Monday, November 19, 2007
[IWS] CRS: LEAVE BENEFITS in the UNITED STATES--updated 27 July 2007
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL34088
Leave Benefits in the United States
Updated July 27, 2007
Linda Levine, Specialist in Labor Economics, Domestic Social Policy Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34088_20070727.pdf
[full-text, 27 pages]
Summary
In addition to their jobs, workers have obligations civic, familial, and
personal to fulfill that sometimes require them to be absent from the workplace
(e.g., to serve on a jury, retrieve a sick child from day care, or attend a funeral). The
U.S. government generally has allowed individual employers to decide whether to
accommodate the nonwork activities of employees by granting them leave, with or
without pay, rather than firing them. In other countries, national governments or the
international organizations to which they belong more often have developed social
policies that entitle individuals to time off from the workplace (oftentimes paid) for
a variety of reasons (e.g., maternity and vacations).
Public policies specifically intended to reconcile the work and family lives of
individuals have garnered increased attention among countries in the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, which
is an OECD member, congressional interest recently has coalesced around familyfriendly
paid leave proposals (e.g., H.R. 1542 and S. 910, S. 1681, S. 80 and H.R.
3158). They would entitle workers to time off with pay to accomplish parental and
caregiving obligations to help women in particular balance work and family
responsibilities because they are the typical family caregiver and a majority of
women in the U.S. population are in the labor force.
Currently, there are few federal statutes that pertain directly or indirectly to
employer provision of leave benefits for any purpose. This report begins by
reviewing those policies, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Family
and Medical Leave Act. Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) programs, which five
states have established to compensate for lost wages while workers are recovering
from nonoccupational illnesses and injuries, are discussed as well. So too is
California's Family Disability Insurance program, which extends TDI to employees
caring for family members.
The report then examines the incidence of different types of paid leave that U.S.
employers voluntarily provide as part of an employee's total compensation (wages
and benefits). For example, vacations and holidays are the most commonly offered
leave benefits: more than three-fourths of employees in the private sector receive
paid time off for these reasons. Access to leave by various employee and employer
characteristics also is analyzed, with particular attention focused on paid sick leave,
which is offered to 57% of private sector employees.
The report closes with results from a federal government survey of the average
direct cost to businesses of different types of leave. Indirect employer costs that
might arise in connection with some types of leave more than others, such as the
greater likelihood of hiring and training temporary replacements for employees
absent because of maternity versus bereavement reasons, are not included. Neither
are estimates of potential gains to employers (e.g., a more stable and experienced
workforce, increased productivity due to greater worker morale) and society (e.g.,
improved public health, lower formal caregiving costs, and broader participation in
civic affairs).
Contents
Federal Laws Pertaining to Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Fair Labor Standards Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Contractor Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Temporary Disability Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Anti-Discrimination Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TDI and Family Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Family and Medical Leave Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Incidence and Cost of Leave Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Incidence by Employee and Employer Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
In the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Among Working Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A Detailed Look at Paid Sick Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Cost to Employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Tables
Table 1. Percent of Workers with Paid Leave Benefits by Employee and Employer Characteristics, March 2006 . . . . 14
Table 2. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Selected Demographic Characteristics, 2004 . . . . . . . . 17
Table 3. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Industry, 2004 . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Education, 2004 . . . . . . 19
Table 5. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Occupation, 2004 . . . . . 20
Table 6. Earnings of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Earnings, 2004 . . . . . . 21
Table 7. Employer Costs Per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation, March 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 8. Employer Costs Per Hour Worked for Leave Benefits by Type of Leave and Firm Size, March 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL34088
Leave Benefits in the United States
Updated July 27, 2007
Linda Levine, Specialist in Labor Economics, Domestic Social Policy Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34088_20070727.pdf
[full-text, 27 pages]
Summary
In addition to their jobs, workers have obligations civic, familial, and
personal to fulfill that sometimes require them to be absent from the workplace
(e.g., to serve on a jury, retrieve a sick child from day care, or attend a funeral). The
U.S. government generally has allowed individual employers to decide whether to
accommodate the nonwork activities of employees by granting them leave, with or
without pay, rather than firing them. In other countries, national governments or the
international organizations to which they belong more often have developed social
policies that entitle individuals to time off from the workplace (oftentimes paid) for
a variety of reasons (e.g., maternity and vacations).
Public policies specifically intended to reconcile the work and family lives of
individuals have garnered increased attention among countries in the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, which
is an OECD member, congressional interest recently has coalesced around familyfriendly
paid leave proposals (e.g., H.R. 1542 and S. 910, S. 1681, S. 80 and H.R.
3158). They would entitle workers to time off with pay to accomplish parental and
caregiving obligations to help women in particular balance work and family
responsibilities because they are the typical family caregiver and a majority of
women in the U.S. population are in the labor force.
Currently, there are few federal statutes that pertain directly or indirectly to
employer provision of leave benefits for any purpose. This report begins by
reviewing those policies, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Family
and Medical Leave Act. Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) programs, which five
states have established to compensate for lost wages while workers are recovering
from nonoccupational illnesses and injuries, are discussed as well. So too is
California's Family Disability Insurance program, which extends TDI to employees
caring for family members.
The report then examines the incidence of different types of paid leave that U.S.
employers voluntarily provide as part of an employee's total compensation (wages
and benefits). For example, vacations and holidays are the most commonly offered
leave benefits: more than three-fourths of employees in the private sector receive
paid time off for these reasons. Access to leave by various employee and employer
characteristics also is analyzed, with particular attention focused on paid sick leave,
which is offered to 57% of private sector employees.
The report closes with results from a federal government survey of the average
direct cost to businesses of different types of leave. Indirect employer costs that
might arise in connection with some types of leave more than others, such as the
greater likelihood of hiring and training temporary replacements for employees
absent because of maternity versus bereavement reasons, are not included. Neither
are estimates of potential gains to employers (e.g., a more stable and experienced
workforce, increased productivity due to greater worker morale) and society (e.g.,
improved public health, lower formal caregiving costs, and broader participation in
civic affairs).
Contents
Federal Laws Pertaining to Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Fair Labor Standards Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Contractor Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Temporary Disability Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Anti-Discrimination Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TDI and Family Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Family and Medical Leave Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Incidence and Cost of Leave Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Incidence by Employee and Employer Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
In the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Among Working Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A Detailed Look at Paid Sick Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Cost to Employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Tables
Table 1. Percent of Workers with Paid Leave Benefits by Employee and Employer Characteristics, March 2006 . . . . 14
Table 2. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Selected Demographic Characteristics, 2004 . . . . . . . . 17
Table 3. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Industry, 2004 . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Education, 2004 . . . . . . 19
Table 5. Percent of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Occupation, 2004 . . . . . 20
Table 6. Earnings of Workers with Paid Sick Leave by Earnings, 2004 . . . . . . 21
Table 7. Employer Costs Per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation, March 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 8. Employer Costs Per Hour Worked for Leave Benefits by Type of Leave and Firm Size, March 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
# posted by SBasefsky : 5:10 AM
