Under a mandate from President Obama, the U.S. Labor Department plans to issue regulations this week ordering businesses to give time off to domestic partners to care for newborns or loved ones.
Speaking off the record, two Labor Department officials told the New York Times that the government would require all employers to extend the option that has been available to heterosexual workers for almost two decades under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Part of the FMLA allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of loved ones or themselves. It previously had been applied only to heterosexual couples. But the Labor Department plans to extend those rights based on a “new interpretation” of the law — meaning there’s no need to ask Congress to change the law and that future presidents could reverse the decision without Congressional action.
This new mandate comes on the heels of an early-June order from Obama for federal agencies to extend child care services and expanded medical leave to their workers.
Last year, Obama gave federal workers’ same-sex partners a first round of benefits including visitation and dependent-care rights. He also authorized child-care services and subsidies; more flexibility to use family leave to attend to the needs of domestic partners and their children; relocation benefits; giving domestic partners the same status as family members when federal appointments are made; and access to credit union and other memberships when those are provided to federal workers.
BusinessBrief.com delivers the latest business news once a week to the inboxes of over 180,000 executives.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to BusinessBrief!
advertisement
Tags: Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, Obama
June 24th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
This and the patients bill of rights are calculated efforts on Obama’s side to crush private insurers. He’s going to get his single-payer system one way or the other. Gee, if he was only as good at making businesses successful as he is at bringing them down we’d have hope of a recovery. But I suppose breaking businesses down is all we can expect from a community organizer.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I echo Gary’s thoughts!
June 24th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
At what point is this considered to be Presidential over reach when the President is making law without due process through the Congress? Does this require a challenge in the Court?
June 24th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Are you three serious? You sound uneducated and heartless.
I think it’s wonderful that the President is doing this. Why shouldn’t homosexual partners be extended the same rights as heterosexual under FMLA?
June 24th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Seriously, how much is this going to add to the fed deficit and what is the economic impact on businesses? Ditto on Gary’s observations. Here is a link to an article published yesterday people should be aware of…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/23/labor-dept-offers-assistance-illegal-immigrants-facing-wage-disparities/
June 24th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I also agree with Gary.
Obama is making a liberal mess of our country!
June 24th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Big government in the making…….
June 24th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
As a small business owner I think the new mandate is just plain stupid. We already deal with so many regulations and laws that another one is ubsurd. Please tell us how to cunduct our business that we can turn a profit. The profit that buys new trucks and equipment. The profit that stimulates our economy. We sure can’t make it if several members of our staff has a legal right to be gone for 12 weeks and we must hold thier job!! Maybe we should just fold up now before the next ruling.
June 24th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Domestic partners would need to be registered as such in order to enforce the decision (most likely). These changes could be repealed at a later date by a future president, but other than that this guarentee’s equal rights under law. I think this article is more an informational piece then.
The comments to this article have me a bit puzzled as a result. Aside from the fact that these changes would grant same-sex partners equal rights under law, how is this going to “crush private insurers” and “making a liberal mess of our country”? I think that’s a bit rash to say when the regulations haven’t been formally released. I realize that new regulations aren’t appreciated, but if it permits people to be equal under the (existing) law I don’t see how that’s exactly “big government in the making”. Feel free to explain it to me–I’d like to understand the point of view.
June 25th, 2010 at 9:55 am
The question, more accurately put, is not at what point this is Presidential over reach, but rather, at what point are American citizens going to get P.O.’d enough to force Congress to abide by the rule of law in this country? The POTUS has zero authority to do most of what Obama has done here. Nor does he have the legal authority to appoint all of the czars who report only to him. We are in large part behaving as lemmings – those of us who raise these issues are written off as right-wing crazies more and more. It is long past the time to take our country back to the proper path – this man is on a mission to create enough damage in his 4 years that we don’t stand a snowball’s chance of remediating all of it – so his agenda is to get some of it to stick, knowing full well that when he is gone the majority of it will be reversed, but if he shovels enough of it out there we will be unable to reverse ALL of it!
June 25th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Big Govt……this is what I mean by Big Govt….Look at the COBRA mandate. Do you fully support that? We had an employee we terminated due to theft. Do you know we had to pay 65% of his COBRA benefits for 12 months due to the COBRA mandate after we terminated him for theft? Well actually we had to pay it but at the end of the year we will get a tax credit (more administrative hours to calculate that) for it since we are a nonprofit-so you, me and all of the others had to pay for this thief out of our taxes to have COBRA for him and his family, the American Dream. Tell me that is not Big Govt. We ended up rewarding him for theft. Tell me that is uneducated and heartless, I beg to differ. Do not get me started on the administrative EXTRA hours that went into this as well-that no one paid us for-and as a nonprofit our funds are limited. The healthcare bill that passed-Big Govt-I work in the healthcare field and have for 20 years and I also have a degree in Healthcare Administration, I am not uneducated or heartless, I am about being fair and working for what you need or want in life, not a hand out-the Govt cannot even get Medicare, Medicaid and the military plans right and now they are going to run an even larger plan-trust me on this, I can show the hours my staff that spend trying to collect from them for services we rendered in good faith. I do not have any issues with domestic partners being offered the same benefits-but I do have issues with the govt trying to require employers pay relocation expenses-many do already. Subsidies for child care, why is it the Govt’s responsibility to do this? (Actually again you and me because we are paying for it, the money comes from us)-if you can’t afford to have children then you have no business having them. I would love to have more children, but we only had 2 because it was all we could afford. Do you know that on Medicaid you can have as many children as you want? I have seen women have multiple children on Medicaid. Why is the Govt. responsible for paying for this (again, you and me) when I can only have 2? We can differ and dispute this all day long, and we can agree to disagree.
June 25th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I agree with Shawn and am emailing his observation to everyone on my list, hoping it makes the rounds. We also had a situation where an employee came into the office in the middle of night and left, she quit, because she had personal issues. Everyone at the office thought that we had a great relationship with her and we were all shocked. Then government stuck us with paying her unemployment and she was the one who quit and left us in the lurch! My sister had an employee who admitted to spending 1/3 of her time online while at work and she was fired, the government made my sister’s company pay unemployment. Where is accountability and common sense?
June 25th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I can try to explain to MH and joy; No, we’re not heartless, but FMLA is so father can assist a woman who just gave birth through the first weeks as she recovers. Extending this to homosexual couples might seem like the right thing to do, but for what purpose…. just for the sake of being ‘equal’? And Obama is ‘working private insurers over’. He forces them to hold rates down while their costs are going up, then legislates them out of existance with new obligations in the patient bill of rights and new obligations like this additional requirement to pay a missing team member for 12 weeks of unecessary absence.
Perhaps it is “heartless” to knowingly legislate thousands of businesses out of business and to cause all of the downstream pain and suffering as jobs are lost just to achieve political goals?
June 25th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Gary you do make a good point about being off on FMLA for a woman who gave birth-and I support most all of your statments you have made, I do want to share something. I was allowed 12 weeks under FMLA when I adopted my newborn son, so if the govt wants to give homosexual couples the same right, I am ok with it, for them to be off with their adopted child or however they become a parent-but morally and in my heart as a Christian I do not believe in their lifestyle-it is all the other things I listed in my e-mail that I am fed up with.
June 25th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I should clarify, I support everyone who legitimately needs to care for a loved one, no exceptions. But I think 12 weeks is excessive for any partner to take to support the primary caregiver at birth. If you are the primary caregiver, fine. If not, go back to work, that’s what your child needs more than anything else from you, financial security.
June 25th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Gary-Agreed.
June 25th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I am NOT going to go into anything regarding anything else the President is doing. Only address this new law, that can be taken away at a moments notice. I have been with my partner for over 27 years. This alone has outlasted most heterosexuals relationships and most of my supervisors for the Post Office agree with me. Yes, I am a postal worker, along with my partner for many years. He had to have major back surgery some years back. Even though my supervisor could not approve FMLA time, as homosexual relationships were not acknowledgedunder FMLA status, he truly worked with me and understood my situation. That is an absolute rare case, as management for the PO is heartless, unfeeling and often assinine. Hence, the situation we are in!
I am grateful this law is going through and hope someday it gets to a point where no future President can take it away. I and my partner are college degree employees who know our rights. For those of you out there that are schooled, literate and have half a brain, you will know that being gay is NOT a choice, it’s my birth right. Why should I be penalized being born gay and coming from a decent loving Catholic family whose parents were together 51 years until my mom’s death. Need I say, my siblings are still married and have been for over 30 plus years to their prespecitve spouses. Tell me my parents did not do something right!
Tell me how you would feel knowing you could not care for your wife, husband or child and had to worry about taking time off and being fired. Maybe then can you empathize, instead of talking off the top of your heads. Right on President Obama!
I am more than open to your responses.
June 25th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Tony – I believe you and your partner (as well as all heterosexual couples and families) deserve the right to take off time to care for each other, I don’t believe it should be the role of the government to force businesses into providing the time off and holding the same position. It should be up to individual businesses to determine how they will treat employees needing time off. We had an employee move to another job while out on maternity leave, and there are places that have women/men take FMLA and never come back while holding open that person’s position. As much as pResident Obama would like for us to believe business is evil, there are many employers willing to work with employees to make leave situations work for both parties involved.
The root of the problem is how the pResident continues to overstep he bounds while taking this country down the path towards a Big Government, Nanny State. It should be up to individual businesses to determine how they will treat employees needing time off, it should not be mandated by the government. Businesses that treat employees well will continue to thrive and grow due to a committed and energized staff.
Don’t get me started on Unemployment/Cobra….
June 30th, 2010 at 7:06 am
How will UNPAID leave bring down insurers and businesses? Sheesh. Get off your agendas and think people!
June 30th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Good discussion. Thanks for your viewpoint, Tony. We have become a nation of people who feel we are “entitled” Everyone owes us something. Personal responsibility is nill. As a supervisor I would work with anyone in a situation where they need time off but realize many companies are cold and heartless. I don’t believe the government can or should try to legislate morals or ethics. We need to be encouraging people to be responsible for themselves and that it is not the governments job to take care of us.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Does this open the door for heterosexuals that co-habitate? Where does it in. I agree, adoption forms the legal bond to allow FMLA. Partners come and go and who decides if you are “living” together or not, to take time off to care for your partner? A lot to consider
June 30th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
(This paragraph is directed to Shawn) In order for someone to be eligible for the COBRA subsidy, they must be eligible for COBRA. People terminated for misconduct are not eligible for COBRA, and therefore would not be eligible for the subsidy. Your HR director should know this and should contact the company’s benefits administrator to make sure the thief does not get offered COBRA. If your company has evidence that the person stole from the company or committed any other type of misconduct, your company does not have to offer them COBRA.
The subsidy was a temporary offering to help people during the recession. It is not permanent and has not been extended (to my knowledge) to people losing their jobs after May 31. Also, someone that can purchase insurance through spouse’s employer play would be eligible for COBRA, but not the subsidy.
With regard to FMLA, the law indicates that companies must provide up to 12 weeks of “unpaid” leave. I find that most people don’t want to take FMLA since it is unpaid. They would rather work, so they usually take as little time as possible (I work in the private sector). I rarely see FMLA being abused.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I respectfully disagree, Gary. Financial security is not what your child needs most, but your love, time and attention. Ask anyone who had a father that spent more time at his job than with him/her and you will be find that each one of them will disagree with you. I feel it is easy for you to say this being a man and not the one who goes through the physical and emotionally exhausting process of pregnancy, birth and full time care of the child. Yes, financial security is important, but worthless if your wife and child feel alienated because your job takes priority over them.
)
July 1st, 2010 at 5:30 pm
KD-You have to prove Gross Misconduct, which is difficult to do in Texas. Deliberate theft would be gross misconduct, again which was hard to prove. We were advised by legal counsel to term for policy violations-even though he did steal and we could prove it, he would continue to say it was an accident, that his personal expenses would end up on the company credit card.
July 1st, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Lee-I agree. I feel the “Partners” should be married then with a marriage certificate, just like others have to prove they are married for benefits at work if we are going to be “fair” here.