Adrian Peterson has voluntarily taken leave with pay while this mess gets sorted. Years ago my brother was put on leave with pay for being a smart-mouth. I’ve read numerous accounts of people being put on leave with pay as a disciplinary action. How is this considered a punishment? I would consider leave with pay as vacation. Leave withOUT pay is punishment. I don’t get it.
The punishment hasn’t started yet. It will start when the investigation is complete and a punishment decided–for example the punishment might be losing his job.
To a football player (and many other athletes) it denies them the opportunity to improve their records and practice their craft. If the suspension is unjust that is a problem.
But to regular people (like my smart mouth brother), leave with pay is not a bad thing. So why would an employer do it?
Good point. If the job is one in which racking up accomplishments or constantly training is important, leave with pay could be seriously career-damaging. But for a lot of people, leave with pay is a vacation, as you said.
Well, there’s that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing… wait, which are you asking about, the leave part or the with pay part?
I don’t know why it would be done as punishment when it amounts to just a vacation. I usually hear of this with public jobs like teachers and police officers who have been charged but not convicted of wrong doing. So they are suspended as a precaution, but paid so it won’t be a punishment.
For most places of employment, it’s stage two, more serious than “I’m discussing this with you and putting a note in your record.” It’s part of a continuum that ends with “you’re fired.” It’s there so that they can say that they gave him every chance, and therefore they won’t have to pay an added bump to unemployment insurance when they can him.
For some people, this adult version of “go sit in the corner and think about what you did” actually works. It’s more effective if it results in peer disapproval, but even if it doesn’t work, it will still save them money.
Yes - notionally, they are put on garden leave so as to prevent any further risk (if indeed any wrongdoing is afoot) and so that they cannot interfere with or prejudice a fair, thorough and equitable investigation process.
In practice, it’s sometimes so that their accusers can circle wagons and fabricate a strong-seeming case against them (including careful excision of any evidence that might clear them).
Moving thread from MPSIMS to IMHO.
“Leave with pay” is often to remain in accordance with employment laws, contracts, or unions.
If there is an allegation that, if true, means the employee should not be in the workplace, then it is reasonable to keep them out of the workplace while the allegation is investigated, but unfair to hurt them financially as the allegation is unproven.
Another case might be where the employee has been traumatized in the workplace through no fault of their own. A n emotionally shaky employee could be a hazard, but not fair to cut their pay.
A police officer shooting someone could qualify on both counts.
It’s a punishment because it’s without pay. The person has bills to pay and other expenses. He or she is getting nothing while on leave. Maybe they have savings, maybe not, but living without an income is a hardship for many workers, especially if it stretches out for more than a month.
I was on my local school board when a teacher was accused of corporal punishment of a student, which is grounds for firing under NJ law. We had a strong suspicion that the accusation was true, because many people over the years had made this allegation but were unwilling to sign an accusation or to testify under oath. Finally one parent said “Damn straight I’ll testify.” But the teacher was of course innocent until proven guilty. So we got him out of the classroom with pay to protect students, especially to protect the accuser from retaliation. FTR, he later resigned to avoid the testimony about his actions being made public.
Of course we would rather have had him suspended from duty without pay, but that was not a legal option.
We’re talking about leave with pay (actually at least up here under those circumstances it is more commonly called “suspended with pay” rather than “leave with pay”). And yes, it does happen.
Football player’s career are short, averaging about 3.3 years. And any time away from the game can erode skills.
It pretty much always means the employer would like to suspend the person without pay , but there’s some reason ( union rule, civil service rules, employer policy ) not to. Union rules at my employer require that someone suspended without pay have a hearing within 30 days. If it’s going to take more than 30 days to investigate but you don’t want to risk the person working while the investigation is going on, all you have is suspension with pay.
But it’s not really a vacation- since you are getting paid you are expected to be at home during work hours and subject to home visits to enforce this. So you can stay at home and catch up on the housework or TV watching but you can’t go on vacation or spend the day at the beach without risk.
I don’t know that particulars of AP’s contract but many football contracts have a great deal of the money paid via incentives. If he’s not playing, he’s not earning any incentive money.
It may be that the leave without pay is treated as vacation time, so while you’re getting paid, you’re also using up your vacation accrual.
I think that at least some times a police officer involved in a shooting is placed on something like desk duty. That would be an indicator that he or she is still in good standing even if kept off the street.
I’d think that unless the person being suspended has very good reasons, the fact that he or she disappeared would have a big impact on relations with others in the workplace. It would seem a lot worse than a staycation.