US to get maternity leave law

STYMIED FOR seven years in Congress by Republican resistance, legislation that would oblige US companies to allow workers to take family leave is now hurtling towards adoption under the patronage of the new administration.

Adopted by the relevant committee in the Senate yesterday, the bill is expected to be on President Bill Clinton's desk for signature in a few weeks. It will be among the first pieces of legislation to be adopted by the new Congress and may come to symbolise the freeing of Washington's law-making gridlock, with the Democrats now in control of Capitol Hill and the White House.

Still regarded with horror by most conservatives and many businesspeople, the bill, which covers maternity leave, was twice vetoed by George Bush, most recently last autumn shortly before the election. It will be more or less the same version that President Clinton will shortly sign with alacrity.

Applicable only to companies with 50 or more employees, and representing only 5 per cent of US enterprises, the new law would stipulate they should grant workers 12 weeks' unpaid leave to attend to family or health-related emergencies.

It would allow expectant mothers to go home for a period before and after delivery with a guarantee that their job, or one of an equivalent level, would still be there on their return. During that time, the employer would also be obliged to continue paying that person's health insurance. At present there is no federal law compelling employers to grant maternity leave, although some states do make legal provision for new mothers.

The new administration wasted little time in giving the draft law the new wind it needed. Two days after Mr Clinton's inauguration, his new Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, hailed the legislation as a 'turning point in the history of American workforce policy'.

But Mr Reich also hinted that this may be only the first stage towards mandating wider employment laws. Describing the draft only as a 'very, very modest minimal step', he added that it would 'serve as the emphatic opening statement of the Clinton administration's workforce agenda'.

The bill was one of the issues discussed at a meeting in the White House yesterday between President Clinton and congressional leaders, both Democrat and Republican. At the meeting, Mr Clinton said he intended delivering his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on 17 February.

Officials said the meeting with the President avoided lengthy discussion of his proposal to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, which is threatening to provoke his first clash with Capitol Hill. Most time was spent on plans for a task force, headed by Hillary Clinton, to draw up extensive health-care reforms for consideration by Congress in the spring.

The appointment of Mrs Clinton to such a senior position - she will have several cabinet secretaries serving under her in tackling the health issue - has stirred some controversy, though nothing approaching uproar. 'The American public up to now has never looked favourably on first ladies who get involved in policy,' said Burton Pines, a conservative commentator.

Republican members of Congress continued to argue, in spite of overwhelming odds against them, that forcing family leave requirements on private enterprises was wrong and would impede competition.

'I always feel like the skunk at the picnic on this issue,' said Senator Nancy Kassebaum, of Kansas, who is leading the opposition to the bill. 'But I feel it is wrong for us to mandate benefits.' Leading the Senate Labor Committee into endorsing the plan yesterday was Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.