> I would be interested in hearing of even one instance of legislation
> which on the one side is strongly supported by _passive_ public opinion
> (revealed inpolls), on the other side strongly resisted by an important
> sector of capital, which nevertheless passed.
>
[...]
> Polls, letters to Congress, etx. will never get legislation or other
> government action which is opposed by any significan money intersts.
>
This was literally the first thing that popped into my mind. (Note especially the grafs in the NYT article that I marked with ***asterisks.)....
SA
---
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4910771_family-medical-leave-act-originate.html
How Did the Family Medical Leave Act Originate?
Introduction 1. In February 1993, less than a month after taking office, President Clinton signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act. FMLA guarantees eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child, or to care of a sick relative. The law also required companies to restore employees to their previous positions upon returning to work and to maintain employee benefits. The law's passage in 1993 ended a nearly 10-year battle that began with a court decision and was followed by years of lobbying and legislative wrangling.
A Movement Begins 2. In 1984, a federal court struck down a California law that required employers to provide maternity leave for female employees. The court overturned the law on grounds of gender discrimination. This fueled a drive for a national, gender-neutral law that would protect workers with family or medical issues. The Women's Legal Defense Fund spearheaded a group that became known as the Family and Medical Leave Coalition. Initially made up of feminist groups, the coalition broadened to include labor unions, religious interests and civil rights groups.
Family and Medical Leave Stalls 3. Family and Medical Leave legislation was introduced in Congress every year, starting in 1984, but stalled. Business interests led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce mounted a well-funded campaign against such legislation, claiming it would be too costly for businesses and would open the door to future government interference in business decisions. Some conservative groups also feared that the legislation would undermine the traditional family by encouraging more women to enter the work force.
Becoming Law 4. Over time, however, Family and Medical Leave legislation gained support in Congress. In 1991, Congress passed the first Family and Medical Leave Act, but President George H.W. Bush vetoed the bill, claiming it would unfairly burden businesses. The Senate voted to override the veto, but the House fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for an override. The vote for the legislation and override fell largely along party lines, with more than 80 percent of Democrats favoring the bill and more than 75 percent of Republicans opposing it. Congress passed the bill again in 1992, but Bush vetoed the measure a second time. The veto made the Family and Medical Leave Act a symbol of the difference between the two parties in the 1992 presidential campaign. Democratic nominee Bill Clinton promised to sign the bill if elected president, a promise he made good on shortly after taking office in January 1993.
---
New York Times Family-Leave Bill Sent to President By ADAM CLYMER, Published: Friday, September 11, 1992
***After a debate marked by emotion, sarcasm and political one-upmanship, the House passed and sent to President Bush today legislation that would require employers to give workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family and personal medical emergencies.
***Despite a threatened veto, Democrats and some Republicans said that passing the measure was essential if lawmakers believed in "family values." But the 241-to-161 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority required to override, and a White House spokeswoman, Judy Smith, said she was "confident of strength to sustain a veto."
***Today's action, which followed passage on a voice vote in the Senate last month, was Congress' most forceful entry into the Presidential campaign, a measure that Democrats believe will help their candidate, Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas. He supports the bill and can be expected to say that electing him is the only way to enact the legislation, which polls show is very popular. Overwhelming Public Support
The bill, similar to a measure that Mr. Bush vetoed in 1990, would require employers of 50 or more people to allow their workers unpaid leave, with health insurance kept in force, to care for a sick child, parent, husband or wife, or for the workers' own medical needs, such as pregnancy.
It would not apply to employees who worked less than 25 hours a week, and employers could exclude the highest paid 10 percent of their workers. About 5 percent of employers and 50 percent of all employees would be covered.
***A Gallup Poll for Life magazine last spring found that 83 percent of adults backed the measure, and 16 percent opposed it.
Ms. Smith said Mr. Bush opposed the bill but did not oppose family leaves. She said the President thought such leaves should be negotiated between employers and workers. A White House aide, who spoke on condition that he not be identified, said the Administration would prefer a system of tax credits to small employers to help them finance such leaves.
Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the majority leader, told of getting a leave from his law firm years ago to care for an 18-month-old son with cancer. "For the parents whose employers do not provide this benefit voluntarily, the choice between keeping one's job or caring for a new child or sick family member is a choice no American should have to make," he said. Family Values Cited
"We believe we can honor the values of work and family," Mr. Gephardt added. "We can demonstrate our commitment to family values by our deeds, not just by our words. We can rise above the partisan differences that often justifiably divide us."
***But Representative Robert H. Michel of Illinois, the Republican leader in the House, contended that the bill dealt with neither family values nor labor issues. "This bill is only about one thing: election-year politics, pure and simple -- or at least simple." If the Democrats really cared about the measure, he asked, why had they waited until now to bring it to the House floor, since it had been passed in both houses last fall and a compromise had been reached in August in a single day.
***Democrats saw advantages in delaying. As the election neared, they hoped to win either Presidential concessions or more Republican votes. Alternatively, they were eager to spotlight Republican opposition to the popular measure with only a few weeks left until Election Day. They do not expect to break President Bush's string of 31 successful vetoes, but they welcome the fight.
Most Republicans contended that the bill would hurt employers and thus cost jobs.
Representative Cass Ballenger, Republican of North Carolina, called the requirement "just one more burden placed on small businesses struggling to survive."
Some Republicans disagreed. Representative Marge Roukema of New Jersey, for instance, said there was "not one shred of evidence that this will be costly to business."
And Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois said: "A woman should not have to choose between having a baby and keeping a job. It would be one less thing to worry about for a woman who is pregnant or a father whose child is sick. Family values require you to support this bill."
But in the end, only 37 Republicans voted for the bill while 119 opposed it and 10 did not vote. Two hundred and three Democrats voted for it, 42 voted no and 22 did not vote. One independent voted for the bill.
The 241-to-161 tally indicated far more absenteeism than on last Nov. 13, when the earlier version passed 253 to 177. Three Republicans and three Democrats who opposed it then supported it today.
The Democrats did not lobby energetically for votes, but the party's leaders drew a contrast between Republican votes and the "family values" rhetoric of the Republican convention in Houston last month. Speaker Thomas S. Foley said, "No legislation we will consider this year focuses so intensely and clearly on family values as the Family and Medical Leave Bill."
Representative David E. Bonior of Michigan, the third-ranking Democrat, asked: "How can you be for family values and oppose family leave?"
Several supporters contended that some states and cities had adopted similar laws without harming business. Representative Gerry Sikorski, Democrat of Minnesota, said his state's policies cost "less than $6 per week and helped business remain competitive by retaining good workers.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have laws guaranteeing jobs in private and public sectors for different sorts of family medical emergencies. Several are similar to the bill passed today, but others are limited to pregnancies and childbirth.
Photo: The House passed legislation yesterday that would require employers to give workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family emergencies. Representative Marge Roukema, Republican of New Jersey, conferred with two staff members, Steven Wilson, left, and Jeffrey DeKorte, before the vote. (Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)
---
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_fmla_assault/
Family and Medical Leave Act under assault: New restrictions, narrower definition of ‘serious illness’ pushed by business groups By Ross Eisenbrey August 10, 2005
Opinion pieces and speeches by EPI staff and associates.
[THIS OP-ED ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL ON AUGUST 4, 2005.]
Family and Medical Leave Act under assault New restrictions, narrower definition of 'serious illness' pushed by business groups
By Ross Eisenbrey
If you're a working parent who sometimes takes time off to care for a sick child (or spouse or parent), then you should be concerned about some behind-the-scenes maneuvering in Washington.
Big Business is lobbying the Bush administration to weaken the Family and Medical Leave Act, and it's uncertain whether the Labor Department will live up to its family-friendly rhetoric or cave in to President Bush's corporate allies.
Since the FMLA was enacted and signed into law 13 years ago, it has helped more than 50 million Americans balance the demands of work and family. The law gives employees of large and mid-sized companies and all levels of government the right to take unpaid leaves for the birth or adoption of a child or if the employee, her children, her spouse, or her parents have a serious medical illness. Thanks to FMLA, most employees know they will be able to return to their jobs at the same pay and benefits and that their health coverage will be maintained.
The law is particularly important because so few employers provide paid sick leave. In fact, a recent study from the Institute for Women's Policy Research (which analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) reveals that 59 million American workers do not have a single day of paid sick leave and 86 million do not have any paid sick days that can be used to care for a child.
Without the FMLA, these workers could be fired for getting sick and taking time off from work -- or for staying home to care for ailing or injured children, parents or spouses.
Though American companies have had few problems with unpaid family and medical leaves, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says its top labor law priority this year is weakening FMLA's protections in two ways.
First, the corporate lobbyists want a narrower definition of serious illness, to make it harder for parents to take leave to care for children with illnesses that keep them out of school and under a doctor's care for less than five days. The business groups think employers should be able to fire a mother who stays home for three or four days when her child gets the chickenpox or has surgery — but not for five days, apparently.
Second, they want new restrictions on the use of intermittent leave. The Chamber of Commerce contends that it encourages abuse to allow employees to take leave in amounts less than four hours at a time. Even if the employee needs just an hour to visit the doctor before coming to work at 9:30 a.m., they want to force the employee to take four hours of unpaid time.
At first glance, it seems strange for businesses to make employees be absent longer than they need to be and, at second glance -- it still seems strange. But there is method in the meanness. By forcing employees to lose four hours of pay, the business lobbyists hope to discourage them from using FMLA leave at all. As disability groups point out, the workers most likely to be hurt will be those with chronic conditions who use intermittent leave most frequently.
Because FMLA is so popular, the Chamber of Commerce isn't asking Congress to amend the law; instead, the chamber is lobbying the Labor Department to weaken the regulations implementing it.
Prompted by business groups, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing in June to persuade Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to give in to the corporate demands.
But the hearing might have backfired. The strongest testimony came from a businesswoman, parents, employees and a physician, all of whom said the law should be expanded, not weakened. They urged broader FMLA coverage and paid family leave, as well as minimum sick leave with pay for the millions who currently have none at all.
Strengthening family and medical leave in these ways would require congressional action and the president's signature, neither of which is likely in the near future. On the other hand, if Labor Secretary Chao weakens the regulations, she will arouse the ire of tens of millions of working parents, many of whom probably support President Bush because of his "pro-family" rhetoric.
Let's hope Chao lives up to that family-friendly rhetoric, instead of caving in to the administration's big business campaign contributors.
Ross Eisenbrey is vice president and policy director of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.