Business leaders are worried that a new federal law granting workers unpaid leave for family emergencies, childbirth or adoption could prove burdensome to companies.

U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson, who opposed the legislation, said it ultimately will cost jobs. But fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri a key supporter of the measure believes such legislation will help the nation's employees without harming employers.

President Clinton signed the family leave bill into law Friday. It's the first major social legislation to be enacted since Clinton took office last month.

"Now millions of our people will no longer have to choose between their jobs and their families," the president said. He said it would strengthen families and businesses alike.

Such legislation had twice been vetoed by former president George Bush.

In a conference call to newspaper reporters in Missouri Friday, Bond praised the new law.

Bond, who attended the bill-signing ceremony at the White House Rose Garden, said the measure "makes good, common sense."

"It just makes sense to say to an employee, `You don't have to choose between a sick child, a sick parent and your job. That's the whole purpose of it," said Bond.

Missouri's other senator, Republican John Danforth, also voted for the family leave bill. Both of Illinois' senators, who are Democrats, voted with the Democratic majority in approving the legislation.

Unlike Bond and Danforth, most Republican lawmakers voted against the family leave act, contending it would cause layoffs or force employers to trim other benefits for workers.

Emerson, who opposed the legislation, said that since women generally have primary responsibility for child care, they will be the ones making the most use of the new law.

Said Emerson, "Whether we like it or not, this will make employers much less likely to hire both younger women of child-bearing age and women with children.

"As the father of four daughters, I don't want to legislate women into unemployment," the Cape Girardeau Republican said.

"Mandates kill jobs and the only way for businesses to survive under such burdensome mandates is to cut labor costs," he warned.

But Bond said he doesn't believe the measure will hurt business. "In states where they have employee leave, businesses are finding that it saves them money because they don't have to train new workers.

"Once you see it operate, you find out it improves productivity and saves businesses money," he said.

The family leave law which is expected to go into effect six months from now will provide workers 12 weeks a year of unpaid leave for births, adoptions, caring for sick children or spouses, and other family emergencies.

Employees would continue to be covered by their companies' health insurance while on leave. Upon their return to work, employees must be given their old jobs back or equivalent ones.

The law covers businesses that have 50 or more workers.

Bond said it's estimated that about 95 percent of the nation's businesses have less than 50 employees and won't come under the new law. But about 50 percent of the nation's workers will be covered, he said.

The senator said it's estimated that annually about 50,000 families in Missouri could benefit from the new law.

Nationally, few large companies have been providing family medical leave, said Bond. Nationwide, only 37 percent of large corporations provide maternity leave, he said.

David Ayres, a spokesman for Bond, said Friday that his boss had been instrumental in getting provisions in the legislation to help business.

For example, to be eligible, an employee must have worked at least 1,250 hours for the company in the previous 12 months, an average of about 25 hours a week.

Also, employers can generally exclude the top-paid 10 percent of their employees from such a leave policy. Employers can make workers use vacation time or other leave first.

Couples can be held to 12 weeks total of family leave if employed with the same company.

Ayres said employees are required to provide medical certification justifying the need for taking such leave. The employer, he said, can require a second medical opinion.

If an employee is asking for time off to care for a sick parent, then the employee must show he or she is the "primary care-giver" for the family.

Bond said he believes that in small businesses those not covered by the new law employers have a closer relationship with their employees and are more willing to accommodate a family emergency.

It's estimated that the family leave law will cost an employer about $9 per covered employee per year, Bond said.

The Cape Girardeau Chamber of Commerce took no position on the legislation, although both the state and national chambers opposed it.

"This is kind of a God, motherhood and flag type of bill, and you don't dare oppose it because you come across looking like an ogre," said Robert Hendrix, president of the Cape Girardeau chamber.

At this point, he said, the majority of Cape Girardeau businesses won't come under the new law.

Still, he said, chamber members are concerned that the new law may eventually be amended to include businesses with as few as five employees.

"We look at the small employers and it is going to put a real burden on them," said Hendrix.

"We would rather see companies working it out with their employees rather than it be an edict from on high," he said. "The people passing these laws have no idea what it is to run a business and make a payroll," he said.

There is a cost to businesses, he pointed out. While the employee is on leave, the employer has to continue to pay that worker's health insurance.

In addition, the employer may have to hire a temporary replacement and provide training for that new worker, he said.

Harry Rediger, manager of the JCPenney store in Cape Girardeau and chairman of the local chamber, said area businesses will have to cope with the "challenge" of complying with the new law.

But he said, "It certainly isn't going to affect all businesses or all positions levels within a large business."

Rediger estimated that out of 190 employees at his store, between one-third and a half would probably qualify for family leave.

Some businesses, he said, may find ways around the law. A corporation that has 90 employees with marketing and sales operations may split its work force into two companies in order to be exempt from the law, he said.

Tony Reinhart, vice president of governmental affairs for the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, said there are no concrete figures on what this legislation will cost businesses.

The cost would be different, depending on the industry, he explained.

But he said the state chamber is opposed largely on philosophical grounds. "We are opposed to the family medical leave as a mandate."