Talk to me about FMLA

2Vermont · April 2012

How does this work for an employee with an illness (vs pregnancy)? Also, according to all-knowing wikipedia, this is for a 12 week period. Can this be extended for any reason? If so, how and why is it allowed? Doesn't ongoing use negatively affect co-workers?

Yeah, just school me on this.

Thanks

tartaruga · April 2012

It cannot be extended, I know that. It's 12 weeks a year, period. If your chemo extends beyond that, you're SOL.

MrsAJL · April 2012

FMLA, the law, protects an employee's employment with in a qualified company for a qualified event. There is no provision for extending the 12 week period under FMLA. You get 12 weeks per year. Also, if a couple works for the same company, if I remember this correctly, they actually share the 12 weeks.

Some companies may allow an employee to extend their time by using their accrued paid-time-off or sick leave. In a lot of companies, you may be required to use your PTO or sick leave before using time off under FMLA.

How and why is it allowed? I don't know understand. Allowed by law or allowed by the company?

On-going use can negatively affect co-workers, but I would think that's a non-issue if someone really needs the time off.

RedheadBaker · April 2012

tartaruga:
It cannot be extended, I know that. It's 12 weeks a year, period. If your chemo extends beyond that, you're SOL.

I thought FMLA set the standard for bare minimum and employers could opt to go above and beyond if they chose.

brideymcbriderson · April 2012

The Department of Labor's website is a good place to start:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28.htm

ringstrue · April 2012

It's to care for others - not only your own illness. So when you have or adopt a baby, or have a sick family member you can take up to 12 weeks off per calendar year. It's w/o pay - its just for job protection - though you can take any sick or vacation leave you have during that time (in most cases). You can also break it up - so some people do 6 weeks and then another 6 weeks later.

In the case of pregnancy, your mat.leave is included in the 12 weeks. So if your doc gives you 6 weeks leave for YOUR recovery, then you can take another 6 weeks . Then you could take vacation/sick/unpaid leave for those 6 weeks and that's all covered under FMLA. My guess if if you got sick and needed STD, you could get that off in addition to the 12 weeks off.

ETA: cuz DD is driving me nuts.

roxstarrgirl · April 2012

ringstrue:
It's to care for others - not your own illness. So when you have or adopt a baby, or have a sick family member you can take up to 12 weeks off per calendar year. It's w/o pay - its just for job protection - though you can take any sick or vacation leave you have during that time (in most cases). You can also break it up - so some people do 6 weeks and then another 6 weeks later.
In the case of pregnancy, your mat.leave is included in the 12 weeks. So if your doc gives you 6 weeks leave for YOUR recovery, then you can take another 6 weeks . I'm not sure as vacation/sick/unpaid leave and that's all covered under FMLA. My guess if if you got sick and needed STD, you could get that off in addition to the 12 weeks off.

No, it is also for your own serious health condition.

is_it_over_yet? · April 2012

RedheadBaker:

tartaruga:
It cannot be extended, I know that. It's 12 weeks a year, period. If your chemo extends beyond that, you're SOL.

I thought FMLA set the standard for bare minimum and employers could opt to go above and beyond if they chose.

Employers can always go above and beyond the legal minimum requirements for leave.

2Vermont · April 2012

brideymcbriderson:

The Department of Labor's website is a good place to start:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28.htm

Very informative...much better than wikipedia....lol...thanks.

Sou Desafinado · April 2012

In D.C. it's 16 weeks.

When I used it back in 2009 for my surgery I had to fill out a gazillion forms and have the doctor's office fill out some forms and then have the doc fill out a form saying I was cleared to return to work. I was out for 6 weeks.

tartaruga · April 2012

RedheadBaker:
tartaruga:
It cannot be extended, I know that. It's 12 weeks a year, period. If your chemo extends beyond that, you're SOL.
I thought FMLA set the standard for bare minimum and employers could opt to go above and beyond if they chose.

Right, sorry. I was referring to protection under the law. The law only protects you for 12 weeks. Your employer might give you more, but they're not legally obligated to and they could legally change their minds or revoke it at any time.

brideymcbriderson · April 2012

ringstrue:

It's to care for others - not your own illness.

No no no no no.

Straight from the DOL:

A covered employer must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:
for the birth and care of a newborn child of the employee;

for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;

to care for a spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition;

to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition; or

for qualifying exigencies arising out of the fact that the employee?s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is on active duty or call to active duty status as a member of the National Guard or Reserves in support of a contingency operation.

2V, the Nest is often full of misinformation about FMLA. Please consult the DOL website. In addition to the specific page I previously linked to, this is the general family and medical leave page: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/fmla.htm

mominatrix · April 2012

ringstrue:
It's to care for others - not your own illness. So when you have or adopt a baby, or have a sick family member you can take up to 12 weeks off per calendar year. It's w/o pay - its just for job protection - though you can take any sick or vacation leave you have during that time (in most cases). You can also break it up - so some people do 6 weeks and then another 6 weeks later.

it's not JUST for your own illnesses.

But it can be.

And it can be broken up into very very small pieces.

so, let's say that you need to go for kidney dialysis every other week, and it takes all afternoon. So, one working day in ten, you need to be gone for half a day.

A half day every other week = 26 days a year... is less than 12 weeks. So, you could arrange that this be your FMLA leave for the year.

As for the why... it's federal law. And it was passed because the government decided that it was better for other employees to be inconvenienced a little bit, or for employers to be inconvenienced a little bit, than it was to have people be fired because they got sick.

And, in the long run, in an economic analysis, it makes sense not to fire people who are trained and invested in the company / business.

ringstrue · April 2012

Apparently certain states also have their own leave. I've heard that in certain states you can get up to 6 months unpaid leave using both the fed and state packages.

ringstrue · April 2012

2Vermont:
How does this work for an employee with an illness (vs pregnancy)? Also, according to all-knowing wikipedia, this is for a 12 week period. Can this be extended for any reason? If so, how and why is it allowed? Doesn't ongoing use negatively affect co-workers?

Yeah, just school me on this.

Thanks

Sure, why not. But like we said its unpaid so theoretically they could get temp people in there.

Sou Desafinado · April 2012

ringstrue:
Apparently certain states also have their own leave. I've heard that in certain states you can get up to 6 months unpaid leave using both the fed and state packages.

This is true based on what has happened with my employer, which is D.C.-based.

Again, D.C. allows for 16 weeks of FMLA

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/sections/labor_and_employment_law/fmla01.cfm

mominatrix · April 2012

ringstrue:
Apparently certain states also have their own leave. I've heard that in certain states you can get up to 6 months unpaid leave using both the fed and state packages.

most states do... as well, there are "maternity leave" provisions at state law...

When FMLA passed, it was such a mess, trying to figure out if state and FMLA leaves should run concurrently or consecutively. I think most states have decided they run concurrently (meaning you get the one longest leave), but it's always worth checking out at the state level.

MrsAxilla · April 2012

MrsAJL:

FMLA, the law, protects an employee's employment with in a qualified company for a qualified event. There is no provision for extending the 12 week period under FMLA. You get 12 weeks per year. Also, if a couple works for the same company, if I remember this correctly, they actually share the 12 weeks.

They only share if they're taking FMLA for the birth or adoption of a child. If it's for an illness, they each get 12.

2Vermont · April 2012

mominatrix:

As for the why... it's federal law. And it was passed because the government decided that it was better for other employees to be inconvenienced a little bit, or for employers to be inconvenienced a little bit, than it was to have people be fired because they got sick.

And, in the long run, in an economic analysis, it makes sense not to fire people who are trained and invested in the company / business.

Absolutely makes sense, but employers do run the risk that other, well trained employees choose to quit because the FMLA employee gets special treatment. It's probably a tough call for employers sometimes.

Sou Desafinado · April 2012

ringstrue:
2Vermont:
How does this work for an employee with an illness (vs pregnancy)? Also, according to all-knowing wikipedia, this is for a 12 week period. Can this be extended for any reason? If so, how and why is it allowed? Doesn't ongoing use negatively affect co-workers?

Yeah, just school me on this.

Thanks

Sure, why not. But like we said its unpaid so theoretically they could get temp people in there.

We do bring in temps for people who are out on FMLA/maternity leave. I have two folks out on maternity leave right now and temps are filling in for them.

Jaylea · April 2012

It's 12 weeks. My dad just lost his benefits this week because his illness has kept him out of work for 12 weeks. Doesn't matter what the circumstances are - it's a Federal law and the cap is the cap. Employers have discretion to extend leave if they want, but it's not protected by law.

missusbee · April 2012

Sou Desafinado:
ringstrue:
Apparently certain states also have their own leave. I've heard that in certain states you can get up to 6 months unpaid leave using both the fed and state packages.
This is true based on what has happened with my employer, which is D.C.-based.
Again, D.C. allows for 16 weeks of FMLA
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/sections/labor_and_employment_law/fmla01.cfm

It's not FMLA if its a state law. FMLA refers only to the provisions allowed by the federal family medical leave act. State laws have their own names.

Not to be a detail whore, but like bridey says, misinformation abounds. 2V is way better off going straight to the DOL website, where everything is pretty explicitly laid out. States often have their own equivalent websites with FAQs to clearly lay out the intersection of federal and state leave laws.

missusbee · April 2012

2Vermont:
mominatrix:

As for the why... it's federal law. And it was passed because the government decided that it was better for other employees to be inconvenienced a little bit, or for employers to be inconvenienced a little bit, than it was to have people be fired because they got sick.

And, in the long run, in an economic analysis, it makes sense not to fire people who are trained and invested in the company / business.

Absolutely makes sense, but employers do run the risk that other, well trained employees choose to quit because the FMLA employee gets special treatment. It's probably a tough call for employers sometimes.

What fuckwad would quit their job because the pregnant ho in the next cube got to take a few months without pay?

msmerymac · April 2012

2Vermont:
mominatrix:

As for the why... it's federal law. And it was passed because the government decided that it was better for other employees to be inconvenienced a little bit, or for employers to be inconvenienced a little bit, than it was to have people be fired because they got sick.

And, in the long run, in an economic analysis, it makes sense not to fire people who are trained and invested in the company / business.

Absolutely makes sense, but employers do run the risk that other, well trained employees choose to quit because the FMLA employee gets special treatment. It's probably a tough call for employers sometimes.

I don't see how it would be "special treatment" if everyone at the company is eligible for the same type of provisions.

MrsAJL · April 2012

MrsAxilla:
MrsAJL:

FMLA, the law, protects an employee's employment with in a qualified company for a qualified event. There is no provision for extending the 12 week period under FMLA. You get 12 weeks per year. Also, if a couple works for the same company, if I remember this correctly, they actually share the 12 weeks.
They only share if they're taking FMLA for the birth or adoption of a child. If it's for an illness, they each get 12.

Oops! You're right

MrsAJL · April 2012

2Vermont:
mominatrix:

As for the why... it's federal law. And it was passed because the government decided that it was better for other employees to be inconvenienced a little bit, or for employers to be inconvenienced a little bit, than it was to have people be fired because they got sick.

And, in the long run, in an economic analysis, it makes sense not to fire people who are trained and invested in the company / business.

Absolutely makes sense, but employers do run the risk that other, well trained employees choose to quit because the FMLA employee gets special treatment. It's probably a tough call for employers sometimes.

So are you planning to quit your job because a co-worker is using leave under the FMLA? It's not special treatment. It's a provision open to all employees in a qualified company.

The only person who is getting hurt in this scenario is the person who quit. Seems like a silly move, imo.

brideymcbriderson · April 2012

missusbee:

What fuckwad would quit their job because the pregnant ho in the next cube got to take a few months without pay?

Glad I'm not the only one who thought that. The person who quits his job because someone gets two afternoons a week without pay to go get dialysis is a special kind of assholio.

When my former coworker had to be out a few days to help with his mom who was recovering from a brain aneurysm, I really didn't blink an eye at doing one of his projects for him, given that, you know, my mom didn't have a brain aneurysm.

2Vermont · April 2012

msmerymac:
2Vermont:
mominatrix:

As for the why... it's federal law. And it was passed because the government decided that it was better for other employees to be inconvenienced a little bit, or for employers to be inconvenienced a little bit, than it was to have people be fired because they got sick.

And, in the long run, in an economic analysis, it makes sense not to fire people who are trained and invested in the company / business.

Absolutely makes sense, but employers do run the risk that other, well trained employees choose to quit because the FMLA employee gets special treatment. It's probably a tough call for employers sometimes.

I don't see how it would be "special treatment" if everyone at the company is eligible for the same type of provisions.

I know of someone who is looking to quit because the other employee has made things more difficult on her. The "FMLA" employee continues to get extensions, doesn't work a full week, leaves work early because she doesn't feel well on the regular.

The person quitting may be eligible for the same provisions, but doesn't use them. I can most certainly get how this would get old after awhile. At what point is the sick employee just not capable of doing the job?

missusbee · April 2012

oh but employers have such a hard row to hoe.

It's just so hard to be the employer.

EastCoastBride · April 2012

2Vermont:
employers do run the risk that other, well trained employees choose to quit because the FMLA employee gets special treatment. It's probably a tough call for employers sometimes.

Huh? This makes no sense.

MrsAJL · April 2012

2Vermont:
I know of someone who is looking to quit because the other employee has made things more difficult on her. The "FMLA" employee continues to get extensions, doesn't work a full week, leaves work early because she doesn't feel well on the regular.

The person quitting may be eligible for the same provisions, but doesn't use them. I can most certainly get how this would get old after awhile. At what point is the sick employee just not capable of doing the job?

Interesting. I don't think this is a problem with FMLA. I think this is a problem with management and consistent HR policy.

Talk to me about FMLA

Re: Talk to me about FMLA

Choose Another Board

Search Boards