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%
