skip navigational linksDOL Seal - Link to DOL Home Page
Photos representing the workforce - Digital Imagery- copyright 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.
www.dol.gov/esa
November 8, 2008    DOL Home > ESA > WHD > FMLA > The 2000 survey report   

Wage and Hour Division (WHD)

Printer-Friendly Version

ESA OFCCP OLMS OWCP WHD
Wage and Hour Division - To promote and achieve compliance with labor standards to protect and enhance the welfare of the nation's workforce.

Chapter 7

Impact of Family and Medical Leave on Non-covered Establishments

Figure 7.1. Standard Industrial Classification of Non-Covered Establishments: 2000 Survey

Retail: 18.4%
Service: 35.1%
Manufacturing: 4.5%
All Others: 41.9%


Figure 7.2. Size of Non-Covered Worksites: 2000 Survey

11 to 24 Employees: 15.9%
25 to 49 Employees: 3.8%
Less then 10 Employees: 80.3%


Figure 7.3. Comparison of Covered and Non-covered Establishment Methods of Covering Work While an Employee is On Leave: 2000 Survey

Assisgn Work Temporarily to Other Employees** (Non-Covered): 86.2%
Assisgn Work Temporarily to Other Employees** (Covered): 98.3%

Hire an Outside Temporary Replacemant** (Non-Covered): 32.9%
Hire an Outside Temporary Replacemant** (Covered): 41.3%

Put Work on hold Until the Employee Returns from Leave** (Non-Covered): 31.3%
Put Work on hold Until the Employee Returns from Leave** (Covered): 15.5%

Have the Employee Perform While on Leave** (Non-Covered): 21.7%
Have the Employee Perform While on Leave** (Covered): 9.0%


Figure 7.4. Non-covered Establishments' Anticipated Business Impact of FMLA, Compared to Covered Establishments' Actual Business Impact of FMLA: 2000 Survey

Business Productivity:

Negative Effect** (Non-Covered): 50.5%
Negative ** (Covered): 16.3%

No Noticeable Effect** (Non-Covered): 39.6%
No Noticeable Effect** (Covered): 76.5%

Positive Effect (Non-Covered): 9.9%
Positive Effect (Covered): 7.1%


Business Growth:

Negative Effect** (Non-Covered): 38.6%
Negative ** (Covered): 9.7%

No Noticeable Effect** (Non-Covered): 54.2%
No Noticeable Effect** (Covered): 87.7%

Positive Effect (Non-Covered): 7.2%
Positive Effect (Covered): 2.6%

**Difference between non-covered and covered is significant at p<.05.


Figure 7.5. Non-covered Establishments' Anticipated Cost of FMLA, Compared to Covered Establishments' Actual Cost of FMLA: 2000 Survey

Administrative Cost:

No Increase** (Non-Covered): 28.5%
No Increase** (Covered): 48.6%

Small Increase** (Non-Covered): 26.3%
Small Increase** (Covered): 40.6%

Moderate Increase** (Non-Covered): 31.1%
Moderate Increase** (Covered): 9.7%

Large Increase** (Non-Covered): 14.0%
Large Increase** (Covered): 1.2%


Hiring and Training Costs:

No Increase** (Non-Covered): 34.5%
No Increase** (Covered): 65.9%

Small Increase** (Non-Covered): 23.4%
Small Increase** (Covered): 28.6%

Moderate Increase** (Non-Covered): 28.6%
Moderate Increase** (Covered): 6.6%

Large Increase** (Non-Covered): 13.5%
Large Increase** (Covered): 0.7%

** Difference between non-covered and covered is significant at p<.05.

 



Phone Numbers