Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FMLA Comments 2008

FMLA Comments 2008

Ratings: (0)|Views: 56|Likes:
IFL's comments on the Labor Department's proposal to change the regulations governing family and medical leave.
IFL's comments on the Labor Department's proposal to change the regulations governing family and medical leave.

More info:

Published by: The Institute for Liberty on Jan 10, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less


April 11, 2008The Honorable Victoria A. LipnicAssistant Secretary for Employment StandardsEmployment Standards AdministrationU.S. Department of Labor, Room S2321200 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20210Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov
RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (73 Fed.Reg. 7876)
Dear Assistant Secretary Lipnic:The Institute for Liberty (IFL) thanks you for the opportunity to offer comments on theDepartment of Labor’s (DOL) proposal to change its regulations under the Family and MedicalLeave Act (FMLA). The Institute for Liberty is a non-profit 501c(4) organization. We focus onfederal executive branch policy, specifically the intersection of regulatory policy and small business and entrepreneurship.The rulemaking at hand is an important one. Labor regulations, because of their pervasivenature, impact the widest cross-section of small businesses. While not as complex asenvironmental or occupational safety and health regulations, they nevertheless require a certaindegree of expertise. In fact, it is well-recognized that the first regulatory “professional” hired bya small business
someone skilled in labor and employment law.We were encouraged by the fact that DOL is considering changes to the FMLA. The initialregulations under FMLA were conceived fifteen years ago, and it is important for agencies to re-open and re-examine regulations from time to time. We were less encouraged, however, by thesubstance of the proposed reforms, as they fail to correct two key deficiencies in the underlyingregulatory regime.
The Definition of “Serious Health Condition”
The FMLA's medical leave has not worked as intended due to the DOLs implementingregulations and interpretations. The Labor Department has been inconsistent and vague in itsregulations and opinion letters leaving employers and employees guessing as to what the agencyand the courts will deem to be a “serious” health condition.One year, the Department issued an opinion letter stating that the cold, the flu and non-migraineheadaches were not serious health conditions (Wage and Hour Opinion Letter, FMLA-57, April7, 1995). The next year, the DOL issued an opinion letter stating that they might be (Wage and
Hour Opinion Letter, FMLA-86, December 12, 1996). This has been very confusing to bothemployers and employees.The Labor Department should also rescind Wage and Hour Serious Health Condition OpinionLetter #86 which has caused enormous confusion in the workplace.In terms of “serious health conditions”, the SBA’s Office of Advocacy had the following to say:DOLs FMLA regulations section 825.114(c) states that “ordinarily, unless complications arise,the common cold, the flu, earaches, upset stomach, minor ulcers… etc., are examples of conditions that do not meet the definition of a serious health condition and do not qualify for FMLA leave.”
In 1996, DOL issued conflicting opinion letter 86,codified in section 825.114(a),which stated that these minor health conditions could meet the criteria for a serious healthcondition if there was a period of incapacity for more than three days and treatment by a healthcare provider. Advocacy recommends that DOL consider reforming the definition of a “serioushealth condition” pursuant to small business comments.Although DOL did not clarify the definition of a “serious health condition,” Advocacy doessupport DOLs proposal to clarify the time frames for practitioner’s visits that would qualify as a“continuing treatment” for two definitions of a serious health condition: incapacity in excess of three consecutive days and chronic conditions.
Under DOLs proposals, for a period of incapacityof more than three consecutive calendar days, the proposal clarifies that an employee must havetwo visits to a health care provider within 30 days of the beginning of the period of incapacityunless extenuating circumstances exist. For chronic conditions, the proposal clarifies that“periodic visits” to a health care provider is defined as twice or more a year. Advocacy is pleasedthat DOL is clarifying these terms that have open-ended time frames in the current regulations, because it provides guidance to the business community and may lead to less abuse of these provisions by employees. Advocacy recommends that DOL consider additional reforms of these provisions recommended by small business representatives.
Intermittent Leave Under the FMLA
The FMLA's intermittent leave regulations have also been unnecessarily problematic and havediverted important resources. Allowing an employer to require an employee to take intermittentleave in increments of one-half of a work day would ease the burden significantly for employers both in terms of necessary paperwork and with respect to being able to cover efficiently for employees who are absent. Moreover, the total allotted time allowed for incremental leave presents an unreasonable burden on the productivity for a small business.We believe that for far too long, agencies have gotten away with making incremental changes toregulations, because they have no requirement to assess those incremental changes in the contextof overall regulatory burden, despite the fact that it is these incremental changes that present thegreatest difficulties for a small business.
In this instance, DOL believes that because they are mandating “unpaid” leave, there is little or no direct monetary cost to the small business. But simply because the businesses aren’t payingdirectly for this leave does not mean that there is no cost. Far from it. If we take the 50employee number, and multiply it by 40 hours of unpaid leave, we are left with 2000 hours.2000 hours is one year of time for a “full-time equivalent”. Essentially, a business is losing oneemployee’s productive time. Let’s assume for a moment that an average employee for this firmcontributes $100 per hour to the firm’s ultimate bottom line. This means that the firm would belosing $200,000.
The Need for A Section 610 Review
Because of the potential for increased burdens on small business, IFL recommends that the DOLconduct a review of the FMLA’s current burden on small business, pursuant to Section 610 of theRegulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The lookback provisions of Section 610 are an essential toolin helping to ensure that small businesses are protected from an overbearing regulatory state. AsAdvocacy has stated:Section 610 of the RFA requires agencies to retrospectively review all regulations which have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within 10 yearsof their adoption as final rules. The purpose of this review is to determine whether such rulesshould be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with thestated objectives of applicable statues, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rulesupon a substantial number of small entities.Under a Section 610 review, the agency shall consider the following factors: (1) the continuedneed for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmentrules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which thetechnology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->