Introduction
Important changes in the understanding and management of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) have been developed in the past 10 to 15 years. Various researchers, practitioners and policymakers now acknowledge that leaves for workers can be conceptualized from a functional perspective and that appropriate interventions involve the development of alternative measures to cope up. It was also noted that the establishment of a conducive environment for employment have served effectively in lowering the prevalence of underachievement among workers. At present, this philosophical shift has extended to various settings, including multinational companies and organizations. Managers and directors here have recognized that most of their employees do need to take leaves over the course of the year in order to recuperate from illnesses or to take care for a sick family member. Hence, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was enacted under the term of former US president Bill Clinton as his government's alternative way of mitigating these expectations of employees.
All companies and organizations are governed by their basic goals and objectives. These objectives are often regarded to as the "corporate vision" or "corporate philosophy" (Condrey, 2001). Thus, certain strategies are being implemented with the aim of achieving these goals and objectives, and this constitutes a key element in the characterization of a company or organization. Personnel are undoubtedly an important indicator in determining the characteristics of a company or organization.
It is a well known fact that human resources play a crucial role towards differentiation and a potent source of competitiveness for any organization or company. Therefore, any organization must constantly comply in the implementation of the (FMLA) even during periods of recession. However, the determination of the extent to which an organization can invest in terms of the implementation of the (FMLA) depends on the financial capabilities of the company or organization (Ulrich, 2004). Finances will also be carefully considered in determining the target for ample benefits and compensations, because it should jive with the basic policies of an organization's human resource development strategy.
Law Synopsis
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which became effective in August 5, 1993, applies to companies with an employee base of 50 persons or higher. The statute provides for the allowance accorded by employers to their employees in taking leaves of absence for twelve weeks within a twelve month working period for the following reasons: child birth and neonatal care, child placement due to foster care or adoption, serious illness of spouse, children or parents, and serious health condition of the employee preventing him/her from performing essential employment functions. Since the implementation of the statute several issues have been raised by employers and employees alike covering the applicability of the law and the consistency of its provisions with other employment welfare legislations. (US Department of Labor, 2006)
Review of Related Literature
The implementation of the (FMLA) in most organizations and companies in the past decade has gradually transformed from low-level activities into high-profile contributors to organizational success (Connolly et al. 2002). However, budgets are also elevating at a faster rate than the gross national product. In the midst of this growth and increased influence, managers and executives of companies and organizations are left with confusing question: To what extent should be invested in the implementation of the (FMLA)? Definitely the answer won't be easy, especially because the actual levels of expenditures needed is often an elusive figure, depending on the financial capabilities of the organization. However, there are basic strategies to could help organizations determine the extent of investment in human resources development.
Let Others Do It
This strategy involves letting other organizations implement first the FMLA and waiting for the right time to see if there have been positive results from those organizations as far as the performances of their employees are concerned (Perry et al. 2003). While it may be true that these organizations offer paid leaves and large benefits and compensations for capable, high-value employees, they in turn prevent the possibility of having a significant internal investment in terms of human resource development. Smaller firms and organizations who struggle to operate efficiently pursue this strategy as a cost-effective approach towards the implementation of the (FMLA).
The most appealing advantage of this strategy is that it would provide an excellent alternative for a struggling or financially handicapped organization that cannot afford to implement the serious initiatives under the FMLA. Thus, costs are reduced as organizations are saved from spending too much in the development and implementation of a variety of human resource development programs.
However, serious concerns in this type of strategy have also started to emerge, especially since the character of organizations snatching the strategies of other organizations often draws heavy criticism.
Invest the Minimum
This strategy involves investing only in necessary policies under the FMLA, such as the mandatory twelve (12) workweeks of leave per twelve (12) months and the protection of employee benefits even while on leave. With this strategy, minimal resources are spent by organizations towards the implementation of the FMLA (Eisenstat, 2001).The striking advantage of this strategy is that it utilizes minimal financial resources. The strategy also has a high level of efficiency, especially since the leaves are provided only when they are necessary, and only those people who need the leaves are determined. Another important advantage is that this process is able to adapt to the changing needs and status of the personnel. If efficiency and low costs are needed, this strategy is the most practical for organizations and companies to pursue. As a disadvantage, however, this strategy provides the employees with very minimal opportunities to become versatile on their jobs, as the constant absence in work because of leaves might interrupt their concentration and focus on their respective jobs. This strategy might also be neglecting the preparations for future job opportunities. Also, this strategy may be a hindrance towards the growth and innovation of an organization and its human resources, since FMLA does not include concrete plans regarding the preparation of their employees towards seeking new approaches.
Invest Until It Hurts
This strategy involves the use of excessive investments in the implementation of the (FMLA). An organization that pursues this strategy invests astronomical amounts of resources on activities in order to meet the need of their personnel to have extended leaves than usual, accompanied by ample compensations and benefits (Overman, 2002). There are several factors which contribute to an organization's overspending on the implementation of the (FMLA). But the most prominent factor is the organization's desire to develop a pool of high-valued employees in a variety of approaches solutions and activities, like giving leeway to their employees as far as filing their leaves are concerned. Another factor is the continued expansion and growth of the human resources of rival organizations and companies. This situation all the more puts so much pressure on smaller organizations to strengthen their human resources to ensure efficient operations (Galpin et al. 2002).
The third factor is the sudden emergence of unconventional human resource development options. Due to the innovations in modern technology, organizations suddenly became capable of implementing unconventional options for making their pool of human resources more effective and efficient (Heuerman, 2004). The emergence of this type of strategy brings in a critical question: Could an organization invest too much on efforts to implement the FMLA and please their employees? In the advent of changes in the working environments nowadays, the need for vacation and sick leaves becomes imperative for continued growth and development. Therefore, there is a possibility that an organization may invest more than what is necessary. However, when employees spend too much time in their vacation leaves, the costs increase while at the same time depriving them of other important activities they have to accomplish.
The proponents of this strategy single out the relationship between the employees' desire to learn and job satisfaction, which are determining factors for their decision to stay with the organization. These employees rely on the possibility that excellent benefits and compensations even while at leaves might reduce turnover. However, for organizations having difficulty searching for an innovative benefits and compensation package within FMLA, additional training can lead to new ideas, techniques and methods which can lead into improved operations of the organization. Also, since there are unpredictable changes that happen once in a while, it is impossible to foresee the skills needed in the future. However, what is evident is the fact that employees need to set their eyes off work once in a while for growth and development.
As a disadvantage, this strategy will definitely generate excessive costs because it represents an inefficient approach towards handling the implementation of FMLA. All types of benefits and compensations may be developed, but they are not necessarily based on business needs, but rather on employee preferences on when they will have to file their leaves. Investing too much on the implementation of FMLA may eventually lead to higher turnover. This is because employees sometimes have the tendency to schedule leaves very early for future opportunities on their own ways, and this could create false expectations.
Invest Whenever There Is an Acceptable Return on Investment
This strategy is actually very simple in nature, but needs the firm commitment of an organization in order to be implemented. This involves investing on the implementation of the FMLA for as long as there is a return on investment (ROI) in terms of organizational outputs. This strategy requires determining the payoff of employee efforts for a few selected outputs, but evaluating every aspect at some level. In the programs chosen for ROI analysis, the outputs are translated into monetary values and are then compared to the actual costs (investment) to calculate the ROI. Therefore, the level of investment will be increased whenever the return is positive (Gilley, 1989). While it may be true that determining the ROI value is challenging, the rewarding part is that it is already being implemented by a number of growing organizations. These organizations perceive ROI as the best way to evaluate the extent of human resource development investments. According to them, matching the investment with the return is the economic approach towards an effective scheme for the implementation of FMLA.
Most managers of organizations and companies agree to the impending need to review the expenditures of the implementation of FMLA with a more economic-oriented scrutiny. When compared with other evaluation measures, ROI is able to give a sound perspective in determining the payoff of leaves of employees. The ROI process actually develops a tabulation of six types of data: reaction to the program, learning, application, impact, return on investment and intangible benefits. These types of data reflect the effectiveness and efficiency of the human resource development efforts of an organization, and the means for its improvement (Gonzalez, 2003).
This approach also provides a strong link between the organizational needs and employee performance. This is because the ROI process is based on the perspective of beginning with the end in mind. This involves the utilization of predefined organizational measures to determine the success of human resource development programs. The data that will be obtained from this process will represent the critical information needed to secure the continued support for the implementation of FMLA, particularly with managers of small scale organizations. When managers get convinced that the implementation of FMLA is improving their organizational operations and helping them reach critical goals, they will readily support these efforts.
Invest With the Rest
This strategy involves investing together with other organizations no matter what. With the continued patronization of the implementation of FMLA, this strategy would no doubt become very attractive through time. However, the challenging part in this approach is the fact that the company has to find the correct way to implement FMLA. Only after finding the correct way can the company start taking the necessary steps to make sure that they are considered best practices. When in the process of utilizing this strategy, the relevant policies of FMLA and its interpretation becomes a crucial issue. Fortunately, just like most labor laws in the US, a number of alternative measures are readily available. Probably the most common among the available measurements is the investment as a percentage of a company's payroll. For instance, the United States companies have an average of about 1.2 percent, while other excellent companies spend about 3 percent to 5 percent. These relevant data may have different ranges depending on the definition of actual investments. The disadvantage, however, is that there would possibly be no agreement in terms of what costs should be involved. Some other alternative measures include direct and indirect costs, and direct, out-of-pocket expenses. The actual investment per employee can also be different. The most common measure is the direct cost of learning divided by the number of employees and averages from $1,000 to $1,200. Other measures involve focusing on expenditures as a percentage of revenue or expenses in operations.
The primary advantage of this strategy is earning the benefits of the best practices in terms of the implementation of FMLA. Also, relevant data becomes readily available. If the implementation of FMLA is able to represent excellent practices, the results will undoubtedly reflect what most companies want to achieve. Also, the implementation of FMLA has started to become an approach that appeals to a majority of corporate managers who are very eager to make comparisons of their investments with others whom they admire and respect (Gratton, 2003).
However, there are several issues that may cause concerns with this strategy. What one company invests may not necessarily be what another company needs. Each company is different in terms of its employees, systems, philosophy and markets. Because of this, companies may need either a larger or smaller investment as against a best-practice firm. Also, the implementation of FMLA in terms of a medium-level investment may sometimes lead to unsatisfactory results. This would force the company to implement programs in order to meet the minimum requirements. This situation most commonly occurs when there is a specific number of hour or days allotted to formal learning programs.
Current Issues on the Employer's Side
A study conducted by the US Department of Labor (2006) to evaluate the operation of the Family Medical Leave Act 1993 showed that the statute pose administrative burdens for employers especially in the area of record-keeping and coordinated compliance together with other labor laws. Apart from this, reports from employers have also shown dramatic increases in the absences of employees for brief periods of time indicating that the reasons for doing so may not be as serious as the situations contemplated by the law.
These issues on the part of the employers imply that they view the law as administratively burdensome through the requirement of certification and recertification as needed in the processing of the leave request from employees. With the increasing number of requests, the employer needs to allocate company time and even added personnel in the human resources departments together with the need to obtain temporary workers to take the place of the employee on leave for the duration of the employment. These burdens may already exist because of the operation of labor laws enacted earlier than the FMLA but the burden becomes heavier with the compliance requirements provided by the statute. (National Business Group on Health, 2006)
In consideration of these employer issues, Congress passed bills intending to simplify the operation of the law in relation to administrative burdens to employers. These bills include recommendations to narrow the definition of the factors considered as serious health conditions to validly support a leave application, establishment of minimum leave requirements of half-day in order to prevent leaves for non-serious reasons, and the increasing of the requirements of notification from employees. (National Business Group on Health, 2006) Although these bills were accorded a non-priority status in Congress, the emergence or re-emergence of these issues in the future would support their enactment, if these issues become relevant in the future.
Current Issues on the Employee's Side
The provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act cover the application of law to different situations. Serious illnesses as justification for the leave application include injury, impairment, injury, physical or mental health condition, and continued treatment done by a health care provider. During the duration of the leave, the employer is obliged to maintain the employee's coverage under the health plan. After the duration of the leave, the employer must take the employee back restoring him or her to the same or a similar job. (US Department of Labor, 2006) An issue arises in the accommodation of employees returning from their leave. Since the law requires the employer to restore employee to the same position, this creates a situation that could be beneficial or non-beneficial to the employee depending upon the situation. This benefits the employee, when the employer allows the former to do a reasonably lighter work due to an injury, disability or the inability to temporarily or completely perform pervious tasks. This does not benefit the employee, when the employer expects the employee perform the same tasks prior to the injury or serious illness despite the inability of the employee to comply. This implies that this provision of the law is open to abuse requiring the employer to seek existing modes of redress.
Moreover, the US Department of Labor (2006) provides that employers may not require an employee eligible under the FMLA to agree to a reasonable accommodation instead of taking leave. Again, this may work to the advantage as well as the disadvantage of employees depending on their level of information regarding the options available to them and their degree of assertion of their interests. On one hand, employers may opt to recommend an option that offers the least burdens to the company even if this may not work to the best advantage of the employee. If the employee accedes due to lack of knowledge about other options or the merits of available options, the law opens the possibility of employers taking advantage of their employees. On the other hand, well-informed employees able to identify the options and weigh the merits of these alternatives may assert the option that best serve their interests based on the assumption that all the options do not defeat the rights of the employers or other employees. In this instance, the operation of law allows the employee to negotiate application to a different accommodation or take leave.
In addition, seeking redress for violations of the law proves to be difficult for employees. FMLA was assigned to the US Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration particularly the Wage and Hour Division together with the responsibility to investigate violations. Upon satisfactory proof of violation, the division files a court action in behalf of the employee. An employee with a valid compliant have the option to bring a civil action directly in court but it cannot file a compliant with the division without first filing the civil action. (US Department of Labor, 2006) This implies that employees with grievances have to first go to the courts before seeking redress from the division despite the primary responsibility of the division of investigating violations giving it the best position to settle complaints.
Conclusion
Overall, the rationale of enacting labor legislations suffices to justify the viability of the legislation despite the issues that have arisen on the side of both employers employees. Despite the claims of employers that many of them provide more than adequate benefits to their employees, the fact remains that there are still employers implementing the barest minimum in terms of employee benefits. The disparity in the benefits accorded by different employers required legal intervention in enhancing the required benefits to improve the standing of employees. The important consideration is ensuring adequate benefits and the implementation of the law is justified by this objective. Despite the issues raised by employees, the legislation has improved the general condition of employees but there is need to direct their issues towards legislative reform channels in order to enhance the law.