Do you consider this "Excessive Absenteeism"?
And....respectfully, someone in his position should never try to compare his work rules to someone in Tim's. Never. I sure as hell wouldn't. Anyone well compensated would probably be fine with Soopo's work rules. I am and I don't begrudge Tim anything.
Quote: MidwestAPSoopoo is more than equiped to defend himself, but I agree with his point regardless profession. When someone calls in sick, it puts a burden on others who do not call in sick. Therefore to use the company provided benefit of paid sick days should only be done when one is to sick to work (or other covered reason).
MidwestAP, not to be a jerk and just to reiterate and clarify.......should I, or anyone, making $200K or $300K and having some equity in a business be comparing myself and my benefits, and work rules, to someone earning say $60K with no equity or stake? Over the question of 6 days of pay worth maybe $1,300? People really are too judgemental without knowing or understanding all of the facts......
Quote:When someone calls in sick, it puts a burden on others who do not call in sick.
This is a significant factor at low pay scales. It matters to employees picking up the slack for non-sick people. (I might say, it matters at high pay scales, but maybe the compensation makes it easier)
Quote: steeldcoMidwestAP, not to be a jerk and just to reiterate and clarify.......should I, or anyone, making $200K or $300K and having some equity in a business be comparing myself and my benefits, and work rules, to someone earning say $60K with no equity or stake? Over the question of 6 days of pay worth maybe $1,300? People really are too judgemental without knowing or understanding all of the facts......
What's there to understand? The common fact is this: ALL other workers have to cover for the sake of the business, whether a doctor in an office or a cook at McDonalds.
There IS a feeling that the lower the job, the easier it is to blow off work, true.
Quote: PaigowdanWhat's there to understand? The common fact is this: ALL other workers have to cover for the sake of the business, whether a doctor in an office or a cook at McDonalds.
There IS a feeling that the lower the job, the easier it is to blow off work, true.
I think it is closely related to how easy it is to replace you. The more difficult, the more generous the policy.
Quote: SOOPOOTim- I understand your thoughts, but if they wanted you to use all those days 'no matter what', they wouldn't call them sick days! And I don't know what your career goals are, but right or wrong, your behavior has been noticed by your bosses and I can't imagine it is good for you.
I understand that.
And I understand what my career goals are...or at least I should after doing it for 12 years...
On a lighter note...
Early on in my career, I had a boss tell me "We're no opting to rehire you...we don't want to ruin anyone's career here." (Simply because when they originally hired me, they THOUGHT I was someone they knew's kid...When they had full INTENTION on trying to ruin my career by making my first step in the business a black mark) WELLLLLL, look at me, 12 years later, at the top of the game...
And SOOPOO, we are two people that absolutely CAN NOT call in sick (Doctor and IT guy) hahaha...people's live's can't go on without us!
My behavior has only been noticed by my immediate boss (who is a douche), the MAIN BOSS could literally care less...he just gets mad when my immediate boss complains to him. (Personally, if it were me, I'd say "Clean your own backyard.")
Quote: PaigowdanWhat's there to understand? The common fact is this: ALL other workers have to cover for the sake of the business, whether a doctor in an office or a cook at McDonalds.
There IS a feeling that the lower the job, the easier it is to blow off work, true.
Dan,sorry to have inserted that last sentence about being judgemental. It was off point.
The point was that if you're going to make comparisons, do so covering all aspects, and not just parts.
Quote: SOOPOOIf a partner calls in sick another partner who was supposed to be off has to work.
Quote: MidwestAPWhen someone calls in sick, it puts a burden on others who do not call in sick. Therefore to use the company provided benefit of paid sick days should only be done when one is to sick to work (or other covered reason).
In some jobs, certainly not all, being absent from work does not mean that someone else has to do your job. Instead, it means that you are behind, and when you get back to the place of work, you have to do "today's" work as well as what you didn't get done when you were out. This, of course, assumes that the tasks can wait for you.
Different places have different ways of dealing with that situation, but it's not too different from the way work is usually handled in self-employment -- you keep working until all of your responsibilities are completed. If you get too far behind, such as with an extended absence, something probably gets dropped entirely.
I am the only person in the IT department...when I'm out, it just doesn't get done.
Hence me not really being able to take a REAL vacation (some of you people who take a week or two off...I bite my thumb at you...if I were to do that, HA! I can imagine the nuclear warzone I'd come back to!)
On the same point...when I'm out sick, I have my netbook close by and my phone, so if something DOES happen, I can just jump in remotely and fix it...
Quote: DocIn some jobs, certainly not all, being absent from work does not mean that someone else has to do your job. Instead, it means that you are behind, and when you get back to the place of work, you have to do "today's" work as well as what you didn't get done when you were out.
Different places have different ways of dealing with that situation, but it's not too different from the way work is usually handled in self-employment -- you keep working until all of your responsibilities are completed. If you get too far behind, such as with an extended absence, something probably gets dropped entirely.
Doc just barely beat me to it...
Quote: steeldcoIt's only a burden if you don't properly plan on it. Making it all paid time off eases that burden considerably. Even handed. Fair. No ill will created between associates. Easy to plan on.
And....respectfully, someone in his position should never try to compare his work rules to someone in Tim's. Never. I sure as hell wouldn't. Anyone well compensated would probably be fine with Soopo's work rules. I am and I don't begrudge Tim anything.
We can agree to disagree. I do not think the level of compensation should not determine your work ethic and how you present yourself to your employer and coworkers, and how dependable to them you should be. I totally agree with the 'all PTO' concept, a day off is a day off, regardless of the reason.
My overall feeling on the sick/PTO/vacation/ time off is that each company should have an unambiguous policy, with clearly defined punishments for abuse. If it says- you can use sick days but need a doctor's note, so be it. If it says you can use up to 3 sick days in a row without one, so be it. It is interesting to note how some said that a child being sick is a valid excuse to use a sick day. In my previous job, we employed our own CRNAs (very highly compensated anesthesia nurses). I would guess the number of sick days used by our female employees for family reasons was 100 times as great as those by our male employees, and we had about the same number of females and males. I wonder if this is similar throughout the work force. I would guess so.
Quote: SOOPOOMy overall feeling on the sick/PTO/vacation/ time off is that each company should have an unambiguous policy, with clearly defined punishments for abuse. If it says- you can use sick days but need a doctor's note, so be it. If it says you can use up to 3 sick days in a row without one, so be it.
I agree with you!
The way my contract is written says "5 days Sick leave without doctor verification".
The head boss went above the contract to state that I needed a doctor note for any sick day.
To which I complied, even though it goes against the contract.
And at this point, they're STILL complaining, trying to venture down other avenues of vengance for my absences...
Quote: SOOPOOMy overall feeling on the sick/PTO/vacation/ time off is that each company should have an unambiguous policy, with clearly defined punishments for abuse. If it says- you can use sick days but need a doctor's note, so be it. If it says you can use up to 3 sick days in a row without one, so be it. It is interesting to note how some said that a child being sick is a valid excuse to use a sick day. In my previous job, we employed our own CRNAs (very highly compensated anesthesia nurses). I would guess the number of sick days used by our female employees for family reasons was 100 times as great as those by our male employees, and we had about the same number of females and males. I wonder if this is similar throughout the work force. I would guess so.
I agree completely. Men can also use appropriate sick time to tend to sick kids (if company policy allows), but would bet that more women tend to do this then men in actuality.
Steeldco - I read your previous comments and although I can't speak to everyone in every situation, I still hold to the belief that calling in sick puts a burden on your co-workers and company regardless of your profession, job, salary, title, etc. If you are actually ill, then it makes sense to use the time so as not to put others at risk, but I have an issue with those who call in just to take a three day weekend.
The head boss went above the contract to state that I needed a doctor note for any sick day.
Ain't it wonderful how when management refuses to live up to the contract, it's no big thing. But an employee who takes advantage of the written contract is a malingerer !
Quote: TIMSPEEDI agree with you!
The way my contract is written says "5 days Sick leave without doctor verification".
The head boss went above the contract to state that I needed a doctor note for any sick day.
To which I complied, even though it goes against the contract.
And at this point, they're STILL complaining, trying to venture down other avenues of vengance for my absences...
So you need a doctor's note for sick days 6 through 12? Have you given them those notes or have you not reached the 6th sick day of the year yet?
By the way, I really can't figure out your relationship with your boss, etc... but you don't think that they are trying to replace you? Unless you were so valuable to the company I would be..... just saying....
There is no "wrong" way to look at sick days, look at them as extra days off, or to be used only when actually sick, it doesn't really matter.
This, among many other reasons is why I chose not to work for "the man" and answer only to myself (and by default my clients).
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: TIMSPEEDI agree with you!
The way my contract is written says "5 days Sick leave without doctor verification".
The head boss went above the contract to state that I needed a doctor note for any sick day.
To which I complied, even though it goes against the contract.
And at this point, they're STILL complaining, trying to venture down other avenues of vengance for my absences...
So you need a doctor's note for sick days 6 through 12? Have you given them those notes or have you not reached the 6th sick day of the year yet?
By the way, I really can't figure out your relationship with your boss, etc... but you don't think that they are trying to replace you? Unless you were so valuable to the company I would be..... just saying....
Sorry, I should have edited the original post "5 consecutive sick days", and no I have not been off for more than 1-2 days at a time. (even though I have provided a dr note lately, as per the head boss's request)
Believe me, if they could replace me, they would have...I'm under union contract, so even if they WANTED to (which I'm sure they'd LOOOVE to) they would have a helluva' time doing it. (and besides EVERYONE in the company can't praise me enough..it's just my immediate supervisor who is angry)
But management has to have a valid reason, not just I don't like her.
Thanks for feeding the stereotype.
Quote: TIMSPEED
The way my contract is written says "5 days Sick leave without doctor verification".
The head boss went above the contract to state that I needed a doctor note for any sick day.
To which I complied, even though it goes against the contract.
And at this point, they're STILL complaining, trying to venture down other avenues of vengance for my absences...
Quote: TIMSPEED
Sorry, I should have edited the original post "5 consecutive sick days", and no I have not been off for more than 1-2 days at a time. (even though I have provided a dr note lately, as per the head boss's request)
So how exactly are you procuring these notes? Are you actually going to the doctor for this one "sick" day every month? If so it would indicate that you actually are kind of sickly and not gaming the system. Or do you just forge the note or have a friend (real Dr. or imaginary) forge it for you? The plot thickens...
If I were you, I would be praying to not be stricken with a real, honest-to-god, have-to-miss-a-week flu or other serious illness. All your sick days for 2012 are gone...
First, let me say that I am against moving sick time into PTO. As others have pointed out, that encourages people to come in when they are sick. I don't want my coworkers here when they are sick.
My company has a different approach. We get vacation time (start at 3 wks, 4wks at 3+years and 5wks at 5+ years). We also get unlimited sick days. (with short- and long- term disability kicking in after missing a certain amount of consecutive time)
Here's why I like this approach:
1. You don't lose anything by staying home when you are sick (as opposed to PTO, where you do). Encouraging people to stay home when they are sick is good for the company! If a co-worker is here and obviously sick, I will bluntly ask them to please go home. If they have limited PTO, it's a lot harder to do that (since you are asking them to give something up)
2. Most people don't use all their sick days anyway, so it doesn't cost the company anything to make them unlimited. If I use 5 sick days a year, it doesn't matter if my limit was 10 or "unlimited".
3. You are no longer encouraged to "use your sick days up". You don't have sick days. It discourages people from gaming the system (this is probably more psychological than anything else, but, if there is a limit, not using them feels like a waste to some people. That goes away when there is no limit)
There are rules about what does and doesn't constitute a sick day (staying home to take care of a sick child or relative is explicitly allowed)
Of course, if they feel that someone is abusing the system and taking excessive sick days, that can be taken care of on a case-by-case basis. Also, people are judged based on what they accomplish, not how long they are here, so taking time off doesn't really help you in the long term. No one is checking to see when you are here, or what you are doing while you are here. Again, if there is a problem with performance, that will be dealt with on a case by case basis. Our hours are also completely flexible, so it would be hard to keep track of. I will often come to work for 12 hours, slack off for 4 of them, and work for 8.
Overall, I think that it's not a problem and works very well.
Quote: AcesAndEights
If I were you, I would be praying to not be stricken with a real, honest-to-god, have-to-miss-a-week flu or other serious illness. All your sick days for 2012 are gone...
Well then, I'm coming in to work sick, like everyone else does, aren't I?
Quote: TIMSPEEDWell then, I'm coming in to work sick, like everyone else does, aren't I?
There's sick leave and there's sick leave. If you used up your sick leave on minor ailments, you don't have it for something more serious. The everyone else person would still have the option.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis is an interesting thread.
First, let me say that I am against moving sick time into PTO. As others have pointed out, that encourages people to come in when they are sick. I don't want my coworkers here when they are sick.
My company has a different approach. We get vacation time (start at 3 wks, 4wks at 3+years and 5wks at 5+ years). We also get unlimited sick days. (with short- and long- term disability kicking in after missing a certain amount of consecutive time)
Here's why I like this approach:
1. You don't lose anything by staying home when you are sick (as opposed to PTO, where you do). Encouraging people to stay home when they are sick is good for the company! If a co-worker is here and obviously sick, I will bluntly ask them to please go home. If they have limited PTO, it's a lot harder to do that (since you are asking them to give something up)
2. Most people don't use all their sick days anyway, so it doesn't cost the company anything to make them unlimited. If I use 5 sick days a year, it doesn't matter if my limit was 10 or "unlimited".
3. You are no longer encouraged to "use your sick days up". You don't have sick days. It discourages people from gaming the system (this is probably more psychological than anything else, but, if there is a limit, not using them feels like a waste to some people. That goes away when there is no limit)
There are rules about what does and doesn't constitute a sick day (staying home to take care of a sick child or relative is explicitly allowed)
Of course, if they feel that someone is abusing the system and taking excessive sick days, that can be taken care of on a case-by-case basis. Also, people are judged based on what they accomplish, not how long they are here, so taking time off doesn't really help you in the long term. No one is checking to see when you are here, or what you are doing while you are here. Again, if there is a problem with performance, that will be dealt with on a case by case basis. Our hours are also completely flexible, so it would be hard to keep track of. I will often come to work for 12 hours, slack off for 4 of them, and work for 8.
Overall, I think that it's not a problem and works very well.
Do you work for a large software company that prints money and whose slogan is "Don't be evil?"
Quote: AxiomOfChoicePrinting money is highly illegal.
Tell Congress that, will you ?
That being said, taking 12 sick days a year to me is excessive. Unless you are on some kind of medical issue that requires an all-day monthly visit that is calling off a lot. I worked with a woman who said "10 days is not enough" with the reasoning if she had kids when they were sick she was sick. Said a day a month is not much.
MULE MUFFINS!
Lets flip this. Say you show up to work one day per month and are told, "sorry, things are slow, go home, and no pay!"
Missing a day a month is being gone 5% of the time. And in most places puts an extra burden on those who show up.
Sorry, I cannot grant a pass here.
Quote: AZDuffmanLets flip this. Say you show up to work one day per month and are told, "sorry, things are slow, go home, and no pay!"
Missing a day a month is being gone 5% of the time. And in most places puts an extra burden on those who show up.
Sorry, I cannot grant a pass here.
I'm fine with that! I'll go get another job during the other time....sucks to be on contract and part of a union don't it?
Quote: BuzzardTell Congress that, will you ?
The Federal Reserve.
Close enough though.
12 days is definately excessive and your fellow employees are carrying the can for you while you take your paid days off. The only place that this can happen any more is public sector unions. Private sector would go broke trying manage this kind of expense.
I hope you always shop and buy union even if it costs you more to support the private sector unions trying to hang onto their benefits that are already less than yours.
Quote: steeldcoI kind of find this thread a bit much. I can readily state that I've been one of the sick ones thru a good deal of my life and readily admit that I had taken alot of time off. Having said that, I do not think that it is fair that I be helped with time off while a healthy individual does not get that same benefit. Which is why in my management career, I have always done away with "sick" time and just allowed paid time off. It is even handed and doesn't create ill will.
For those who say "suck it up" and don't take time off unless you're ill, I will remind you that pretty much everything is negotiated and what counts is your total compensation, including benefits. What buckets you put the pieces in doesn't matter.
Amen!@
While I don't necessarily think you are 'abusing' sick leave, you are gaming the system.
I can tell you that people in HR/personnel always look a little closer at people who are 'sick' on Mondays or Fridays, thinking they are going for a long weekend.
If people are ALWAYS sick on those days, it can merit a closer look.
If someone was ALWAYS sick the day after payday, wouldn't you think that was suspicious? I knew someone who was like that, and it didn't take long for people at work to notice. He had a drug problem, and after getting paid would go out and get high.
If someone was always sicks on Fridays or Mondays, eventually people are going to wonder if you're not simply calling in for a long weekend, but if there is also something else involved, like going out on Thursday or Sunday nights, drinking too much, and being too hungover to work the next day.
That is something else to consider.
I will tell you that as someone who worked at a company that did not allow sick or vacation days to rollover, it just encouraged people to use their sick days whenever they had a doctors appointment or did not feel well. The general attitude was that if they were not going to be compensated for not using those days, they might as well use them.
I like the idea of unlimited sick days espoused previously in this thread, because I think most people would not think they are losing a benefit if there is no delineation of the benefit. I also agree most would not try to abuse it.
Quote: s2dbaker
My mind went to exactly the same comic!
I work for a school district and have been given the option to resign in lieu of termination. I am being told that if terminated one can not apply for employment benefits but if one resigns that one CAN be eligible for employment benefits.
Any takers here I would like some feedback please.
It is my understanding that if voluntarily resign can not collect UIB
If terminated can not collect UIB
Can I insist that HR puts in writing that I am being terminated due to layoff and that they will NOT contest UIB in anyway?
Quote: sevenout77So the question is:
I work for a school district and have been given the option to resign in lieu of termination. I am being told that if terminated one can not apply for employment benefits but if one resigns that one CAN be eligible for employment benefits.
Any takers here I would like some feedback please.
I have defended against UI claims and fought for them myself. I have usually won my cases. So here is my suggestion and advice.
First, if you get any severance that will go against UI, which could wipe it out or be near meaningless. A lump sum instead of pay over time is generally better to protect your UI claim.
I didn't see why they are forcing you out. I can say I resigned in lieu of termination and won UI in AZ afterwards. Your key may be to show that you were not offered any accommodation in the form of say another position. If you go the resign in lieu of termination expect to have to be denied benefits then appeal. This may take time so make your money last.
OTOH what would they say they are terminating you for? Depending on the state you have to be terminated for something very bad to be denied benefits. Again depending, this time on your boss and HR, how well have they documented misbehavior? Many managers are poor record keepers until one day they fire you. How well was policy described to you? What kind of progressive discipline was enforced?
If you are a long-term employee they may let you go with a "wink" meaning you apply for benefits and they do not really contest them. But if you have been a jag-off a manager could make it his personal mission to see you get nothing. I saw to it some folks got nothing, and I gave a wink or two.
Quote: sevenout77So if the district is called by EDD and the district tells EDD that the employee quit due to personal reasons can that employee still get UIB ? How do you handle this in HR ?
Generally speaking I would rule "NO" in that case if I were the case officer. There has to be a reason you cannot do the job and it has to be the employer who lets you go. If you break a leg and cannot drive a truck for example that will be a "no go" since it was not the employer who caused it.
Here is another point. To get unemployment you have to be willing and available for work. If you quit you are not "willing."
If they lay off or let people go regularly you might ask to be laid off with no recall date. This protects them from wrongful termination as you are "laid off" and not "fired." It lets you file UI. At the end of some prescribed period the lay-off becomes perm, by which time you both have moved on.
In Illinois, severance pay does not affect unemployment comp. I don't think AZ is familiar with California laws, if he is, then my apologies.
