Family Leave Law Costs Them Little, Employers Find : Workplace: Despite Administration contentions to the contrary, even small firms say it rarely poses an economic hardship.

Despite protests from business lobbyists over a family leave bill approved by Congress, employers in California and other states with similar laws say they rarely pose economic hardships, even for the smallest companies affected.

President Bush is expected as soon as this week to veto the labor-backed bill, which would provide employees of firms with 50 or more workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family or personal medical emergencies.

The Bush Administration and business groups have objected to the legislation largely on principle, arguing that leaves and other benefits should be negotiated between employers and workers and not mandated by the government. They note that many companies already have adopted leave policies voluntarily.

But opponents have also blocked family leave legislation on the grounds that such laws would eliminate jobs by foisting a costly burden on some employers, particularly small firms, and could lead to abuses by workers. Yet researchers and employers in the more than 20 states, including California, that already provide leaves commonly find that employee leaves do not significantly raise payroll costs, promote abuses or pose big scheduling problems.

“It’s hard to see why someone would be against this,” said Cornell University economist Eileen Trzcinski, whose research on family leave policies includes a study she co-authored for the U.S. Small Business Administration.

In California, where one of the nation’s most expansive leave laws took effect in January, “there’s nothing controversial” about the measure, said Patricia S. Cartwright, a lawyer who specializes in employee benefits for the consulting firm William M. Mercer Inc.

Cartwright said her firm, which surveyed 268 of its California clients about the state’s leave law, found that employers “have not been feeling this is a great, terrible burden.” And, she added, “they’re hearing from employees that they need these benefits.”

In fact, she said, many employers have adopted the California standards for their operations in other states too.

Even small California employers say the law normally isn’t a big problem. Thomas E. Hagerman, president of a 50-employee company in Santa Fe Springs that manufactures home accessories, said even before the California law was adopted he obliged workers who requested leaves.

“We’ve always done it, because you want to have your good people come back, and you don’t want to train someone else,” he said. When lesser employees take leaves, he added, “you don’t miss them.”

Hagerman, who also heads a small-business group campaigning for the overhaul of California’s workers’ compensation system, said the leave issue gets trickier when an employee with specialized skills requests time off. Temporary help agencies, he noted, often can’t supply those types of workers.

But the only time Hagerman was faced with that situation--when a tooling expert requested a leave to be with his expectant wife--it was easily resolved: the employee was gone only a week, so he didn’t get far behind on his work.

“Had we been really busy and had a lot of jobs, it could have been a problem,” Hagerman said. But all told, he said the leave issue “has been an inconvenience, but it hasn’t been a killer.”

Generous leave policies yield payoffs in the form of improved morale, personnel specialists say. By the same token, they say, denying reasonable requests for leaves builds resentment.

For example, Karen Holmes got an ultimatum from her boss eight years ago when she requested time off to care for her ailing daughter. Her boss at the time, Holmes recalled, told her sternly that “your job should come first, and you should decide whether you’re going to be a mother or an employee of this company.”

She took a couple of days off anyway, her daughter got better and the boss backed down. But for Holmes, now the human resources manager for the 125-employee American Express office in Culver City, the incident left a lasting impression; she is a strong advocate of leave policies such as the one at her current company.

Holmes said her American Express office copes with leaves by using transfers, part-timers and temporary staffers, along with having full-time employees work overtime or different schedules. The savings from not paying the workers while they are on leave roughly covers the cost of replacing them, she said.

Both the California law and the federal proposal are intended to let workers take time off, without fear of demotion or dismissal, to care for a sick child, spouse or parent. They also provide time off for childbirth and adoption.

There are some significant differences between the California law and the federal proposal. California provides for four months of unpaid leave, versus 12 weeks under the federal proposal. On the other hand, the federal measure would grant workers leaves to seek medical care for themselves, whereas state law does not provide for personal medical emergencies.

That feature could provide welcome help to workers who fall ill. A recent Cornell study found that more than 300,000 workers who suffered temporary but serious illnesses have lost their jobs since June, 1990, when President Bush vetoed a previous leave bill that would have protected them.

The study also concluded that businesses wasted $500 million on hiring and training new workers instead of holding the jobs of sick workers until they could return.

But Tracy Wurzel, a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business, ridiculed that finding. She argued that it assumes government knows better than business what is the most efficient way to run a company. “No employer wants to lose a quality employee. It’s lunacy,” she said.

To make leave laws more palatable for business groups, various exemptions are included. For instance, reasonable notice is required under the federal proposal. Also, the proposed federal law would not apply to employees who work less than 25 hours a week or who rank among the top 10% in pay at their companies.

Consequently, about 50% of U.S. employees would not be guaranteed leaves under the federal bill.

As a practical matter, not many employees feel they can afford to take lengthy unpaid leaves anyway, particularly amid the current weak economy.

San Francisco management lawyer W. Daniel Clinton said “it’s not a decision an employee is going to take lightly . . . We really haven’t seen any abuses.”

The House of Representatives passed the leave bill last week by a 241-161 vote, short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. The Senate passed the measure last month in a voice vote.

(Southland Edition) California’s Family Care Leave Law

The California Family Rights Act of 1991, which took effect in January, guarantees workers up to four months of unpaid, job-protected leave for family medical emergencies.

Eligibility: Employees of firms with 50 or more workers who have worked for their current companies for at least 25 hours a week for one year. But employees who either rank among the top 10% in pay or who are among the five highest-paid at their work location are exempt. Companies also may turn down a leave request when it would cause an “undue hardship.”

Limits: The maximum amount of family care leave that can be taken is four months within a rolling 24-month period. If combined with a pregnancy-related disability leave of absence, the maximum overall time off is five months.

Key Differences From Federal Bill: California provides for four months of unpaid leave, versus 12 weeks under the federal proposal. The federal measure would grant workers leave to seek medical care for themselves, whereas state law does not.

Sources: Corbett & Kane law firm in Emeryville, Calif., and the Los Angeles office of the William M. Mercer Inc. consulting firm.

--- UNPUBLISHED NOTE ---

The Southland edition chart on California’s Family Care Leave Law is in error--the first sentence of the second paragraph should read: “Eligibility: Employees of firms with 50 or more workers who have worked for their current companies for one year.”

--- END NOTE ---