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

DATE: WEDNESDAY, June 20, 1990                   TAG: 9006200371
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

SO MUCH FOR BEING PRO-FAMILY

The bill would guarantee workers as much as 12 weeks' unpaid leave for childbirth, adoption or serious family illnesses. The White House says the president stands ready to cast the 13th veto of his presidency.

His veto may prove politically unlucky. There's a lot of public support for a family-leave policy of the sort that other industrialized nations have. But Bush surely is aware of that. During his presidential campaign, then-Vice President Bush told a Rockford, Ill., Republican women's group:

"Look, we also need to assure that women don't have to worry about getting their jobs back after having a child or caring for a child during serious illness."

The president can hardly argue he's in favor of the concept but opposed to this particular bill because it is too onerous. The Family and Medical Leave Act would permit workers to take time off with health insurance intact, and return to the same or equivalent job. But it requires only unpaid, not paid, leave.

And only workers at companies with 50 or more employees would qualify. That protects small businesses from the additional costs. Indeed, it limits the benefit to a small fraction of the nation's employers.

Business leaders who oppose the legislation have calculated the costs if every eligible employee takes the maximum leave. But how many workers can afford to take three months off without pay for maternity leave or a family emergency? Surely most leaves would be substantially shorter.

Today, a majority of women with children work outside the home. They are typically the primary caretakers for their children, spouses and elderly parents. They need the option of taking time off without losing their jobs. Fathers, too, would benefit in a corporate culture in which it's easier to care for a new baby or a seriously ill spouse.

The president says he prefers the voluntary route. But if volunteerism took care of the problem, this legislation would carry no expense. It would never have to be applied or enforced.

And when it comes to expense, who will figure the cost of raising a generation that sees or bonds with neither parent in the crucial days of infancy. And what of the expense of having always to institutionalize or hospitalize ill, elderly parents because employees can't temporarily stay home with them?

Granted, continuing health insurance for employees on leave can prove, for businesses, a costly proposition. Businesses generally have been made to bear too much of the brunt of rising health-care costs. Still, the solution is to deal directly with health-cost containment - not to pretend that employees don't have babies or family emergencies.

Workers should not have to choose between family responsibilities and their jobs. President Bush should not to veto this bill.