The United States' Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 was an effort to provide national support for families attempting to balance the demands of the workplace and the need to care for a new child, one's own health, or an ill child, spouse, or parent. It is seriously limited, however, in terms of its accessibility for many workers. We briefly compare the FMLA to the substantially broader policies of Western European countries. We highlight its reported benefits to workers but document disparities in employees' use of the FMLA by gender, race, and income level. We evaluate whether employers' fears of higher costs were justified. We point out current challenges that may limit the FMLA further. We close by examining the range of alternative policies in effect at the state level and proposals that would address the current limitations of the FMLA and broaden its coverage.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlauFrancine D.FerberMarianne A., and WinklerAnne E., The Economics of Women, Men, and Work, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2002.
CantorDavidWaldfogelJaneKerwinJeffreyWrightMareena McKinleyLevinKerryRauchJohnHagertyTracey, and KudelaMartha Stapleton, Balancing the Needs of Families and Employers: The Family and Medical Leave Surveys2000 Update, Westat, Rockville, MD, <http://www.dol.gov/asp/fmla/main.htm> 2001.
Irene Padavic and Barbara Reskin, Women and Men at Work, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California, 2002.
7.
HattiangadiAnita U., Paid Family Leave: At What Cost?, Washington D.C.: Employment Policy Foundation, Summary entitled Bringing Up Baby: In Fact and Fallacy, available at <http://www.epf.org/ff/2000/ff20000811.html> 2000.
8.
RuhmChristopher, Policy Watch: The Family and Medical Leave Act, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11: 3, pp. 175–186, 1997.
9.
Anya Bernstein, The Moderation Dilemma: Legislative Coalitions and the Politics of Family and Medical Leave, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2001.
10.
KellyErin and DobbinFrank, Civil Rights Law at Work: Sex Discrimination and the Rise of Maternity Leave Policies, American Journal of Sociology, 105: 2, pp. 455–492, September, 1999.
11.
ElvingRonald D., Conflict & Compromise, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1995.
12.
California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 1987.
13.
MarksMichelle Rose, Party Politics and Family Policy: The Case of the Family and Medical Leave Act, Journal of Family Issues, 18: 1, pp. 55–70, January, 1997.
14.
ElisonSonja Klueck, Policy Innovation in a Cold Climate: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Journal of Family Issues, 18: 1, pp. 30–54, January, 1997.
15.
WaldfogelJane, Family Leave Coverage in the 1990s, Monthly Labor Review, 122: 10, pp. 13–21, October, 1999.
16.
WaldfogelJane, Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from the 2000 Surveys, Monthly Labor Review, 124: 9, pp. 17–23, September, 2001.
17.
Commission on Family and Medical Leave, A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical Leave Policies, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, 1996.
18.
GrosswaldBlanche and ScharlachAndrew, Employee Experiences with Family and Medical Leave: A Case Study, Community, Work & Family, 2: 2, pp. 187–203, 1999.
Naomi Gerstel and Katherine McGonagle, Job Leaves and The Limits of the Family and Medical Leave Act: The Effects of Gender, Race, and Family, Work & Occupations, 26, pp. 510–535, November, 1999.
23.
MicheleI.Naples, Family Leave for Low-Income Working Women: Providing Paid Leave through Temporary Disability Insurance—The New Jersey Case, IWPR Publication #A128, <www.iwpr.org> 2001.
24.
SandbergJohn F. and HofferthSandra L., Changes in Children's Time With Parents: United States, 1981–1997, Demography, 38: 3, pp. 423–436, August, 2001.
HeymannJody, The Widening Gap: Why America's Working Families are in Jeopardy and What Can Be Done About It, Basic Books, New York, 2000.
27.
RichardK.Caputo, Race and Marital History as Correlates of Women's Access to Family-Friendly Employee Benefits, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24: 4, pp. 365–385, 2000.
28.
ChavkinWendy, What's A Mother to Do? Welfare, Work, and Family, American Journal of Public Health, 89, pp 477–479, April, 1999.
AllenTammy D.HerstDavid E. L.BruckCarly S. and SuttonMartha, Consequences Associated With Work-to-Family Conflict: A Review and Agenda for Future Research, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 2, pp. 278–308, 2000.
36.
WaldfogelJaneHiguchiHoshio, and AbeMasahiro, Family Leave Policies and Women's Retention after Childbirth: Evidence from the United States, Britain, and Japan, Journal of Population Economics, 12, pp. 523–545, 1999.
37.
LewisDiane, Leave Law on Brink of Change: Groups Propose to Change the Scope of the FMLA, Boston Globe, February 9, 2003.
38.
GearanAnne, Supreme Court Upholds State Employee Right to Family Leave, Boston Globe, May 27, 2003.
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation, Proposed Rule, Federal Register, 64: 232, December 3, 1999.
42.
AlbeldaRandy and ManuelTiffany, Filling the Work and Family Gap: Paid Parental Leave in Massachusetts, Labor Resource Center, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, 2000.
43.
ShermanElizabeth, Gender Politics in Massachusetts: Progress for Paid Family Leave, New England Journal of Public Policy, pp. 59–80, Fall/Winter, 2001.
44.
Employment Policy Foundation, Paid Parental Leave: A $14 Billion to $128 Billion Entitlement, In Economic Bytes, <http://www.epf.org/ebyte/eb990910.htm> September 10, 1999.
Employment Policy Foundation, Using UI to Fund Parental Leave Could Have Unintended Adverse Consequences, In Economic Bytes, <http://www.epf.org/ebyte/eb990616.htm> June 16, 1999.
47.
Massachusetts Executive Summary, Parental Leave Benefits for Massachusetts Workers, Policy Brief Series, Number 9, August, 2001.
48.
Administration Seeks Repeal of Family Leave Pay, New York Times, December 3, 2002.
49.
Congressional Record-Senate, S.3141, October 17, 2002.
