THE PUBLIC MIND: SENATOR: FAMILY LEAVE BILL AGREEMENT HELPS BUSINESS

~Dear Mr. Krone:

~All of us know how difficult the recession has been on small businesses across America. I certainly know that because I have talked with many ~small business~ owners in the last few months, who have told me how difficult it has been.

I am pleased that the Federal Reserve has acted to lower interest rates. Also, we have some encouraging signs that the recession is about to lift. Still, it is becoming tougher and tougher for small businesses to stay viable.

I asked to serve on the Small Business Committee because I appreciate how important small businesses are to Missouri and our economy. From 1986 to 1988, small businesses created almost 50,000 new jobs in Missouri. If there is one thing that I understand clearly, it is that small businesses cannot shoulder any more red-tape and mandates from the federal government.

It is because I feel so strongly about this that I wanted to write you personally to explain my position on an issue that you may hear about very soon.

For some time, some members of Congress have been pushing legislation called the Family and Medical Leave Bill that would allow workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for birth or adoption of a child, or serious illness of the employee, their child, spouse or parent.

Frankly, I felt this bill went too far, was inflexible, did not have sufficient safeguards against abuse of the law by employees, and did not require enough accountability on the part of the employee. I picked up these same concerns in talking to business men and women across the state.

Over the course of the summer, it became clear that this legislation was moving. I thought it was time to sit down and see if we could negotiate with its sponsors to trim its excesses, limit its reach, and get something that we could live with while still addressing the principle objective of the legislation: strengthening family obligation and responsibility. After all, I believe that most of the problems society faces today in some way stem from the weakening of families in America.

After weeks of negotiations, the bill's sponsors agreed to accept almost every major concession that we had requested and were willing to adopt our other proposals as a substitute for their original bill. I believe these concessions were substantial but I want to share them with you so that you can reach your own conclusion.

The changes we made include:

~- Exempting ALL small businesses (~50 employees or less) -- this alone exempts 95 percent of all employers in America; reducing that number further would then require another act of Congress;

~- Limiting employee eligibility to those who-have worked at least one full year and worked at least 25 hours per week;

- Exempting "key~ employees from the leave provision (defined as the highest paid 10 percent if their leave would endanger the business);

- Eliminating all consequential damages, limiting damage remedies in cases of good faith violations, streamlining the enforcement provisions to parallel the long-standing Fair Labor Standards Act, which is known as not burdensome in its enforcement;

- Enabling employers to recapture benefits used by the employee during unpaid leave if the employee does not return to work;

- Requiring 30 days notice for foreseeable leaves;

- Redefining "serious health condition" to require that the employee be unable to perform his or her job duties, which would be certified by a health provider to qualify;

- Requiring medical certification of illness and permitting the employer to require a second opinion; and

- Allowing employers to transfer employees taking intermittent leave to less disruptive, equivalent positions.

In short, we got almost everything requested and I believe this substitute is far superior to what may have become law if the original bill were enacted.

Now, some lobbyists in Washington have decided to label my efforts as more harmful than what we had in the beginning; that's just not true. I am writing you directly so that you could hear from me what I was able to accomplish and why I did it, instead of hearing a puffed-up, doomsday description from some stranger in Washington.

My record on small business issues is outstanding and I intend to keep it that way. I have fought every mandated benefit that I thought placed an unreasonable burden on business and I know that small business must be allowed to grow if our economy is going to grow.

I take my responsibilities to the people of Missouri seriously, and I stop to listen to them before I take major action in Washington. I believe the concessions we were able to get on this bill are precisely the ones small business owners were concerned about and I hope you will agree that this is far better than the original bill.

If you have any comments, I would like to hear from you. You can write me in care of U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510.

Thank you again for taking time to understand my perspective on this matter.

Sincerely,

Sen. Christopher S. Bond