- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
This question is from the perspective of the employee, not the employer.
If you work for an employer that provides paid sick leave as a benefit, would you rather have a defined benefit (i.e.: 5 days/year, etc.), or an open-ended policy where there is no defined "limit"?
Most companies that I have worked for have a defined limit. Usually 5 or 10 days. If anything longer is needed the employee needs to take vacation, no pay at all, or short-term disability.
The company I work for now has an open-ended policy. There is no limit, per se, which sounds freeing and open-minded, but I feel like it's actually more restrictive than a defined policy. You are still likely to be called in the supervisor's office and lectured if you use what they deem as too much. Problem is, "too much" is a moving target depending on who you talk to. In the interest of full honesty, this happened to me a couple years after I started. In late November I was called in and told I had taken too much sick leave. I had called in 4 days (32 hrs) throughout the year, never 2 days in a row, and only 1 of the days abutted a weekend. My supervisor thought that was excessive. He did admit that he called HR and asked, and they told him my 32 hrs was actually less than average company-wide (we have 10 offices). I felt a little vindicated, but he still felt it was too much.
Personally, I'd rather have a defined policy. Then again, I've always been a "tell me what the parameters are" kind of person.
The cynical part of me wonders if it is done precisely because people, not knowing where the line is, will use less. Granted, I have seen some people who make it a point to use right up to their limit every single year, but that I believe is the odd person out, not the rule.
If you are an employee, or have ever been an employee, what are your thoughts and preferences?
I know many companies do that now, combine everything, but I have never worked under that type of system.I have a fixed 25 days of PTO per year. That's for vacation/travel days, sick days, any other personal days.
I know many companies do that now, combine everything, but I have never worked under that type of system.
I know many companies do that now, combine everything, but I have never worked under that type of system.
I have a fixed 25 days of PTO per year. That's for vacation/travel days, sick days, any other personal days.
That would allow working a four day week for over half of the year - cool if they don't mind folks using that option.
This question is from the perspective of the employee, not the employer.
If you work for an employer that provides paid sick leave as a benefit, would you rather have a defined benefit (i.e.: 5 days/year, etc.), or an open-ended policy where there is no defined "limit"?
Most companies that I have worked for have a defined limit. Usually 5 or 10 days. If anything longer is needed the employee needs to take vacation, no pay at all, or short-term disability.
The company I work for now has an open-ended policy. There is no limit, per se, which sounds freeing and open-minded, but I feel like it's actually more restrictive than a defined policy. You are still likely to be called in the supervisor's office and lectured if you use what they deem as too much. Problem is, "too much" is a moving target depending on who you talk to. In the interest of full honesty, this happened to me a couple years after I started. In late November I was called in and told I had taken too much sick leave. I had called in 4 days (32 hrs) throughout the year, never 2 days in a row, and only 1 of the days abutted a weekend. My supervisor thought that was excessive. He did admit that he called HR and asked, and they told him my 32 hrs was actually less than average company-wide (we have 10 offices). I felt a little vindicated, but he still felt it was too much.
Personally, I'd rather have a defined policy. Then again, I've always been a "tell me what the parameters are" kind of person.
The cynical part of me wonders if it is done precisely because people, not knowing where the line is, will use less. Granted, I have seen some people who make it a point to use right up to their limit every single year, but that I believe is the odd person out, not the rule.
If you are an employee, or have ever been an employee, what are your thoughts and preferences?
This question is from the perspective of the employee, not the employer.
If you work for an employer that provides paid sick leave as a benefit, would you rather have a defined benefit (i.e.: 5 days/year, etc.), or an open-ended policy where there is no defined "limit"?
Most companies that I have worked for have a defined limit. Usually 5 or 10 days. If anything longer is needed the employee needs to take vacation, no pay at all, or short-term disability.
The company I work for now has an open-ended policy. There is no limit, per se, which sounds freeing and open-minded, but I feel like it's actually more restrictive than a defined policy. You are still likely to be called in the supervisor's office and lectured if you use what they deem as too much. Problem is, "too much" is a moving target depending on who you talk to. In the interest of full honesty, this happened to me a couple years after I started. In late November I was called in and told I had taken too much sick leave. I had called in 4 days (32 hrs) throughout the year, never 2 days in a row, and only 1 of the days abutted a weekend. My supervisor thought that was excessive. He did admit that he called HR and asked, and they told him my 32 hrs was actually less than average company-wide (we have 10 offices). I felt a little vindicated, but he still felt it was too much.
Personally, I'd rather have a defined policy. Then again, I've always been a "tell me what the parameters are" kind of person.
The cynical part of me wonders if it is done precisely because people, not knowing where the line is, will use less. Granted, I have seen some people who make it a point to use right up to their limit every single year, but that I believe is the odd person out, not the rule.
If you are an employee, or have ever been an employee, what are your thoughts and preferences?
This question is from the perspective of the employee, not the employer.
If you work for an employer that provides paid sick leave as a benefit, would you rather have a defined benefit (i.e.: 5 days/year, etc.), or an open-ended policy where there is no defined "limit"?
Most companies that I have worked for have a defined limit. Usually 5 or 10 days. If anything longer is needed the employee needs to take vacation, no pay at all, or short-term disability.
The company I work for now has an open-ended policy. There is no limit, per se, which sounds freeing and open-minded, but I feel like it's actually more restrictive than a defined policy. You are still likely to be called in the supervisor's office and lectured if you use what they deem as too much. Problem is, "too much" is a moving target depending on who you talk to. In the interest of full honesty, this happened to me a couple years after I started. In late November I was called in and told I had taken too much sick leave. I had called in 4 days (32 hrs) throughout the year, never 2 days in a row, and only 1 of the days abutted a weekend. My supervisor thought that was excessive. He did admit that he called HR and asked, and they told him my 32 hrs was actually less than average company-wide (we have 10 offices). I felt a little vindicated, but he still felt it was too much.
Personally, I'd rather have a defined policy. Then again, I've always been a "tell me what the parameters are" kind of person.
The cynical part of me wonders if it is done precisely because people, not knowing where the line is, will use less. Granted, I have seen some people who make it a point to use right up to their limit every single year, but that I believe is the odd person out, not the rule.
If you are an employee, or have ever been an employee, what are your thoughts and preferences?
It's been awhile since I've been an employee, but I'd have preferred to just have it fixed and lumped in with other personal days off (which would have meant more vacation for me). I bet I haven't taken 10 days of sick time total in the last 28 years and one of those was for the birth of my older son, younger son had the good grace to be born on Thanksgiving day so I already had a 4 day weekend.
Exactly, this idea that the average worker "is sick" 9.2 workdays a year is hilarious, only the very very sickly could be sick that much. I dont even believe that people take that much time off claiming sick, my last ten years working I called in sick exactly 4 times, people like you and me bring the average down.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100886193The global professional services firm complied data from 2,500 companies across the world, and found that U.K. workers took an average of 9.1 days off sick per year. This was nearly double the 4.9 days U.S. workers took off, and four times as much as their counterparts in Asia-Pacific (2.2 days).
This question is from the perspective of the employee, not the employer.
If you work for an employer that provides paid sick leave as a benefit, would you rather have a defined benefit (i.e.: 5 days/year, etc.), or an open-ended policy where there is no defined "limit"?
Most companies that I have worked for have a defined limit. Usually 5 or 10 days. If anything longer is needed the employee needs to take vacation, no pay at all, or short-term disability.
The company I work for now has an open-ended policy. There is no limit, per se, which sounds freeing and open-minded, but I feel like it's actually more restrictive than a defined policy. You are still likely to be called in the supervisor's office and lectured if you use what they deem as too much. Problem is, "too much" is a moving target depending on who you talk to. In the interest of full honesty, this happened to me a couple years after I started. In late November I was called in and told I had taken too much sick leave. I had called in 4 days (32 hrs) throughout the year, never 2 days in a row, and only 1 of the days abutted a weekend. My supervisor thought that was excessive. He did admit that he called HR and asked, and they told him my 32 hrs was actually less than average company-wide (we have 10 offices). I felt a little vindicated, but he still felt it was too much.
Personally, I'd rather have a defined policy. Then again, I've always been a "tell me what the parameters are" kind of person.
The cynical part of me wonders if it is done precisely because people, not knowing where the line is, will use less. Granted, I have seen some people who make it a point to use right up to their limit every single year, but that I believe is the odd person out, not the rule.
If you are an employee, or have ever been an employee, what are your thoughts and preferences?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?