Balancing Acts : Now, There’s a Safety Net--but Some Can’t Afford It

Suppose someone had a family medical crisis and had to take time off. If he or she was like the vast majority of workers, even a mandated family leave guaranteeing their job wouldn’t help: The person simply couldn’t afford it.

Teacher Dorothy Clark of Los Angeles is among those intended to be covered by the new Family and Medical Leave Act--the Clinton Administration’s first big victory, albeit an imperfect one. The bill doesn’t cover all families, and it doesn’t cover all leaves.

Clark, who has two children, reflects continued skepticism over the new law. “As a teacher,” she says, “I could probably take some time off, but I need the money. The only people who could readily do this are people in households with two incomes, and one not critical for their survival.”

Still, the act is considered a significant advance for America’s workers, in both practical and symbolic terms. Though certainly a last resort, the mandated family leaves put a much-needed safety net under workers with families.

And for all its limitations, the very passage of the law “will make a difference,” says Judith Lichtman, president of the Women’s Legal Defense Fund in Washington. “It’s a breakthrough in that it requires employers to pay attention to the family responsibilities of their workers.”

Sometimes, those responsibilities can leave employees beset by anxiety. Tricia Culkin, an accountant for the Los Angeles County auditor-controller, drew on her vacation and personal days over the past two years when her mother, who died in December, was ill with cancer.

Although Culkin’s 34-year-old daughter helped, and Culkin hired a nurse, “I’m an only child,” she says, “and it was up to me to take care of her. You only have one mother and father, and when they need you, you have to be there for them.”

Fortunately, she adds, “my boss was very supportive and told me not to worry and to take time to do what I had to do. But I did have one supervisor ask me, ‘Is there anyone else who can do it?’ ”

The effect was to leave her uneasy about the time she took off. “If the family leave bill had been law then, I would have felt I had an option,” she says.

Under the new act, all companies with more than 50 employees must allow them up to 12 weeks a year unpaid leave for illness, or to care for a sick family member, a newborn or a newly adopted child. Their medical benefits must be continued in the interim, and they are guaranteed their job or an equivalent one on their return. Eligible employees must, however, have a year’s tenure on the job and work at least 25 hours a week.

It’s not a new idea. Thirty-two states have some form of family, parental or medical leave, if rarely all three. California, for example, has paid maternity leaves of 6 to 8 weeks under state disability insurance, and as of January, 1992, adopted a family leave act requiring businesses with more than 50 employees to provide up to 4 months’ unpaid leave in a two-year period--so Culkin actually need not have worried. The federal law provides a standardized package, but certainly doesn’t preclude more generous provisions on a state level.

There are also limitations, the greatest of which is the number of workers covered. The statistics cited are variable, though most define America as a small-business country: Only 5% of American businesses have more than 50 employees--but they account for anywhere from 44% to 60% of American workers.

Even with the new law, people not now confronting such a crisis say, money is the critical factor.

“I would be able to take off a maximum of two months--that’s using all of my sick time and all of my vacation time,” says Maria Aslan, 34, a management aide for the Los Angeles Police Department, and single parent to a 4-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son. “It would be extremely difficult to take time off without pay.”

Aslan says she could do it, although not without drawing on her family for support. “This is an issue that’s not just about a parent caring for a child or a daughter taking time off to care for a mother or father,” she says. “(It) involves bringing in the entire family, making compromises, and luckily, I would be able to get that support.

“The bill is an out, or an option in order for you to have a little more time than what is given to you by your employer--that is, if you can afford it.” she continues. “That’s the real question here.”

It’s one question, say experts, but not the only one. The act doesn’t address other critical issues either.

“It doesn’t address the question of long-term, day-in, day-out care,” says Martha Bial, a gerontological social worker in New York. “But it can help you deal with the emergencies that come up, crises such as having to fly across the country and arrange for nursing-home care of an elderly parent.

“There are people who’ll put it all together and decide they can’t afford to take that time off,” she says. “Or maybe they’ll weigh their income needs against the family emergency and decide to take 6 weeks off, but not 12.”

The bill’s backers concede that it didn’t--and perhaps couldn’t--answer the problem of financial drain on a worker. But the point of the bill “is job security, not income security,” argues Lichtman.

Many people facing a family crisis may find themselves with no choice, no luxury of weighing options. “They’re going to have to take off anyway, forced to take the unpaid leave,” says Dan Buck, administrative assistant to Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), one of the bill’s supporters. “But they will at least not be fired; their job will be safe.”

When people suffer, or even imagine a family crisis, job security often has been the primary concern. Vicki and George Yandle, the Georgia couple invited to join Clinton at the legislation’s signing, both lost their jobs when they had to take time off to care for an ill daughter. He, at least, worked for a company with more than 50 employees--a car dealership--and would probably have benefited from the law.

The Yandles were not an isolated case. In such situations, says Lichtman, “there are tremendous numbers of job loss examples. We’ve had instances of people losing jobs because they adopted children, their companies covered childbirth but not adoption, and the agency required them to take time off. We’ve had them lose jobs to take care of sick children. We’ve had them lose jobs because they went to another state to take care of an elderly parent--a matter of days, not weeks.”

And even if the family leave act doesn’t engender further, more inclusive laws, it might influence voluntary action.

“I think the hope is that as companies understand that it’s in their economic interest, that it helps their bottom line in terms of increased productivity and morale,” says Lichtman, “more and more will provide family leave benefits.”

For now, the family leave bill is “a very symbolic move by President Clinton,” says Josie Galindo, 25, whose husband is a part-time driver for a messenger service. “I think it is a good idea, and I’m glad that it’s there, because it provides me with job security.”

The receptionist at El Centro Human Services in Commerce qualifies for the provisions outlined in the legislation, but adds, “I couldn’t afford to take the time off. I consider myself middle-class--and that’s where I fall, right in the middle. I don’t make enough money to be without three months of pay. I wouldn’t be able to pay the rent.”

Still, she says if push came to shove, she would take the time off without pay to take care of her kids, ages 2 and 6.

“I’d take the time off and probably go into hock for them, but at least I would feel secure that my job would be there when I came back,” says Galindo. “At least I’d have that income to help me pay the bills.”