Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FMLA is now 20 years old and was cited by a poster in another thread as a major accomplishment of Pres. Clinton. I think that if you are a good employee, your employer is by definition profiting from your presence, and it is going to be in his/her interest to bend over backwards to accommodate you. No law needed.
In my experience, FMLA is widely abused by people who don't want to work. The same people who call in sick when they are not, are those who claim FMLA. My co-worker and friend who is nonetheless the laziest guy on the planet maxes out his FMLA every year. Combined with the FLSA time and one half provision, this can, mean an increased labor cost for employers. Econ 101 says that this means less employment.
FMLA, like most labor regulations, drives employers towards automation, increases unemployment, and reduces opportunity for those at the bottom of the ladder.
??? Given that you need a doctor's say so to get FMLA, it is possible your friend is ill or is taking care of someone who is ill. I know somone who had to get FMLA for herself and for someone she was taking care of due to a crazy boss who wouldn't let her get the time off she needed. He then got forced to.
My experience is the complete opposite. The only people I ever know to have used FMLA are those who are either going through serious illness themselves or caring for a family member who is.
I live and die by it. When I was diagnosed with cancer, I didn't qualify for FMLA (had only been working a few months) and had to work full time against doctor's orders through treatment to not only pay for my medical bills, but also keep my insurance. I might have been able to take at least the last month off when I was so sick that my being at work was really more of a matter of show than production had I had FMLA coverage.
Now I am counting down to my next scan, and have discovered a new lump. This doesn't necessarily mean anything (and I almost always do right before a scan - stress causing phantom tumors or something) but if it DOES mean something, that something is intense chemo and a bone marrow transplant that will keep me out of work for months. While my employer does value me and my contributions, not to mention that most of what I can do can be done from either the hospital or home, I don't trust them to not let me go. Who can nowadays?
FMLA is now 20 years old and was cited by a poster in another thread as a major accomplishment of Pres. Clinton. I think that if you are a good employee, your employer is by definition profiting from your presence, and it is going to be in his/her interest to bend over backwards to accommodate you. No law needed.
In my experience, FMLA is widely abused by people who don't want to work. The same people who call in sick when they are not, are those who claim FMLA. My co-worker and friend who is nonetheless the laziest guy on the planet maxes out his FMLA every year. Combined with the FLSA time and one half provision, this can, mean an increased labor cost for employers. Econ 101 says that this means less employment.
FMLA, like most labor regulations, drives employers towards automation, increases unemployment, and reduces opportunity for those at the bottom of the ladder.
The bold works in theory, but not in practice. Employers sometimes shoot themselves in the foot over "rules".
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 11-29-2013 at 05:38 PM..
I am for FMLA, but not paid FMLA. In our organization FMLA provides for your absence, but not your pay. So, unless you have PTO saved, and/or meet the disability insurance, you won't be paid. And if you're on LWOP long enough - you can also lose other benefits eligibility or company portion paid, etc. So I find it's kind of hard to 'abuse' FMLA really. Yet, I have used it (intermittent FMLA) to care for a family member, and it's just a very nice provision to have, when needed.
However, I think paid FMLA (of up to 12 or 16 weeks) would be an undue hardship on employers. It takes a couple years of leave accrual to build up a couple months of paid leave. So by the time you have that - you've likely shown your dedication, performance, etc.
I'm conservative - did not vote for Bill Clinton - but I do agree with FMLA.
The issues arises when people still get paid for being off.
There is a clear distinction between being paid while off and not being off.
I think its obvious if you stop getting paid after say 6 weeks and if employer still says fine take off as much time as you need; you just won't get paid for it. It changes the mindset of 99.9% of people rather quickly.
I find FMLA more widely abused in government/state jobs rather than private employers for obviously reasons.
Many peeps have accrued tons of sick time. And their jobs have liberal leave policy they can tack on Family leave while tending to sick love one. People will use up as many days as possible just because they can.
I'm fine with a woman taking 3 months off for a baby. I'm fine with people taking 3-6 months off for real surgery. I am not fine with someone abusing the policy and taking 6 weeks off with minor hernia surgery and having a desk job that's not very hard on the body.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
