Skip to page content
Wage and Hour Division
Bookmark and Share

Wage and Hour Division (WHD)

Chapter 6

Administering Family and Medical Leave by Covered Establishments

Table 6.1. Covered Establishments' Sources of Information About FMLA: 1995 and 2000 Surveys

U.S. Department of Labor**
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 53.9%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 83.1%

The media
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 66.4%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 54.2%

A trade or business group
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 70.3%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 68.3%

An attorney or consultant**
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 57.0%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 77.9%

A union
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 3.0%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 3.2%

Employees
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 3.3%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 10.0%

The Internet
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 48.8%

Existing company policies or practices
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 89.4%

Some other source
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 20.5%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 12.4%

** Difference between 1995 and 2000 is significant at p<.05.
NA - Indicates item not asked in 1995 survey.
Notes: Percents do not total to 100% because a respondent could answer "yes" to more than one source. 1995 survey asked about initial sources of information on the FMLA.
Source: 1995 and 2000 Survey of Establishments.


Table 6.2. How Employees First Learned About the Family and Medical Leave Act: 2000 Survey

Media (TV, newspapers, etc.)
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: 42.5%

Co-workers
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: 5.0%

Employer gave out information
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: 38.4%

Posters
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: 3.6%

Internet
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: --

Family member
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: 2.7%

Union gave out information
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: 1.4%

Other way
Percent of Employees Aware of FMLA: 6.3%

-- Indicates less than 10 unweighted cases.
Source: 2000 Survey of Employees.


Table 6.3. Methods Used to Cover Work When an Employee Takes Leave for a Week or Longer: 1995 and 2000 Surveys

Establishment Covers Leave By: Assigning work temporarily to other employees
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 97.1%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 98.3%

Establishment Covers Leave By: Hiring an outside temporary replacement**
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 60.5%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 41.3%

Establishment Covers Leave By: Hiring a permanent replacement*
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 11.8%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 4.4%

Establishment Covers Leave By: Putting work on hold until the employee returns from leave
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 19.2%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 15.5%

Establishment Covers Leave By: Having the employee perform some work while on leave
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 13.9%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 9.0%

Establishment Covers Leave By: Some other method
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 1.9%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 10.6%

* Difference between 1995 and 2000 is significant at p<.10.
** Difference between 1995 and 2000 is significant at p<.05.
Note: Percents do not total to 100% because a respondent could answer "yes" to more than one source.
Source: 1995 and 2000 Survey of Establishments.


Figure 6.1. Usefulness of Provisions for Managing Employee Use of FMLA Leave: 2000 Survey

Exception for Highly Paid Key Employee (Very Useful): 8.3%
Exception for Highly Paid Key Employee (Somewhat Useful): 48.4%
Exception for Highly Paid Key Employee (Not At All Useful): 43.3%

Written Medical Certification (Very Useful): 55.1%
Written Medical Certification (Somewhat Useful): 36.8%
Written Medical Certification (Not At All Useful): 8.1%

Second and Third Medical Opinions (Very Useful): 18.0%
Second and Third Medical Opinions (Somewhat Useful): 53.0%
Second and Third Medical Opinions (Not At All Useful): 29.0%

Advance Notice of Foreseeable Leave (Very Useful): 61.6%
Advance Notice of Foreseeable Leave (Somewhat Useful): 32.0%
Advance Notice of Foreseeable Leave (Not At All Useful): 6.5%

Transfer to Alternative Position (Very Useful): 16.2%
Transfer to Alternative Position (Somewhat Useful): 63.5%
Transfer to Alternative Position (Not At All Useful): 20.3%


Table 6.4. Effects of FMLA-Related Administrative Activities: 1995 and 2000 Surveys

Maintaining Additional Record-Keeping: Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 76.0%*
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 62.0%

Maintaining Additional Record-Keeping: Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 24.0%*
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 38.0%


Determining Whether the Act Applies to the Organization: Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 91.8%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 86.0%

Determining Whether the Act Applies to the Organization: Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 8.2%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 14.0%


Determining Whether Certain Employees are Eligible: Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 92.0%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 83.4%

Determining Whether Certain Employees are Eligible: Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 8.0%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 16.6%


Coordinating State and Federal Leave Policies: Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 81.1%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 57.1%

Coordinating State and Federal Leave Policies: Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 18.9%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 42.9%


Coordinating the Act with Other Federal Laws: Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 74.3%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 47.2%

Coordinating the Act with Other Federal Laws: Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 25.7%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 52.8%


Coordinating the Act with Other Leave Policies(1): Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 78.9%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 59.9%

Coordinating the Act with Other Leave Policies(1): Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 21.1%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 40.1%


Coordinating the Act with Employee Attendance Policies: Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 65.5%

Coordinating the Act with Employee Attendance Policies: Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 34.5%


Administering FMLA's Notification, Designation, and Certification Requirements : Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 45.6%

Administering FMLA's Notification, Designation, and Certification Requirements : Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 54.4%


Determining if a Health Condition is a Serious Health Condition Under FMLA : Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 57.7%

Determining if a Health Condition is a Serious Health Condition Under FMLA : Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 42.3%


Overall Ease of Complying with FMLA: Very/Somewhat easy
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 85.1%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 63.6%

Overall Ease of Complying with FMLA: Very/Somewhat difficult
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 14.9%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 36.4%

(1) In the 1995 survey, item wording was "pre-existing" rather than "other."
* Difference between 1995 and 2000 is significant at p<.10.
** Difference between 1995 and 2000 is significant at p<.05. NA Indicates item not asked in 1995 survey.
Note: Column percents may not total to 100% due to rounding.
Source: 1995 and 2000 Survey of Establishments.


Table 6.5. Effects of Complying with FMLA on Business and Employee Performance: 1995 and 2000 Surveys

Business Performance

Productivity: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 6.4%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 7.1%

Productivity: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 7.2%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 16.3%

Productivity: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 86.4%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 76.5%


Profitability: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 1.2%*
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 2.6%

Profitability: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 6.3%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 9.8%

Profitability: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 92.5%*
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 87.6%


Growth: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 1.1%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 2.6%

Growth: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 3.1%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 9.7%

Growth: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 95.8%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 87.7%


Employee Performance

Productivity: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 12.6%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 15.8%

Productivity: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 4.7%*
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 17.2%

Productivity: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 82.7%*
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 67.0%


Absences: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 5.9%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 4.8%

Absences: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 4.6%**
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 18.9%

Absences: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 89.5%*
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 76.3%


Turnover: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 4.9%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 5.7%

Turnover: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: --
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 8.4%

Turnover: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 94.7%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 85.9%


Career Advancement: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 8.3%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 3.9%

Career Advancement: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: --
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: --

Career Advancement: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: 91.0%
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 95.6%


Morale: Positive effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 24.2%

Morale: Negative effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 11.1%

Morale: No noticeable effect
Percent of Covered Establishments 1995 Survey: NA
Percent of Covered Establishments 2000 Survey: 64.7%

* Difference between 1995 and 2000 is significant at p<.10.
** Difference between 1995 and 2000 is significant at p<.05.
-- Indicates less than 10 unweighted cases. NA Indicates item not asked in 1995 survey.
Note: Column percents may not total to 100% due to rounding.
Source: 1995 and 2000 Survey of Establishments.


Figure 6.2. Establishment Size Differences in Impact of Intermittent Leave on Establishment Productivity: 2000 Survey

Differences in Impact of Intermittent Leave (Negative Impact*) 1-250 Employees: 17.1%
Differences in Impact of Intermittent Leave (Negative Impact*) 250+ Employees: 32.4%

Differences in Impact of Intermittent Leave (No Impact*) 1-250 Employees: 82.3%
Differences in Impact of Intermittent Leave (No Impact*) 250+ Employees: 65.7%