There is no requirement that family leave time is paid by the employer (in 2023, paid family leave is coming to Oregon). However, you must be allowed to use any existing accrued paid leave, including sick leave, vacation leave or any paid leave offered in lieu of vacation leave.
OFLA (but not FMLA) has bereavement leave which is the leave to make funeral arrangements, attend the funeral or to grieve a family member who has passed away. This leave is limited to two weeks and must be completed within 60 days of the date when the employee learned of the death. Bereavement leave will count toward the total amount of OFLA eligible leave.
Yes, under OFLA, but not under FMLA if the parents are married. OFLA employers are not required to allow both parents to take parental leave at the same time, but each can take the full 12 weeks. OFLA states that family members working for the same employer may not take family leave at the same time unless one or both of the employees is suffering from a serious health condition, the child is suffering from a serious health condition, or the employer allows the taking of concurrent leave.
Both state and federal law require certain employers to provide family leave to their employees: the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA), the Oregon Military Family Leave Act (OMFLA) and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA).
FMLA requires employers to notify employees in writing of their eligibility to take family leave within 5 business days of a request for leave or the acquisition of enough information to determine that leave may be for a qualifying purpose. OFLA allows employers to request information to determine if it is qualifying leave (except for parental leave) and requires a notice of eligibility and qualification within 5 days of receipt of that information. FMLA requires notice of rights and responsibilities to be sent with the notice of eligibility. When the employer has enough information to determine whether the leave will qualify under FMLA, the employer must notify the employee in writing within 5 business days that it is designating the leave as FMLA leave. The United States Department of Labor provides employers with forms for these purposes. Call 503-326-3057 for more information. BOLI has not provided a template, but a letter will suffice notifying the employee whether they are eligible and whether the condition qualifies.
There is no requirement that family leave be paid by the employer. However, the employee must be allowed to use any existing accrued paid leave, including sick leave, vacation leave or any paid leave offered in lieu of vacation leave.
Very likely. Employers must reasonably accommodate an employee´s disability if it does not create an undue hardship. If an employee´s family leave entitlement has been exhausted for a serious health condition that is also a disability, or if the employee returns from intermitten leave, the reasonable accommodation obligation still remains. An example would be an employee who suffered permanent injuries to her back and, although able to return to work, needed special office furniture or equipment to allow her to perform the job after returning from family leave. Additional unpaid leave or an adjusted work schedule to accommodate therapy treatments may also be reasonable accommodations under the disability laws. The employer will be required to engage in a meaningful interactive process with the returning employee to identify potential accommodations, and should document those efforts.
In French culture, great importance is placed on family. Therefore, as the partner of a French man or woman, you can expect to spend a significant amount of time with your French in-laws. The relationships between family members remain close, even into adulthood. Relatives tend to live reasonably close to each other and meet weekly for dinners and so on.
Although most research has focused on the overall correlation, the way family size is reproduced may also vary across parities. For Britain, Booth and Kee (2009) found that an increase in the origin-family size particularly results in an increase in own family size for women with few children (first 10 % of the distribution) and several children (second half of the distribution). Although they did not directly study the intergenerational correlation for family size, Breton and Prioux (2009) also showed that in Europe, the probability of having one child is highest among individuals with few siblings and, particularly, only-children. In addition, the probability of having a third child is higher among those who have many siblings (Breton and Prioux 2002). These studies suggest that the two extremes of the fertility distribution drive the intergenerational relationship. Was this always the case over the last century? Our second contribution is to measure the extent to which the reproduction of parental fertility has differed over time along the fertility distribution, which should give good insight into the underlying mechanisms of fertility transmission.
One notable and widespread feature of European fertility is that the two-child model spread massively from the 1930s birth cohorts to the 1950s birth cohorts (David and Sanderson 1987; Frejka 2008; Van Bavel et al. 2015). In France, although three-child families remained relatively widespread, approximately 4 in 10 women born in the 1950s and later had two children (Masson 2013). The transmission mechanisms of family size can be affected by this massive change: Boehnke et al. (2007) argued that intergenerational transmission effects are stronger for families who differ from the normative Zeitgeist. The effects within two-child families should become weaker relative to other family sizes because many people follow the normative two-child family model regardless of their origin family size.
The diffusion of the normative family size model and the resulting selectivity of other family sizes would thus imply that correlations within small (no-child and one-child) and large families should become stronger across cohorts while being weaker for two-child families.
Third, we move to a parity-specific approach that allows us to measure the strength of the sibship size effect along the fertility distribution. First, descriptive statistics show the distribution of own total number of children by number of siblings across birth cohorts. We then estimate whether sibship size plays a significant role for having zero to sevenFootnote 6 children using the marginal effects of the previous ordered logit model for each birth cohort by sex.Footnote 7 The coefficients obtained for the number of siblings and interactions with cohorts in the ordered logistic model refer to the latent process that drives the respondent choice between the categories of family sizes.
Over a long period, the intergenerational correlation of fertility behaviors cannot be disconnected from historical changes in fertility. Over the century, the share of large families (those with three or more children) decreased in France, and the two-child family became predominant: when comparing women born in the 1930s with those born in the 1950s onward, the probability of having two children rose from 3 in 10 to 4 in 10 (Fig. 1, panel c). Men displayed similar patterns, although the rise of the two-child family started in older cohorts and was more gradual (Fig. 1, panel d).
To explore across cohorts which family sizes are most sensitive to the original family size, we use ordered logit regressions performed by sex, where total family size is an outcome from 0 to 12 and more children. The coefficient of number of children rises with the number of siblings (Table 3). We display in Fig. 5 the marginal effect of having more siblingsFootnote 10 on achieving each parity from 0 (childless) to 6. The closer to zero the marginal effect is, the less influence a small change in the number of siblings has on own family size. (See also Fig. A1 in the online appendix, which presents the predicted probabilities for different sibship sizes and helps with the interpretation of the results.) The marginal effect of having more siblings increases up to three children. At higher parities, the marginal effect lessens. The family size most sensitive to a marginally larger sibship size is the three-child family.
The models including controls lead to roughly the same conclusions. Overall, small and large families became less sensitive to the family size of origin across birth cohorts after controls are included. (In families of five of more children, the effect of the inclusion of covariates is not visible because the levels are already close to zero.) For all family sizes other than two, the magnitude of the sibship size effect was thus partly driven by socioeconomic factors. Among women, downward trends are reinforced across birth cohorts after controls are included, so that the effect of sibship size for all parities was by far the weakest in the recent birth cohorts. Among men, the inclusion of socioeconomic controls diminished the magnitude but did not change the time trend much. 2b1af7f3a8