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

DATE: SUNDAY, May 20, 1990                   TAG: 9005210219
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: F2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

VETO THREAT

FIVE YEARS after the idea was introduced in Congress, a parental-leave bill has finally made it through the House of Representatives. Its fate in the Senate isn't certain, and the president threatens a veto. But he should reconsider. The measure is not the monster it's been made out to be.

In fact, the bill in its final form is fairly modest. It requires employers with 50 or more workers to allow workers time off without pay when they become parents, or when they must take care of a sick child, spouse or parent.

Business is disrupted when a regular employee is off for a lengthy period, but the bill seeks to minimize the inconvenience. While employees could be off up to 12 weeks a year, they would have to take the leave all at once. That should make it easier for employers to plan for replacement help.

Opponents of the measure say it's not necessary, because good employers already give their workers time off to take care of family responsibilities. In fact, many firms give workers at least partial pay for such leave.

But if businesses are treating their workers so well, why are they opposing the bill? For one thing, they fear there will be attempts to increase worker benefits in the future, and they're probably right. Right now, however, Congress and the president ought to deal with what's in front of them.

There has been wide disagreement over the bill's cost to business. U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates, based on earlier measures with more generous provisions, have ranged as high as $23.8 billion a year. The General Accounting Office has said that estimate was based on unrealistic assumptions about such things as how many people would take leave, and how many replacements would be hired.

Supporters say the measure passed by the House would cost employers less than $5.30 a year per employee. That estimate probably is low, but the current measure should not be a great hardship for businesses. Very small enterprises, for one thing, are exempt.

The primary value of this parental-leave act is psychological. It says to employers that workers have family responsibilities which must be taken into consideration. Women don't quit work to have children these days; there's no one at home to take care of a seriously ill child. Employees already under the strain of meeting family responsibilities shouldn't have to risk losing their jobs.

Americans apparently agree. According to a CBS News poll last year, 74 percent of the respondents supported parental-leave legislation. It already is the law in 125 other nations.

The bottom line in business is a worker's productivity. Compassionate practices such as parental leave are good for business in the long run because they lead to a stable, more productive work force. Compassionate treatment of this measure might, for Bush, be good for votes.

by CNB