Comments on: Growing push for mandatory ‘domestic violence leave’

By: Anjelina M. Buentello

Anjelina M. Buentello — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:14:57 +0000

In all fairness, it should be judged on a case by case basis with HR. It should be up to HR to carefully inform the manager if the employee is too uncomfortable – that there are some personal issues – time off may be needed, the employee may be emotional or scared. It is the responsibility of the victim to let HR or their immediate supervisor know that something personal is going on. The more documentation the employee has the better the organization can understand and can help the employee by suggesting benefits or company leave options to help the employee. At the same time this is a private matter if the employee chooses to disclose any part of the situation he/she is in to any member of the company. Laws create more paperwork and rule following. It should be an ethical/safety matter until the leave of absence hampers with the company policies.

In the meanwhile, hire a temp to keep the work flow going.

I agree with Frances’ closing remark. I also agree with RB and Sheryl.

We have all suffered traumatic events – it is up to our own judgement to ask for assistance and find ways to peacefully, legally and safely resolve the issues, the trauma and suffering. Unfortunately, too often times victims have been threatened or too traumatized to do so.

Bottom line is to help/facilitate the employee (in the capacity that we are able to) to take care of the matters so he/she can return to work. We can still care for our employee as a human being.

By: Frances

Frances — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:19:41 +0000

Jeanette, California is a beautiful state ruined by do-gooders using force of law. Your list makes it clear why the state is bankrupt and has little real hope for financial security in the future. It is a direct result of too much government intervention such as this new domestic violence edict. It is immoral to demand for someone else to pay for you or your wants. Until the legislators understand the basic concept of rights as a certain proper course of behavior that must be respected by others and not subject to their demands/wants, you will continue to have well intentioned laws that always become counterproductive. On a more basic level, I think those involved in domestic violence must understand they each have a moral right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. They cannot demand anything from anyone else in order to make themselves content. Each individual is free to pursue their own dream as long as they don’t trample the rights of others.

By: R. B.

R. B. — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:19:29 +0000

I am in favor of being compassionate and supportive of employees who are victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence. But I do think there needs to be a balance in all of this. As was stated earlier by Frances…”business is business and not a social service.” Businesses are struggling to survive as it is and throwing a person’s unemployment into the mix because companies can no longer afford to remain in business isn’t going to help anyone, especially with the economy in the shape it is currently in. Also, what about employees who suffered sexual or physical abuse as a child and who are struggling to recover? What about people going through a divorce? What about those who are struggling through loss of income, bankruptcy, foreclosure, or other traumatic losses that impact their performance? Thankfully, most employers will work with an employee who is going through a crisis or who is experiencing a major life difficulty. But when government mandates these things, it becomes difficult to document, track, administer and oversee. I wish I had answers, but unfortunately, I probably have more questions than anything. I just know we need to be careful to maintain balance so as to be fair to both the employee and employer. I’m not sure that’s how things are currently being considered and it concerns me.

By: Jeanette

Jeanette — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:56:30 +0000

Any of you live/work in California? We have mandatory leave for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, victims of violent crimes, leave for an immediate family member or domestic partner to attend judicial proceedings with the victim, time off for school functions or meetings, time off for the family-school partnership act, time off for volunteer firefighters, reserve peace officers and emergency rescue personnel, time off for jury duty, to vote…all this in addition to FMLA. Note FMLA does not run concurrently with the “up to 4 months of pregnancy disability” leave. An employee who plays his/her cards right can be gone a lot of time…easily 7 months for pregnancy and childbirth plus all of the others. PDL and self-FMLA is paid through state disability and 6 weeks of FMLA for others is covered under Paid Family Leave. No comments, here, just facts.

By: JT

JT — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:17:40 +0000

As a survivor of domestic abuse myself, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think how much less stressful things would have been if I had felt I had real support from my employer. If I hadn’t felt like I couldn’t take time off work to go to court, counseling, etc. I might have been able to get out of my situation earlier, had I not been so focused on trying to keep my job so I’d be able to support myself if I ever did make it out. On the other hand, as a suporter of SMALL government (an oxymorn these days it seems) I hate the idea of more federal intervention in the daily lives of anyone…including my employer.

To the person who asked isn’t this already covered under FMLA? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. FMLA only covers leave for medical reasons…domestic/sexual violence covers a much broader area. Now, it may could be amended to specifically cover issues related to domestic/sexual violence, but it does not as currently written.

By: Sheryl

Sheryl — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:38:48 +0000

As a Human Resources Manager and a volunteer Legal Advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, I can see both sides of the coin.

If compassion is the intent of the legislation, the intentions are honorable. However, I can’t think of a viable scenario for fairly administering Domestic Violence Leave. What kind of documentation could I require to prove that an employee is taking time off to change residences to prevent further abuse versus the employee that wants to take time off to move and is simply out of personal time? A doctor’s note won’t work because not all abuse is physical. A therapist’s note won’t work because they may in therapy for something completely unrelated. And yet, the employee may very well be telling me the often humiliating and embarrassing truth.

Legislation that puts HR personnel in the position of judge and jury isn’t practical legislation – it’s just passing the buck.

By: Debra

Debra — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:37:23 +0000

Thank you Johnny. Finally a voice of reason. It’s nice to hear from someone who remembers what the ‘H’ in HR stands for.

By: Judy Buckley

Judy Buckley — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:34:41 +0000

I agree with Joie – I think using FMLA to include domestic violence and/or sexual assault makes sense. One might not consider these a “serious illness” but it is a trauma and can have lasting effects. Those psychological effects, especially, would compromise a person’s ability to be effective at work. It would be good if some kind of counseling could be enforced, I suppose, but I don’t see that happening. Insight just “takes as long as it takes” -

By: Johnny Trlica

Johnny Trlica — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:57:46 +0000

Let’s not turn this into a political forum. But since you mention it, the correct spelling is DEMOCRATIC. The same party that is probably responsible for many of the HR policies we are charged with enforcing to the benefit of our employees and ourselves. Certainly there can be abuses to any benefit, but I’d rather error on the side of safety than not. Domestic abuse should not be a political issue, it is a life changing experience and as HR reps we should be more understanding. PS: It doesn’t just happen to women.

By: Joie

Joie — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:46:32 +0000

Why wouldn’t this be covered under the regular FMLA laws? Is a separate law really needed?