A Boost for Families

In 1993, when Congress passed the original family leave act, politics required that the time off be unpaid. But many workers cannot afford even a few days of unpaid leave. In today’s robust economy, President Clinton is taking a good and modest next step: allowing states to pay unemployment benefits to workers during family leaves after the birth or adoption of a baby.

Under new Labor Department regulations ordered by the president, states can provide unemployment checks “on a voluntary, experimental basis to parents who take approved leave or who otherwise leave employment following the birth or placement” of a child for adoption.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, strongly opposing the idea, predicts a huge rise in payroll taxes paid by employers. The chamber and two other business groups are suing to repeal the new regulations, charging that they violate federal laws that reserve unemployment benefits for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own and are actively looking for work. The chamber also argues that the proposed payments go against the intent of Congress when it passed the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows employees of businesses with 50 or more workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave. However, business groups predicted that severe workplace disruptions would result from the original act, and their objections now should be judged in light of how far off that forecast was.

So far, four states--Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont and Washington--have asked to try the program, though they have not yet passed enabling legislation. Other states, also awash in unemployment insurance funds stemming from a booming economy and tight job market, are considering extending the benefits.

No such change is pending in California, where the work force dwarfs that of every other state. But a law sponsored last year by state Sen. Hilda Solis (D-La Puente) requires a study of the cost of extending to family leave the state’s disability insurance program, which is paid for by workers, not employers. The study’s results are due in mid-July.

Since the federal law took effect, an estimated 24 million workers have taken unpaid leave to care for new babies, newly adopted children or sick parents or to recover from an illness. One in 10 needed to go on welfare during the leave. Other workers simply could not afford to take time off without pay.

Clinton is right to set a goal of giving basic support to families during leaves and to let states decide the issue. However, whether employers or workers--or both--should finance the payments deserves full examination.