The StartUp Blog at PartnerUp

DISCLAIMER: This is a business-friendly blog, and I am a business-friendly person. The opinions expressed in the following post, however, are slightly left of the middle. Having said that, I encourage you all to hear me out from beginning to end before reaching for your torches and pitch forks. If you disagree, please post your comments.

Since it was signed into law in 1993, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has encountered a whirlwind of opposition from small business advocacy groups, particularly the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). I understand why the NFIB feels compelled to reject such legislation because of its implications for small business, but I can’t say that I necessarily agree.

In its original form the FMLA requires that businesses of 50 or more employees allow up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for reasons such as child birth, adoption or a serious health condition of an employee or an immediate family member of an employee, according to the Department of Labor. Earlier this year President Bush expanded the FMLA for the first time in 15 years to provide two new provisions for military FMLA leave. Then just a few weeks ago the House passed a bill that could create a new paid leave component of the FMLA.

The NFIB argues that expanding the FMLA “will drastically increase the amount of paperwork and money a small business owner must spend to comply, potentially affecting other benefits offered or their ability to grow their business and add new jobs.” I don’t disagree with this argument. There is certainly the potential for an increase in paperwork and expenses. In fact, it’s a probability, and that’s not fair to the small business community—though I do think it’s far-fetched propaganda to say that business owners won’t be able to grow their businesses or add jobs just because of the FMLA.

My problem with outright opposition to the FMLA, however, lies in the fact that it is a devaluation of the importance of the health and well-being of employees and their family lives in comparison to business and economics, or at least that’s the message it sends. Which is really more important? Business and economics are critical components of American life. There’s no doubt about it. But they don’t surpass the importance of health and family, at least not for me, and probably not for most other American workers. The NFIB is concerned with the burden such a law might place on businesses, and rightfully so, but then business owners need to be concerned with the personal burdens that are placed on employees and their families in the absence of adequate family and medical leave programs.

In an ideal world the FMLA would be unnecessary because all businesses, large and small, would offer their employees progressive family and medical leave programs. All business owners would realize that a good family and medical leave policy is a benefit that often makes for loyal employees, particularly where female employees are concerned. Quality professionals flock to companies that show concern for their employees by providing such benefits. Not only that, it’s great for public relations.

My issue though, is that we don’t live in an ideal world. Instead we live in a world where many small businesses don’t offer any kind of family and medical leave, and employees don’t have the luxury of shopping around for jobs that do. As a female I would hate to some day be in a position where I was in fear of losing my job because I wished to take an extended maternity leave and my company didn’t want me to. Or if a family member fell seriously ill, I would never want to have to say, “Sorry, I can’t be there for you because I can’t leave my job for an extended period of time.”

My point here isn’t to necessarily advocate for the FMLA. It’s to advocate for family and medical leave programs in general. If small business owners  feel that it’s unfair to have to pay added expenses because of government-mandated leave policy, which I tend to agree with, then they need to be willing to implement family and medical leave programs of their own because it’s also not fair to employees to work for a company that doesn’t provide for those kinds of personal needs.

I also think that the NFIB needs to step back and take a look at family and medical leave in a broader sense. First of all, the FMLA as it stands does not affect the smallest of small businesses (fewer than 50 employees), which would be most drastically affected by the legislation. On top of that, the leave is only 12 weeks at most and is unpaid. Therefore I believe that the FMLA is merely a thorn in the side of business, not anything life threatening. It was passed 15 years ago and small businesses are still thriving.  Second of all, family and medical leave policy in America is drastically more lenient than in many European countries. For example, France boasts the most family-friendly (and strict) leave policy in the world. All French employers are obligated to allow for up to three years of leave, much of which is paid, following the birth or adoption of a child. And that’s only the beginning of their policy.

These recent developments in American family and medical leave policy could potentially set the stage for future FMLA expansions, but not without resistance from the NFIB and the small business community. What we in the small business community need to consider, however, is what we are really fighting. Are we fighting against having to spend our money for a government mandated policy? Or are we fighting for the freedom to implement our own competitive leave programs? I sincerely hope it is the latter.