Introduction
February 5th 1993 marked the date when the first ever Family Medical Leave Act was appended into law by the former US president Bill Clinton. The bill had passing through the Congress for considerable length of time without success. However, it was eventually adopted as a binding piece of legislation affecting all employees in public institutions and well established private organizations.
The Family Medical Leave Act
The law limits the employees from having a free will to go for their medical or family leaves while at the same time being paid (Lewison,1993). Additionally, employers are protected in the sense that the leave period is not paid and that employees are supposed to give a thirty day notice prior going to their leave. The Act took effect from August 1993 for the majority of workers who were under the unionized workforce.
The content of the law has it that employees are legally allowed to take 3 month leave which is equivalent to 12 weeks out of which they will be away from work stations attending to personal duties like birth which requires a child to be taken care of, or for a serious sick condition of a relative or an individual which may require extra medical attention (Rotondi, 2007). The employee’s health condition must be such serious that he or she cannot attend to duties at work place. Upon the expiry of the leave period, the employee is entitled to their original job or an alternative position which does not degrade their former status. There are some cases when the leave period may be adjusted accordingly but this is subject to the agreement between the employer and employee.
Additionally, the law permits employers to direct employees to embrace a six week leave which is usually paid or alternatively take the yearly leave (Lewison, 1993). The two options can serve the purpose of taking the unpaid 12 week leave. This legislation covers workers within the federal government public service as well as the local government and the individual states.
In executing this law, there are categories of workers who are exempted. Nevertheless, the organization may not be exempted from the Act. In this regard, it is irrational to treat lowly paid workers the same way as those who are highly compensated. A company must therefore clearly state that by denying exemption to these groups of workers, who receive the least compensation, it (the company) would run at substantial loss. It is the responsibility of the employers to ascertain that no worker is denied leave against the provisions of the law (Lewison, 1993).
On the other hand, the employer is entitled to pay all the due benefits to the employee as if the latter was at work in spite of the unpaid leave period. On the same note, employers are also protected by the same law in the sense that they may require valid medical proof from their employees which has been verified by a doctor (Rotondi 2007). This is imperative to ensure that employers do not go at a loss for fake leave period taken by their workers. The medical verification may be carried out by more than one doctor should there be doubts on the authenticity of the results.
Finally, the enforcement of this law and the associated penalties is under the mandate of the Department of Labor. All disputes emanating from the breach of this Act are resolved by this department under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor. Although the Act seems to be complex in its execution, it is necessary that relevant amendments be introduced into regularly to address any factual or unforeseen anomalies (Rotondi 2007).
References
Lewison, J. (1993). Family and medical leave bill becomes law.Journal of Accountancy, 175(5), 22. Web.
Rotondi A. J. (2007). Family Medical Leave Act. Regulation: Spring: 30(1) 4.