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

DATE: FRIDAY, July 27, 1990                   TAG: 9007270576
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

FAMILY LEAVE

PRESIDENT Bush won the latest veto skirmish but may lose the battle. He and his party could suffer painful political wounds because he killed a bill that for some American workers would have guaranteed unpaid leave for childbirth, adoption or serious family illnesses. Democrats promise not to let the president forget his veto.

The voters may not let Bush off easy, either. Polls show that most Americans support family leave.

Of course, the public has a long wish list of items that cannot readily be obtained or granted. But this is not one of them - not as defined by the vetoed bill. And in a society where more and more mothers work outside the home, and where more and more grownups have aging parents who need care, the need for a family-leave policy - of the sort that other industrialized nations already possess - is an issue that will steadily grow.

Bush didn't invite anyone to read his lips, but during his presidential campaign he put himself solidly behind the family-leave concept. He waited until he became president to say that he wants businesses to offer leaves voluntarily.

Of course, if they do that, then this law would cost nothing extra. It's hard to argue that workers needing leave are already getting it and it would be too expensive to guarantee such leave. In fact, the vetoed bill would have applied only to companies with 50 or more workers, so it would not have imposed a great burden on the private sector. And few requests would be frivolous: Most employees who qualify for leaves under the measure could hardly afford to take the maximum unpaid time off, three months.

Most House Republicans voted to sustain the veto on Wednesday, but family leave is not - or ought not be - an issue of party or ideology. All Virginia congressmen voted to uphold the veto except Rick Boucher of the 9th District. Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a certified conservative, backed the bill. He sees it as consistent with GOP support for strengthening the family, increasingly important in an era when social and cultural institutions are crumbling right and left.

Rep. Steve Bartlett, R-Texas, praised the veto as courageous - it did go against the political grain - and said the bill would have imposed a "one-size-fits-all benefit" without regard to need. But the needs don't have to be definitively described; they exist and are legion. However you size it, the veto was small-minded, unresponsive and ungenerous.

by CNB