Take Two on Time Off

"There's growing support among policymakers and growing understanding for the importance of these measures," said Vicky Lovell, director of employment and work/life programs at the Institute for Women's Policy Research, a Washington nonprofit organization promoting women's issues. But, she added, "once a new administration is in place that would definitely add a lot of uncertainty."

The White House, meanwhile, is intent on putting its stamp on the FMLA. Assistant Labor Secretary Victoria Lipnic said her goal is to finalize the new rules during this administration, but she said it would take a long time to go through all the comments, which the department is required to do. She also acknowledged that although the Labor Department has the authority to rewrite regulations, Congress could stall or halt any changes by refusing to provide money for them. "I think it has a pretty good chance of being battled down," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said.

But to Lipnic, the proposals are simply a way to "clean up" the regulations, which have at times been so vague as to spark lawsuits. The proposals are also, she said, an attempt to end some abuses.

"Unfortunately the current regulations went so far as to say that employees don't have to notify employers until two days after they are absent," she said. "Honestly, I don't think that was the congressional intent."

That has been the biggest complaint among employers, who argue that the FMLA has too often been used to cover up tardiness or absenteeism.

"The act said specifically that the interests of employers and employees should be kept in balance," said Marc Freedman, director of labor law policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Over the last 15 years, we've seen too many employees take advantage of the medical leave."

Others say even the Labor Department's proposals fall short of clearing up inconsistencies.

Lisa Horn, manager of health care at the Society for Human Resource Management, a lobby group, said she had hoped the Labor Department would more clearly define a serious health condition. In a survey of about 3,000 members, four out of 10 employers said they granted FMLA time off even though they did not believe the reasons were legitimate because they thought the law obligated them to do so.

"Ailments that Congress back in 1993 didn't deem a serious health condition now can be," she said. "We've heard examples of ingrown toenails."

To supporters of the law, instituting the changes would make it easier for employers to deny workers their leave. They also argue against requiring so many doctors' visits because it could cost employees more time and money. They also say letting employers consult with employees' doctors is a violation of privacy.

"It makes no sense to me," said Woolsey, who has proposed a bill to expand family and medical leave. "It's going to make it easier for employers to withhold family and medical leave by putting in all kinds of structure that isn't necessary . . . They don't need to make it more difficult. It's been working very well."

Chante Lasco, 33, a lawyer in Easton, thinks the current law is inadequate and she favors Democrats' efforts to provide some paid leave.

When she found out she was pregnant, she knew she was legally entitled to 12 weeks off from her job as a Dorchester County prosecutor, but with bills to pay, the loss of her salary would have been difficult for her and her husband, who is a nurse.

"It was ridiculous," she said. "Everybody knows what's involved when you give birth to a baby. You can't just go back to work the next day."

She considers herself lucky because she was able to cobble together enough sick leave to get a salary for part of the time she was out. Others, she acknowledged, are not so fortunate.

Lipnic said her goal is not to take any leave away from workers.

"Our goal has been to really smooth out the communication between employers and employees and health care providers," she said. "I certainly believe this proposal will make the law better for everybody."