FMLA and pay

1945599 · June 2009

Has anyone heard anything about pending legislation that would require employers to pay for time off under FMLA?

I know that we can require that vacation time, pto, and sick leave be used but I'm being told that the pending legislation is going to require all time off under FMLA be paid.

joannie · June 2009

I have heard paid FMLA is being considered. Also under consideration is mandatory sick leave. I believe the number of days suggested is seven. In my opinion, both will be likely if EFCA passes. I see stormy waters on the horizon for Human Resource professionals.

Dutch2 · June 2009

Received the following yesterday:
On March 18, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced the Healthy Families Act (HFA) to the House of Representatives. If passed, the law will require companies with at least 15 employees to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave a year. Both full- and part-time workers would be eligible. They’d earn an hour of leave for every 30 they work, accruing up to 56 hours in a 12-month period. Employees would start accruing leave as soon as they’re hired and could use it after 60 days. Workers would be able to use the time to care for themselves or a family member who’s ill. The law allows employers to ask for proof from a doctor. Companies could also be sued for retaliating against an employee who uses sick days.

The bill states that employers already meeting the requirements of the law won’t have to offer additional leave. However, experts say it’s not clear what this means for employers with all-purpose paid time off plans, with no distinction between vacation and sick days.

What chance does the bill have of passing? In the House, the HFA has 101 co-sponsors and the support of the Democrat majority. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is expected to introduce a companion bill in the Senate soon.

Similar legislation was proposed in 2007 but was stalled, partially due to a veto threat from President Bush. However, Obama has vocally supported the bill and will sign it if it’s passed by Congress.

ACU Frank · June 2009

It's too early to know whether this will finally get traction - it hasn't even come close to passing previously. (Rep. DeLauro has introduced this bill each year since 2005; this year's flavor was actually introduced May 18.)

Some other key points:

It requires you to allow sick leave to be used for the illness of the employee's minor child; it only allows you to require a doctor's note after the third day; and the bill has actually grown substantially over the years as DeLauro attempts to gain support by padding it with additional allowances, such as requiring employers to let employees use sick time for court or social services appearances related to the threat of domestic abuse.

On its face, this appears to be a pretty good example of what I've been talking about for a few weeks - laws that are good for society as a whole but may create a little extra work for HR. It's easy for me to support it - our leave policy is so tortuous and convoluted, this law would actually vastly simplify my job while adding very little expense. It might even be enough to push the organization to adopt PTO. That's a major win for everyone here - including me.

I've included a link to the actual bill itself. I would really encourage everyone here to become more familiar with it... if it does pass, it will impact almost everyone in some manner. Most employers will not be impacted substantially, but I would expect a lot of employees to develop a lot of misconceptions about what is required or what is forbidden by the Act. Well-informed is well-armed in the battle of perceptions.

[URL]http://www.employerlawreport.com/uploads/file/Healthy Families Act.pdf[/URL]

Irie · June 2009

Advocates of this type of leave tout the fact that employees can't take time off if they are sick and are forced to come to work for fear of losing their job.

While I sympathize with employees who have no sick time and have no problem with sick time if it is used for the employee only, the structure of the new leave it seems is to allow employees to take time off when the guy down the street gets sick. If proposed leave would be for the employee only, I would say pass the entitlement. However, the group that this leave encompasses merely gives people more excuses to take time off.

In my opinion, FMLA is enough to cover family members; we don't need to give more free days so people can stay home.

ACU Frank · June 2009

[quote=Irie;716388]
In my opinion, FMLA is enough to cover family members; we don't need to give more free days so people can stay home.[/quote]

FMLA is not a practical solution in the vast majority of cases involving the illness of an employee's child.

JAthey · June 2009

Although the HFA uses language that is similar to much of the language used in the FMLA, it does not amend the FMLA. It is a totally free-standing law. The biggest difference - apart from that it applies to employers who have as few as 15 employees - is that employees would start accruing sick leave under the HFA immediately upon hire and be eligible to use the amount accrued within 60 days of being hired. That is obviously very different from the FMLA's employee eligibility requirements of having worked for the employer for 12 months and putting in at least 1,250 hours within the past year.

Julie Athey
Author, FMLA Compliance: Practical Solutions for HR (published by M. Lee Smith Publishers)
Author, HRQ&A: Family and Medical Leave Act (published by M. Lee Smith Publishers)

Sharon McKnight SPHR · June 2009

To 1945599,

I remember reading something recently about paid FMLA for federal employees only. Could this be what you're thinking of?

Sharon

ACU Frank · June 2009

Hey 1945599 -

Were your parents math teachers, numerologists, or just plain mean?

KSR6450 · June 2009

Or is it something like the numbers on "Lost" - do they have mystical powers? I am one to talk, when I used the last four digits of my sister's social...

NaeNae55 · June 2009

Not to interrupt the fun, but if I remember right the new law they are trying to pass would work something like the one in Caifornia. There employees paid a tax for a year before the leave part became effective, and their fmla paid time off came out of that fund. However, as my children will tell you, my memory is not necessarily reliable.

ACU Frank · June 2009

Ha! I am SO going to steal her identity! Then, when people see us together, they will think we are sisters. They'll say, "There goes Linda, and her crazy sister what's-her-name with the mustache and no pants."

CAllen · June 2009

[QUOTE=NaeNae55;716408]Not to interrupt the fun, but if I remember right the new law they are trying to pass would work something like the one in Caifornia. There employees paid a tax for a year before the leave part became effective, and their fmla paid time off came out of that fund. However, as my children will tell you, my memory is not necessarily reliable.

[/QUOTE]

(also interrupting fun...)
Nae,
Are you referring to PFL (Paid Family Leave)? 1/2004 we all started contributing more into the state disability fund and starting 7/2004, employees can take up to 6 weeks off every year at 55% of their income supplemented from that fund for qualified purposes. FMLA can run concurrently with PFL.

Irie · June 2009

Could that be one of the reasons why the state of California is broke?

NaeNae55 · June 2009

I think CAllen has it. The employees were taxed 1% or something and that is what funded the leaves.

1945599 · June 2009

It's a very short answer. When I first joined the forum there was some mix up in my pass word. Very simple really, the year of my birth, the year of my first car, with an extra 9 tossed in to make it long enough.

System · June 2009

Here's an article from last Friday's HR Hero Line about a couple of other bills that have been introduced that would make changes to FMLA.

[url]http://www.hrhero.com/hl/061909-tip-FMLA.html[/url]

FMLA and pay

Comments