A broad coalition of some 200 organizations and more than 100 lawmakers have written letters urging the Department of Labor to reject demands from business groups to restrict the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The coalition includes organizations representing labor, women's, civil rights, religious, senior, and veterans interests.

The FMLA, enacted 12 years ago, allows workers at companies with 50 or more employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for a serious medical condition or to care for a seriously ill family member, newborn, or newly adopted child. Only about 60 percent of American workers are covered by the law, according to the Labor Department.

Pushing to change the law are such business groups as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers and their conservative allies, such as the Heritage Foundation, a conservative advocacy group.

The groups representing big business have asked the Labor Department to restrict the definition of a "serious" illness to illnesses requiring 10 days of recovery instead of the current three days and to restrict the use of intermittent leave now allowed under FMLA regulations.

The National Partnership for Women and Families, which is leading the coalition, stressed these changes could effectively deny job-protected leave to nearly half of the 50 million Americans who have used family and medical leave over the past 12 years.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who led the lawmakers' letter-writing campaign with Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), said: "When a family or personal medical situation occurs, Americans should not have to decide between job responsibilities or taking the time to receive care."

Miller said that "guaranteeing workers time to care for a newborn baby or an elderly parent speaks volumes to the value our nation places in strong and healthy families. Undermining the Family and Medical Leave Act would undermine American families."

In a letter to Labor Secy. Elaine Chao, Susan Phillips, president of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, took issue with business' groups claims that regular sick leave would bridge the gap between the current three-day leave definition and the proposed 10-day definition for a serious illness.

". . . [E]vidence shows clearly that many employers do not provide sick leave for employees and their families," Phillips said. "Many, in fact, penalize employees for using the leave. It is critically important to remember that Congress enacted the FMLA because it found that employers' existing sick leave policies failed to address the needs of American employees and their families," she said.

The lawmakers' letter noted that Labor Dept. surveys of employers, which were released in 2000, found that 9 in 10 covered employers reported that the FMLA has a positive or neutral effect on productivity and growth.

Another DOL survey found that three in four private-sector employers said that FMLA's benefits outweigh or offset costs. Some 84 percent of employers surveyed said that intermittent leave had no impact on productivity. Some 94 percent said intermittent leave had no effect on profits.

According to a Labor Department survey in 2002, 52 percent of the 50 million Americans who have taken FMLA leave since 1993 used the leave for their own serious illness. Some 31 percent used it to care for a seriously ill family member. The rest used the leave to care for a new child.

Of those who used the leave for illness, about half were off work for 10 days or fewer.