
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, May 11, 1990                   TAG: 9005110303
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Cox News Service
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

FAMILY LEAVE PASSES

In action more likely to fuel campaign debates than to change the law, the House voted Thursday to give nearly half the nation's workers the right to unpaid leave during serious illness or for care of newborn children or seriously ill relatives.

The 237-187 vote was short of the two-thirds necessary to override a threatened veto by President Bush.

All Virginia representatives voted against the bill.

The Senate Labor Committee has approved similar legislation, but action by the full Senate has not been scheduled.

The vote was largely along party lines, with Democrats voting 198-54 for the measure and Republicans voting 133-39 against.

There were some notable exceptions, however, such as conservative Illinois Republican Henry Hyde, who supported the bill as an anti-abortion measure.

"Society should have a policy of encouraging motherhood, not encouraging abortion," Hyde said. "It seems to me, if a working woman becomes pregnant, she has to have an incentive to have that child and not to exterminate that child so she can keep her job."

Democrats portrayed the bill as "pro-family" and view it as having potent political appeal to middle-class voters in this fall's congressional elections.

Responding to Republican objections that the bill would benefit the middle class more than the working poor, Georgia Democrat Ed Jenkins asked, "What is wrong in America today with helping middle-class Americans? Have we abandoned those people who work every day of their lives, paying taxes, asking for nothing more than decency and compassion?"

"There are those who say good employers do this anyway," Jenkins said in response to another criticism of the bill. "So this bill will apply only to bad employers who do not have compassion, who do not have interest in the family."

The bill would require employers with at least 50 workers to provide 12 weeks unpaid leave in a year for a worker to recuperate from an illness or to care for a newborn infant or a seriously ill child, spouse or parent. The leave would be required for only one parent in a two-parent household.

"Key employees" - whose absence would compromise a company's operations - would not be guaranteed re-employment. Employers would have to continue to provide medical benefits during the leave.

Opponents attacked the bill as an unwarranted government intrusion into private enterprise that could damage the economy and be a first step toward other mandated benefits. They said it would be of no value to the working poor who couldn't afford to take unpaid leaves.

"I have a major philosophical problem with the federal government mandating certain activities on the part of small businesses or any business for that matter," Ohio Republican Michael Oxley said. "And I think ultimately those kinds of mandates come back to haunt us in terms of our inability to compete in the world market."

Iowa Republican Fred Grandy, who led the opposition in Thursday's debate, wondered if the bill was "providing a stalking horse to provide paid leave down the line."

Supporters argued that other industrialized nations already provide paid leave in such circumstances.

by CNB