should try to listen to his show for a while, before you condemn him as inacurrate, or that his logic is flawed.

[Scott D]

I don't personally know of anyone who has told me they have applied for a leave of absence that was governed by this nanny-state law. WHY do you think my argument is wrong?
BTW, One of the reasons Rush is so popular, is because he is almost always right, as determined by independent fact checkers. I know you have made your mind up, but you should try to listen to his show for a while, before you condemn him as inacurrate, or that his logic is flawed.

you have no idea why I condemn him...'dittoheads' are far easier to condemn because they have a lack of capacity for independant thought.

I on the other hand know someone who had to make use of this due to frivilous rules regarding short term disability with their company. I also know of this same person being shafted in regards as to how said time is calculated by the company and said person losing their job over it, because the company was looking for a cheapskate way of downsizing and trying to avoid any sort of severance.

[King Crimson]

Rush deals in opinion, not fact. it's only when one accepts a set of general Rush premises does one accept them as fact--or see him as logical. is "feminazi" a fact? or a particularist interpretation of social experience?

if we push it: "facts" are objective. do you consider Rush to be objective?

the other irony: is one of Rush's triumph's is to convince his listeners that EVERYONE ELSE is brainwashed by the liberal media and lack the capacity for independent thought......and yet they parrot what he says.....

[slickdawg]

Personally, I'm glad it's there. Never had to use it, hope I never have to.
But a friend of a friend took off a month to care for his father after a massive stroke, and was fired, even though he had told them that he would be out a month.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush deals in opinion, not fact. it's only when one accepts a set of general Rush premises does one accept them as fact--or see him as logical. is "feminazi" a fact? or a particularist interpretation of social experience?

if we push it: "facts" are objective. do you consider Rush to be objective?

the other irony: is one of Rush's triumph's is to convince his listeners that EVERYONE ELSE is brainwashed by the liberal media and lack the capacity for independent thought......and yet they parrot what he says.....They foundation for Rush's popularity is that he represents the thoughts and opinions of a very large number of folks, who weren't able to hear members of the media voice their opinions and ideas on a widespread basis prior to his arrival. He reflects the ideas of his listeners, not vice-versa. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Scott D]

They foundation for Rush's popularity is that he represents the thoughts and opinions of a very large number of zombies against free thought, who weren't able to hear members of the media voice their opinions and ideas on a widespread basis prior to his arrival. He reflects the ideas of his listeners, not vice-versa. Sorry to burst your bubble.

fixed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

fixed.I will pray for you.

[Scott D]

I will pray for you.

You do that...because in the end, I don't support your hero or the liberal media. If you have ever had any semblance of free thought you would know that I criticise the media more than most. I definitely don't do it for partisan based reasons. So if you feel the need to pray for me because I won't take any member of the media's 'word' as the gospel truth then go right on and do that.

[Scott D]

oh and back to the original point william. God forbid you ever have to miss time at work because of something tragic happening to a blood relative.

[King Crimson]

They foundation for Rush's popularity is that he represents the thoughts and opinions of a very large number of folks, who weren't able to hear members of the media voice their opinions and ideas on a widespread basis prior to his arrival. He reflects the ideas of his listeners, not vice-versa. Sorry to burst your bubble.

the penultimate sentence is laughable; were it true you wouldn't have to keep repeating yourself over and over and over about how everyone else on the board should be LISTENING TO RUSH and GIVING HIM A CHANCE and blathering on and on about INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKERS. you've misplaced causes for effects....such that your statement is absurd. if you believe it, bully for you. we're all familiar with Rush's show.

but, i give Rush credit for part of what you say in that he was able to turn a moribund medium (AM radio) into a powerful voice of political importance. there's a real solid story of the power of "democracy" and "public opinion" there. i personally think Rush is a moronic flame-thrower; but, i do sincerely respect what i say above. i'm not being sarcastic.

part of living in a democracy is accepting things you don't agree with.

[King Crimson]

Sorry to burst your bubble.

and BTW, dismissive smarmy little comments like this prove nothing.....since you want to deal in the realm of facts, you might think about that.

[Okla-homey]

Just my opinion mind you, but Rush is first and foremost an entertainer. He often says as much. I think he is influential, but no more than any other celebrity who has access to mass media.

I've listened for years. I'm not a mind-numbed robot and I disagree with him on some issues. Often I agree with him. I believed the Dubai port deal should have been allowed to go through. So did Rush. I think icing it was a very powerful way of telling Arabs we distrust all of them on racial grounds. I think that was a bad move.

Sometimes I disagree with him. No biggy. He's only an entertainer and he doesn't own a monopoly on the truth.

[King Crimson]

Just my opinion mind you, but Rush is first and foremost an entertainer. He often says as much. I think he is influential, but no more than any other celebrity who has access to mass media.

I've listened for years. I'm not a mind-numbed robot and I disagree with him on some issues. Often I agree with him. I believed the Dubai port deal should have been allowed to go through. So did Rush. I think icing it was a very powerful way of telling Arabs we distrust all of them on racial grounds. I think that was a bad move.

Sometimes I disagree with him. No biggy. He's only an entertainer and he doesn't own a monopoly on the truth.

i think that's pretty well said, and i would have liked to edit my post above from "moronic" to "opportunistic"--but, i won't do it formally since it might appear i was dodging something.

yet, by the same token are we totally given over to the idea that politics are a subset of entertainment as well?

[Scott D]

yes, but now we need to get back on topic and no longer speaking of Limbaugh....

[Okla-homey]

i think that's pretty well said, and i would have liked to edit my post above from "moronic" to "opportunistic"--but, i won't do it formally since it might appear i was dodging something.

yet, by the same token are we totally given over to the idea that politics are a subset of entertainment as well?

Isn't politics mostly about satisfying the desires of the most people in order to get and stay elected. Seems to me that entertainers have very similar goals in order to sell tickets or albums in order to get respect in Hollywood or Nashville.

[Okla-homey]

yes, but now we need to get back on topic and no longer speaking of Limbaugh....

absolutely.

[King Crimson]

Isn't politics mostly about satisfying the desires of the most people in order to get and stay elected. .

this raises an important question: is a democratic leader a demogogue (plays to the affections of the people for his/her success, as Clinton did to opinion polls for example)....or a leader in his/her own right based in a set of values, vision and an ethos? Plato's dialogue 'Gorgias' is about this very issue, BTW. though it ends in aporia. perhaps.

is being a citizen (one with rights and duties) the same as being a consumer (who is satisfied by "ratings", as it were)?

anyway, i'm making enchiladas and guac so i'm out of this discussion. be good all..

[Okla-homey]

this raises an important question: is a democratic leader a demogogue (plays to the affections of the people for his/her success, as Clinton did to opinion polls for example)....or a leader in his/her own right based in a set of values, vision and an ethos? Plato's dialogue 'Gorgias' is about this very issue, BTW. though it ends in aporia. perhaps.

is being a citizen (one with rights and duties) the same as being a consumer (who is satisfied by "ratings", as it were)?

anyway, i'm making enchiladas and guac so i'm out of this discussion. be good all..

I'm afraid the Platonic ideal of what a politician should be has never really existed in America. IOW, giving people what they need vice what they want isn't politically viable. A pol has to placate his base or he's toast. People aren't willing to concede that once elected, an official should be free to exercise his best judgment in doing what he thinks is best for the people who elected him. He either sells it, or he sinks.

[Scott D]

I'm afraid the Platonic ideal of what a politician should be has never really existed in America. IOW, giving people what they need vice what they want isn't politically viable. A pol has to placate his base or he's toast. People aren't willing to concede that once elected, an official should be free to exercise his best judgment in doing what he thinks is best for the people who elected him. He either sells it, or he sinks.

I still find the ultimate irony is that we've ended up with essentially the same type of monarchial rule that the founding fathers sought to avoid.

[King Crimson]

I'm afraid the Platonic ideal of what a politician should be has never really existed in America. IOW, giving people what they need vice what they want isn't politically viable. A pol has to placate his base or he's toast. People aren't willing to concede that once elected, an official should be free to exercise his best judgment in doing what he thinks is best for the people who elected him. He either sells it, or he sinks.


i'm not insisting on any "ideal"....i simply state that this conflict is rehearsed in the Gorgias about the role of the sophist vs. "the truth"....and to which the politician serves.....the whims of the people or the pursuit of truth/ethics etc.

nor do i think politicians should have autonomy from the people that elect them....that steers more in the more severe interpretations of "Republic" that have been floating about for the last half decade or so.

back to guac. :D

[handcrafted]

Getting back to Scott D's point: employers and employees dealt with the issue of the need for time off for family medical reasons for 200 + years before FMLA came along. And remember, FMLA is unpaid leave. Thus, the people who really need to use it cannot afford to, myself included. Fortunately, my employer like many other large employers (we have about 2400 people here) has a decent paid annual and sick leave policy, and we're allowed to use sick leave to take care of a family member if needed. All ya gotta do is make sure you don't use all your leave up, and save some for emergencies, and you will never need FMLA.

ScottD, would you advocate making FMLA into mandatory paid leave, like they do in Europe? People in Germany, France, and England all get about 6 weeks of paid leave a year because it's a government requirement.

[StoopTroup]

FMLA has been abused by employers and employees.

You probably wouldn't need it if employers were fair in handling ALL of their employees who have had troubles. I've worked for some very good employers and some very bad. The good ones were flexible and had some very good loyal employees. The bad ones even tried to use the fact that an employee used FMLA to get their co-workers to ostrasize them upon returning to work.

I saw an instance where a guy had hurt his hands in an off-work accident and when he returned to work the employer put him to work using vibrating handtools and rode him about his production until he went on disability.

I know there is alot of abusers out there though.

It's to bad that the abusers give FMLA a bad name and it's to bad we even have to have FMLA too.

[MamaMia]

that's why it wouldn't apply to you ;)
Thank goodness. :)

[BoogercountySooner]

We had a lady at my work who totally abused the system. She took an extra 6 weeks a year off. One time she took off for a boob reduction surgery said her back hurt. Whatever lots of sad men at work after that!

[yermom]

wish i had enough money to take 6 weeks off from work unpaid every year

of course i never use all my paid leave... i just gave away a week's worth to someone else here

[Scott D]

Getting back to Scott D's point: employers and employees dealt with the issue of the need for time off for family medical reasons for 200 + years before FMLA came along. And remember, FMLA is unpaid leave. Thus, the people who really need to use it cannot afford to, myself included. Fortunately, my employer like many other large employers (we have about 2400 people here) has a decent paid annual and sick leave policy, and we're allowed to use sick leave to take care of a family member if needed. All ya gotta do is make sure you don't use all your leave up, and save some for emergencies, and you will never need FMLA.

ScottD, would you advocate making FMLA into mandatory paid leave, like they do in Europe? People in Germany, France, and England all get about 6 weeks of paid leave a year because it's a government requirement.

actually, my concern has never been whether or not it's mandatory paid leave. I didn't have an issue with it being unpaid. What I DID have an issue with is the fact that companies are allowed to be so vague in the conditions of FMLA as to what constitutes a missed day of work.

People in Germany, France, and England also don't have to jump through all of the hoops that Americans do in regards to a work week. Then again, we don't pay $8 per gallon for gas like they do.