- 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?
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?