Inspired by another thread about comp time vs overtime.
Is an employer actually required to offer their full time employees some amount of annual paid vacation?
Assuming the employer does offer paid lead, is there a requirement that they allow the employees to use it?
I ask these questions for a couple of reasons. First, I know it is possible for people to lose their accrued leave if they don’t take it within a certain time period. I’ve had jobs like that, typically there is a cap on the number of hours you can accumulate, and if you don’t use it by the end of the year, it vanishes. Some employers offer to buy back the leave time with cash, some leave your on your own, putting you in a use it or lose it situation.
But I have heard stories, and I don’t know if they’re true, that some companies can never find the time to allow their employees to take leave. Essentially they can wipe out this part of their obligation to employees by simply not granting leave until it is “expired”. Is this true? Is there specific legislation to prevent it, or to obligate employers to pay their people the value of the leave time if they won’t allow them to use the leave time?
Says… California does not REQUIRE vacation to be offered, you just can’t retroactively revoke what the person earned.
Almost every place, including union contracts I’ve seen, says “management may grant vacation time off when it does not interfere with the efficient operation of the business.”
Of course, then you get into the philosophical discussion that nobody is essential, 24-7, since what happens if you get run over by a bus? Does the plant close?
I would think an employer routinely refusing all vacation requests while offering “vacation” is a class action suit waiting to happen.
I think this issue was already discussed in another thread, and the general consensus was that vacation was not legally required, but, if offered, had to be honored. I think the lawyer types described it (not allowing employees to take earned vacation) as a ‘breach of contract’, some sort of dishonest hiring practice (i.e. false advertising, fraud), or, possibly, discrimination.
The reason I asked this is because of a new law proposed by the Republicans that would allow employers to offer comp time (leave) rather than the standard time and a half pay scale. But there is nothing in the law giving the employees and rights to take the leave at a time they want to, as opposed when it’s convenient for their employer. It’s a back door scheme to allow for the elimination of overtime pay.
As far as the class action lawsuit – that would be a huge obstacle for people who worked at such a place. First of all, the fact that the company could do this makes it almost certain the employees aren’t unionized. A union could initiate a suit without the risk a individual or a few individuals would have to take. And people who work at a company that does something like this are likely to be ill-trained and desperate to keep their jobs, very unlikely to stick out theor necks by hiring lawyers.
But this is all just speculation. I guess what I’d really like to know is whether there are any documented cases of one or more companies denying leave systematically.
You know, I keep hearing people mention this, but is there *any* job, law or union contract anywhere that gives the employees a right to take leave whenever they want to, regardless of the effect it has on the company's operation?
I've never heard of one, and I don't think anyone really wants to say that if entire staff of the store wants off the week before Christmas, the store must close, or that if the plant closes down for vacation the last two weeks of August, people who want to work must be paid for those weeks and allowed to take vacation at a another time, even if there are so few of them that the plant cannot operate. Yes, no one person is essential 24/7 and your employer will continue to operate if you're hit by a bus. But they probably won't be able to operate if over 50% of the workforce is hit by a bus, and that's very likely to happen on certain days/weeks if employees have a right to take vacation when they want it without regard for business needs.
That doesn't mean there's no way the law could be written to avoid the employees being screwed- the law could limit the amount of overtime that could be paid in comp time ( I used to have a government job where I could chose time and a half comp for overtime until I had 240 hours in the bank - after that I would get cash whether I wanted it or not.*) The law could require employees be paid for any balance remaining on a certain date , or any hours that were earned more than a year ago, or prohibit the expiration of comp time so that it carries over forever and require that it be paid upon separation.
And that situation should be a lesson to employers about how comp time can be more expensive. I worked a lot of overtime and accrued something like 3 months of comp time and used it to get paid during a maternity leave. During that three months, I got paid , my employer paid for my health insurance , I continued to earn pension credit , I was paid for the holidays that fell in that time period and I continued to earn more leave, so that I actually ended up taking 3.5 months off . It would have been cheaper for my employer if they had paid the time and a half in cash.
Without straying into GD territory, do you not see why the law was written that way? It’s exactly the same as vacation-- no one gets to take it anytime they want, regardless of any input from their employer.
Now, that is straying into GD territory, as I don’t accept that as a factual statement.
Yes, I do see why, and as you saw in the other thread, the bill in question addresses most of the issues I have with it. I started this thread before I tracked down the text of the bill and read it.
But it doesn’t remove my objections to the way the bill is being, er, marketed, as an added flexible work option for employees. It is considerably more flexible for employers than it is for employees.