Report says Nevada’s labor laws not family friendly

Alana Roberts

Friday, May 6, 2005 | 10:52 a.m.

A new report issued by a family interest group says Nevada's labor laws deserve an F.

The state's laws don't grant parents who need to take time off of their jobs additional benefits and protections beyond federal family-leave laws.

Nevada is one of 19 states that the National Partnership for Women & Families rated with a failing grade for not requiring companies in the state to provide such added benefits as paid leave and additional job protection to parents of newborns and newly adopted children when compared with federal law. Currently the federal laws that deal with the issue are the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The report was timed to coincide with Mother's Day on Sunday.

"We're really interested in looking at how the family values rhetoric of America matches with reality," Taylor Hatcher, one of the report's writers, said. Hatcher said states should do their part to extend added protections to workers.

But Cara Roberts, a spokeswoman for the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, said that while protections for parents are good benefits to provide employees, it should be up to the companies to determine which benefits to provide.

"The more government tries to regulate business -- and particularly small business -- on how to run their business, the harder it is for them to stay in business," Roberts said. "Certainly we want to be understanding about the needs of families."

The FMLA requires companies with 50 or more employees to offer up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a year for workers who have a serious medical condition including the birth and care of a newborn child and for placement of an adopted or foster child. Hatcher said because of the requirement that the company have 50 or more employees, 40 percent of U.S. workers are not eligible for the protections. The law applies only to employees who worked at least 1,250 hours in the previous year.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act makes it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or deny a woman a promotion because she is pregnant.

Hatcher lauded the FMLA but said many workers can't afford to take leave because they aren't guaranteed paid leave.

"The FMLA has been a big success," Hatcher said. "We know that 78 percent of people who needed to take FMLA leave and were eligible couldn't take it because they couldn't afford it."

Hatcher said the nation's protections and benefits for parents are woefully inferior to what other industrialized countries offer their working parents. She said a Harvard University study of 168 countries found that 163 guarantee paid leave to women in connection to childbirth, and 45 guarantee paid paternity or parental leave.

"Our leave policies are the worst in the world," Hatcher said.

The report offered no solid A grades, but California did get an A minus for its family-friendly labor laws. She said the state has a good family-leave policy with six weeks of partial paid time off for the care of a newborn child or for the placement of an adopted or foster child.

"I think the bottom line is to say Nevada has an F today, but they don't have to have one tomorrow," Hatcher said. "There are existing programs in especially your neighboring states that provide good models if you're serious about putting value in the family."

Danny Thompson, executive secretary-treasurer of the Nevada State AFL-CIO, said laws enhancing protections for working parents would be beneficial to Nevada's workers, but that there aren't any plans that he knows of to push them in the Nevada Legislature right now.

"We know it's bad in Nevada but we didn't pursue anything," Thompson said.

According to a 2004 study by the Society for Human Resource Management, 13 percent of human resource professionals say their companies offer paid maternity leave in addition to what is covered by a short-term disability plan, 15 percent offer paid paternity leave and 81 percent of companies offer paid short-term disability leave.

Frank Scanlan, a spokesman for the SHRM, said more companies are offering paternity leave and that some are offering mothers time off through a short-term disability plan instead of through a paid maternity leave policy.

Roberts said if federal and state governments force companies to provide paid leave it will place a financial burden on companies.

"And where these laws sound nice on the surface people need to understand there's a true cost involved," she said.

Hatcher countered by saying there are affordable ways to provide the benefits. She said California's paid parental leave comes from contributions made by employees for the benefits as an extension of California's State Disability Insurance program.

"We don't deny this type of leave can be expensive, that's why we look at insurance models," Hatcher said. "If you look at California, it costs $2.25 a month. It's employee-funded out of their payroll taxes. I have not heard one employee complain, and this is not a burden to businesses."

Roberts said many employers do offer their workers benefits, but she reiterated that the decision to offer enhanced benefits to working parents should be up to the employer.

"When a business hires an employee they hire them to do their job," Roberts said. "Many employers do offer flexible work schedules and time off for parents of sick children, but we believe that's better served when the company has a choice and can determine the policies that are best for their employees, rather than government trying to regulate a one-size fits all approach."