FAMILY WATCH : Kind and Gentle, Eh?

President Bush, true to his promise, has vetoed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which would have allowed working mothers and fathers to take a little time off--without pay but without losing a job--to tend to a new baby or newly adopted child, or to care for a seriously ill child, spouse or elderly parent. The veto was a vote against compassion.

The House of Representatives could not muster the votes to override the veto, but the issue is not dead. The chief sponsors, Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), have promised to introduce the measure again and again until unpaid family leave becomes law. Family leave is essential because most parents--including mothers--work outside the home.

In the next round, supporters must persuade business leaders, who fought the measure on the basis of cost, that the costs are much higher in lost earnings when unpaid leave is not permitted. Republican supporters, like Rep. Marge Roukema of New Jersey, must point out again the flaw in the President’s argument. Bush supports parental leave on a voluntary basis, and wants the benefit negotiated between employers and employees. That strategy holds little promise for most workers because fewer than 20% belong to a union.

In his inaugural address, Bush promised a kinder, gentler nation. There is nothing kind or gentle about forcing an employee to choose between holding onto a job or tending to a sick child.