Bill Overview
Title: Military Family Leave Act of 2022
Description: This bill entitles an employed family member of a member of the Armed Forces who receives notification of a call or order to active duty in support of a contingency operation, or who is deployed in connection with a contingency operation, to two workweeks of leave per year for each family member who is so called or deployed. Such leave may (1) be taken intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule; and (2) consist of paid or unpaid leave, as the employer considers appropriate. Additionally, the bill (1) allows an employer to require certification of entitlement to such leave within a leave request, (2) provides employment and benefits protection for employees upon their return from such leave, and (3) prohibits an employer from interfering with or otherwise denying the exercise of such leave rights.
Sponsors: Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Employed family members of Armed Forces personnel called to active duty
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill affects family members of Armed Forces personnel who are called to active duty in support of contingency operations.
- Such family members include spouses, parents, children, and potentially siblings, who are employed and need time off due to the deployment of their Armed Forces family member.
- The bill applies to individuals who are employed and have familial obligations due to military deployment.
- The legislation covers the need for family members to manage their affairs and provide support when a military family member is deployed for specific operations.
- The number of active duty military personnel fluctuates, but it affects a substantial number of families globally as the U.S. Armed Forces have personnel stationed or deployed around the world.
Reasoning
- The target population is employed family members of military personnel deployed in contingency operations. These family members need to balance work responsibilities with supporting their deployed family members.
- The financial cost limit means the policy cannot realistically cover unpaid leave for all potential beneficiaries if uptake is high or if leave costs vary considerably by salary. Instead, it focuses on job protection and flexibility, as well as allowing employers to choose whether the leave is paid or unpaid.
- The simulations cover different types of potential beneficiaries, including people of different ages, occupations, and personal circumstances. This range helps demonstrate varying impacts from none to high, reflecting both common scenarios and outliers.
- The wellbeing scores vary across individuals based on their existing job stress, wage stability, and the intensity of dependability on the military personnel. The policy's structured leave can alleviate stress and improve wellbeing for some, while for others the impact might be minimal or moderated by employer flexibility.
Simulated Interviews
school teacher (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is beneficial because it formalizes the leave process, making it easier for me to manage my work commitments when my husband is deployed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
corporate manager (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps, but I already worked for a supportive company. The certifiable reason adds credibility when I apply for leave.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
nurse (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I would definitely use the leave to visit family when my brother is deployed. It provides a useful safety net.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
logistics specialist (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy offers structure and reassurance, but I doubt I'll need to use it more than once.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
store manager (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stress relief this policy provides is hugely significant for my mental health due to my husband's frequent deployments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
engineer (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm unlikely to use this policy often, but when needed, it will provide stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retired, part-time consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not employed full time, so this policy doesn't impact me directly, but I support others who need it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
government contractor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ability to take leave alleviates some anxiety and would significantly impact our planning for visits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
auto mechanic (Fort Hood, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Helpful to have formal backing from the policy, but I may not fully utilize the leave as much as others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
bank teller (Chicago, IL)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy removes some financial fears around taking leave, though immediate workload coverage is still a concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4000000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $5000000000)
Year 2: $4080000000 (Low: $3060000000, High: $5100000000)
Year 3: $4161600000 (Low: $3121200000, High: $5202000000)
Year 5: $4326464000 (Low: $3242428000, High: $5410080000)
Year 10: $4782969000 (Low: $3586302000, High: $5987076000)
Year 100: $85737500000 (Low: $64303125000, High: $107171875000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's impact on employers could vary widely, depending largely on their industry and size.
- Public sector employers may face different constraints and budgetary challenges compared to private sector employers.