Family Leave: What The Contingency Management Has to Face

By Joanne R. Piersall

In a perfect world there would be only perfect employers who provide the perfect work environment for perfect employees who perform their jobs perfectly.
But in the real world, employer and employees too often are adversaries with each side feeling victimized by the other. The frequent result is an impasse on compensation and benefits and ultimately resolved and enforced through legislation. Such is the case with family/medical leave.

A Boon to
Contingency Planners

The fact that the family leave legislation has been so controversial for so long is indicative of management’s failure to see beyond rudimentary economics to broader personnel utilization issues and their relationship to contingency planning. The contingency planner who can successfully help them reframe a negative reaction into positive action will advance the role of disaster preparedness in general.
A recently published letter to syndicated columnist Ann Landers points out that problems related to personnel losses already exist.

The fact that the family leave legislation has been so controversial for so long is indicative of management’s failure to see beyond rudimentary economics to broader personnel utilization issues and their relationship to contingency planning.

The writer suggested that certain jobs should come with warning labels such as “This position may be hazardous to your health, marriage and family.” The point was that “management’s grand design” too often is based on the premise that nothing will ever go wrong. So when people get sick or go on vacation, remaining staff members find their hours and responsibilities increased to cover the loss. Even without adding special family concerns to the picture, many people already find themselves having to choose between work and home.
Similar concerns have been voiced by Michael R. Losey, SPHR, President and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, an international organization of 46,000 human resources managers. In an article entitled “Workplace Policies Should Be Family-friendly” (Modern Office Technology, May 1992) he pointed out that employees who are spread too thin and over stressed cease to be assets to their employers (or themselves).
Losey wrote that:
In the first systematic attempt to assess how well companies help employees deal with work and family pressures, the New York-based Families and Work Institute created what it calls the family friendly index.... points (were assigned) for such programs as flexible work arrangements and on-site day care.
The results show that corporate America still falls short of what the Institute calls the ideal. The average employer score was a mere 68 of a possible 610 points....
Interestingly, Losey’s data indicates that leave policies get somewhat more attention. In a recent survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management and the Bureau of National Affairs, a variety of leave options were offered by 48% to 83% of the organizations represented by the human resources professionals responding.
According to an article in the Westchester Business Journal, “Small Business Will Cut Jobs if Government Mandates Family Leave” (February 8, 1993), a 1991 Gallup poll of small business owners indicated that 94% of those responding grant leave request, 80% or more cover employee absences by working longer hours themselves, or by expecting family members or other employees to work longer hours. Almost one-third said work did not get done; only about one-fifth hired temporary help.

The Legal Reality

Contingency planners who know the frustration of being the lone voice pressing the case for disaster preparedness are more than familiar with management’s blind spot when it comes to preparing for the unexpected. Call it the ostrich mentality or Pollyanna syndrome, management goals too often depend on the constancy of a perfect business environment. In the absence of effective personnel management policies, federally mandated family leave is easily perceived as a threat to that constancy.
The inescapable fact is that as of August 5 it’s the law for most companies (no later than February 5, 1994 for companies with collective bargaining agreements). Businesses will have to evaluate their leave policies and benefits plans to ensure compliance. It will be an issue in contract negotiations and collective bargaining agreements. Decisions will have to be made regarding internal requirements for demonstrating medical necessity, especially in light of the fact that multiple certifications from qualified professionals must be funded by the employer.
Clarification and resolution of details of the legislation will be found in 19 CFR Part 825 of the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, under “Implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.” Employers will need to explore the finalized rule for specifics applicable to their individual circumstances.

One key to promoting a proactive rather than a reactive stance is emphasizing that the control lost to the legislation can be regained by implementing policies and procedures to deal with personnel losses of any kind. Instead of concentrating on defensive measures, such as restrictive hiring practices to exclude those most likely to need extended leave, employers can develop personnel management policies which will benefit them in more areas than just family leave.

Familiar Resistance

As much as any unplanned absence can disrupt normal operations, it’s a rare company which actually has more definitive plans for coverage than increasing demands on other personnel. In part, it may be that acknowledging and being prepared for unexpected disruptions suggests that management could lose control of part or all of the working environment. Furthermore, planning for coverage of personnel losses could signal that keeping the workplace under control depends in some measure on employee performance.
Employers have to relinquish some control to such legitimate absences as vacations, illness, accidents and jury duty, but many signify that absent employees are not all that important by not replacing them temporarily. Even when dismissals or resignations reduce the work force, there can be a tendency to minimize such losses by postponing finding replacements. Demonstrating that the company can get by without the absentee reinforces management’s control, especially in tough economic times when employees are fearful of facing unemployment.
Couple the issue of control with the current “bottom line” management style, and employers may feel fully justified in taking a hard line on employee utilization and benefits. Anything which comes along to threaten their control or balance sheet, or both, is likely to meet stiff opposition. Changing their perspective requires the kind of foresight and practicality that contingency planners can bring to a potentially disruptive scenario.

Offering Alternatives

One key to promoting a proactive rather than a reactive stance is emphasizing that the control lost to the legislation can be regained by implementing policies and procedures to deal with personnel losses of any kind. Instead of concentrating on defensive measures, such as restrictive hiring practices to exclude those most likely to need extended leave, employers can develop personnel management policies which will benefit them in more areas than just family leave.
Well documented office procedures and job descriptions are the first step. Both are invaluable to simplifying training and maintaining order. Implementing personnel policies without them is like driving to an unknown destination without a road map.
Then there are several proven personnel utilization practices which can be effective in both normal operations and disaster preparedness, among them: team building, job sharing, telecommuting and maintenance of a regular crew of cross trained temporary replacements. They can mitigate the impact of family leave or reduce the necessity for employees to request it. Some even help cover permanent losses (layoffs, dismissals or resignations) by ensuring that trained alternates are available to fill in temporarily. After a disaster, critical recovery tasks won’t hinge solely on the presence of specific individuals filling singular roles; there will be multiple options and ample talent and experience readily available.
•Team Building
Specific recruiting and hiring guidelines can be geared toward matching candidates to a team rather than a single job. Instead of the traditionally exclusive one-person-one-job lineup, each new employee would expect to be trained to work as an integral part of a team and be able to handle all or part of one or more closely related positions.
Advantages: People trained to work interactively know enough about each other’s roles and where they fit to help fill in temporary gaps. Loss of expertise in minimized, and there are several people to share a reassigned workload. After a disaster, a team is prepared to function as a unit with little or no direction.
•Job Sharing
Assigning two people to the same job can serve different purposes, depending on the type of job and the needs of both employer and employees. Where there are multiple shifts to the workday, some people prefer to work straight through two shifts and have more days off - two people each work half of two full time jobs for half a week.
Sometimes the scheduling preferences of people interested in only part time work can be paired so that the workday or workweek is split to the mutual satisfaction of employer and employees. Both job sharing arrangements already work successfully for employees who might be classified as prime candidates for intermittent or reduced leave (e.g. principal caretakers of young and old), but whose current work schedules preclude the need for such leave.
Advantages: An absence does not affect the full time performance of the job, only the time normally provided by the absentee. The job sharing partner is already trained and qualified to fill in temporarily, to help train another replacement, or to split the job with a temporary, possibly dividing the workload by skills if necessary.
•Telecommuting
Many people might forego leave if their jobs were modified to meet their personal needs. According to Lura K. Romei in “Telecommuting: A Workstyle Revolution?” (Modern Office Technology, May 1992) just under one and a half million workers already telecommute part time or full time either from home or from a nearby satellite office. The profiles of typical telecommuters include employees who might otherwise be expected to need family leave - men and women with young children and/or elderly parents.
Advantages: There is no loss of training and expertise when the employee is in regular contact with the main office. The employee can work on a flexible schedule, determined by the minimum number of hours the employer requires and the maximum the employee can give. In a disaster scenario, the employee’s alternate work site is already set up for conversion to a backup processing site.
•Cross Trained Temporary Replacements
Relying on temporary help from an outside agency has two distinct disadvantages: (1) the company’s lack of first hand knowledge of a temporary’s performance and abilities, and (2) the temporary’s lack of knowledge of the company and its policies. Permanent personnel may have to take on certain company specific tasks or make up for performance deficiencies for the duration of the replacement period. A team of temporaries maintained by the company offers continuity and familiarity with company practices. Performance and abilities are known quantities.
Advantage: The flexible scheduling of a company sponsored temporary work force can be yet another option for people otherwise likely to need family leave. The differential between what temporary services charge and what they pay their temporaries can be split to the mutual benefit of the company and the employee. After a disaster, the company has a ready-made, fully-trained staff of temporaries to help with recovery.
Options such as these can be used independently or in combination to cover personnel losses with minimal disruption and prepare sufficient staff member for disaster recovery roles. Other alternatives, such as alternate work sites, compressing the work week, flexible hours, and flexible overtime polices should also be considered.
Like most temporary losses, family leave will be limited in duration. Employers are required to provide a total of twelve weeks of leave in a given 12-month period. Unless otherwise stipulated by company leave policies or state guidelines, they may require that employees take all of their paid vacation, personal and sick leave before taking unpaid leave, thereby limiting the additional burden beyond current practice. Unless the absence is precipitated by an emergency, employees are required to give 30 days, advance notice, sufficient time for management to be prepared.
These restrictions and the fact that many employees can’t afford to take leave without pay make family leave far less problematical than other personnel losses - such as a potentially harmful resignation or dismissal under hostile conditions.

Benefits Beyond Coverage

Studies have shown that where management has created a cooperative, positive work environment improved job satisfaction results in improved performance, increased productivity and fewer absences.
Conversely, employees who are over worked, over stressed and dissatisfied are less efficient, have more accidents and illnesses and a higher absentee rate. They’re less likely to give their best efforts or to feel the kind of loyalty that fosters excellence.
The more that’s done to defuse potential conflict over personnel benefits like family leave, the greater the collective energies that can be applied to improving the overall well being of the company.
And management’s commitment to employee satisfaction will go a long way to fostering employee commitment to the company’s recovery in the event of a disaster.
With family leave tied so closely to corporate purse strings, disaster recovery planners finally have a contingency management must face squarely. It just might be the catalyst to garner a serious commitment to contingency planning.

Joanne R. Piersall has more than 20 years of office and information management experience. She is active as a writer and speaker in the field of contingency planning.

This article adapted from Vol. 6 #3.

Disaster Recovery Worldİ 1999, and Disaster Recovery Journalİ 1999, are copyrighted by Systems Support, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part is prohibited without the express written permission form Systems Support, Inc.