Yes. Either by higher wages (see below, Temp scenario) or lower level of services provided.
No. Her desk sits empty. The workload she would normally carry gets put onto the others members of her department, or goes undone, or the state has to hire a temp. I don’t know (or care) what she does, but one less employee means less work.
Yes. Unless the leave was donated by her department, and all the other employees in that department chip in and work that much harder to pick up the slack :rolleyes:, they are getting screwed. Unless a temp is hired, then the taxpayers are getting screwed. :smack:
Now, as much as I admire the hard working folks of the state and local government, I am not naive enough to think they are going to do* one extra minute* of work to pick up the slack. Someone on page 2 noted that donating leave was much easier than donating money. Thats the point. Its too easy. Meanwhile, a desk sits empty, and everyone else will be expected to work harder, or some poor schmuck has to wait longer for ‘whatever’ this person on leave would have done for the “Taxpayer”.
Nothing improper was done, but it doesn’t seem right to me. Sorry if these points were made earlier, but I skipped a page or two when it started going off the rails.
If PTO is a fungible commodity that can be equated to currency, then that means it can be bought, sold and exchanged, not just donated. It can be freely transferred…like currency.
And if my salary is high enough, a fraction of my salary could buy enough PTO from the market to never have to work.
Are you seriously going to keep to this position?
Yeah, but rewind.
I wasn’t talking about negative impact; it was another illustration of why it is not like currency. My exact words were:
Life isn’t fair. And your analogy fails. When being forced to pay something (taxes) of course people would want to have more of a say in where the money goes. However, the act of giving something of value at your own free will (donating PTO) involves a completely different set of motivations. I don’t have to give my PTO away or even use it myself. That said it boils down to this: companies offer benefits to attract good workers. In addition to PTO, some companies offer the added benefit of letting employees donate PTO under certain circumstances. How would you improve that system, and do you think you would make more or fewer employees happy by altering a system that gives them free choice to donate PTO to anyone they choose? How would you make this more fair?
Of course not, but it is not an accurate comparison. What if I get permission to stay at his house and also permission to let the hobo stay too? That would be a fair comparison since both the employee who receives and uses the donated PTO and the employees who donate PTO have permisson from the company to do so.
Again, your tax example fails. The govenment theoreticaly knows how best to spend my tax dollars. My company does not know how best to spend my PTO.
I believe you misunderstand how these systems work. I don’t think anyone can just send a company-wide email begging for donations because their dog died and they used all their PTO following Dave Matthews Band around all summer. The system is reserved for truely tragic events. I can think of two such events in my company in the last year where I’d have gladly donated if my company offered the benefit. I’ve never met either employee so no, it’s not a popularity contest.
I don’t see why this even matters. No one is saying that it “necessarily must be transferable.” The ability to donate hours to another employee is an added benefit that some, not all, companies choose to give their employees and it’s likely that the donation only happens under certain circumstances regulated by the company. The company chooses to make it a transferable benefit.
One of the benefits of working at that organization is the catastrophic leave policy, and now she would like to use her benefits in a way that is apparently allowed. Why shouldn’t people use their benefits? Is it just public workers who should not use the benefits that are included as a part of their compensation package? Can we expect our employers to also “do the right thing” and go above and beyond the lines of what they owe us? Because, I’m not holding my breathe for that one.
Have none of you ever worked a job? People take time off all the time. Most jobs have some sort of contingency plan for if someone in their department is unable to work either through quitting, getting sick, being promoted, etc. Admin jobs may hire temps. Other jobs may give someone a step below a temporary promotion, or they may hire someone they were planning to hire eight months down the line a little early. It may be a position with enough turbulence that it blends in to the coming and going. Or maybe it can be farmed out on a project basis. There are all kinds of options besides “the work just doesn’t get done,” and part of being a manager is figuring that stuff out.
I am not only going to keep the position, but emphasize it.
Youre attempting to turn PTO into retirement, with strawman examples that do not exist in Leave Plan Design. Allowable time off is stipulated in a Plan Document, and is not determined by the health of the bank.
Additionally, I think someone mentioned earlier she works for a Government Funded Employer. If that is the case, there are audit standards that are enforced both by Fed and State.
Youre attempting to turn this into some sort of ponzy type scheme with no facts, no data, strawman rebuttals, and misinterpretations.
Ive given fiscal examples and you continue to ignore my responses and repeating your rebuttal over and over as if it rebukes what I post. Changing the way you say the same thing over still makes your info incorrect.
Ive already effectively shown how the accounting works. Just because you dont want to accept it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist or doesnt work.
There are plenty of jobs where giving someone 8 months (or four years) of leave is the functional equivalent of a college student working at the hometown McDonald’s from June to August every year. There’s enough turnover so that the person returning from leave just reduces the number of new hires.
I don’t understand why people seem to think that all jobs must be like their own. I had a job once where we could get up to four years of unpaid child care leave (not maternity- it was available to fathers ) for a first child. Nobody’s desk sat empty for more than a couple of weeks and no work went undone - one of the new hires took over the caseload of a person who took an extended leave. And when that person returned 8 months or four years later, he or she in turn took over the caseload of someone who left on extended leave, or quit or retired. In my current agency, when someone is promoted or retires , their previous job is routinely not filled for at least six months as a money-saving measure. If the agency can get by without filling that job to save money for those reasons, why not also to allow an employee either an unpaid leave or a leave paid for by donations from other employees?
In nearly 30 years of employment, no one I know of has ever taken 8 months off, let alone been able to do so with full compensation. After starting a family one person did leave the company indefinitely, but consults on occasion. However this is still a pay for play instance and not a pay for time off.
True. However for most cases in most companies the employee is off the department budget* so we hire a replacement. A plus for everyone else if the replacement comes in at a lower pay grade.
*If they are too ill to work, at least around here, after a few weeks disability insurance kicks in and while they are compensated they are not being compensated from the department budget. If they quit or move to another department they are not being paid by their old department. As for promotions, again around here, if there is no money in the budget, you will be getting t a promotion in title only.
If you lose a child, all of that other stuff is immaterial at least from my experience.
So yes it is since I too lost a child. If I need to explain it more then you can’t understand.
Agreed. Either the other employees work harder, or more money is spent hiring/training a new person, or the taxpayer (in this case) suffers from inferior service.
All of these impact someone. That’s the only point I was (failing) to make.
I think in hockey, when one guy is in the box, and feeling shame, the other team has “The Power Play”.
Bereavement time is for the initial loss, but many people suffer from stress, depression to the point they are unable to work. This can medically qualify for disability income (if you have STD or LTD). Many leave plans recognize this and grant you further leave under previous mentioned plans and FMLA.
Pls understand that the compensatory portion of your time off is covered under your policy and I am making no commitment there, but FMLA gives you 12 weeks of job protection
EDIT: I wasnt trying to minimize your loss. If you felt that, please accept my sincere apology.
If I were to take of 8 months right now, it would cause some headache but no one would need to be hired to fill the position. My job has predictable busy and not-so-busy periods. Right now I’m heading into the not-so-busy period–where I’m writing guidance documents, organizing conference calls to discuss non-urgent matters (that get pushed aside during the busy periods), and attending conferences and training workshops. However, the office would have been in crisis mode if I had jetted off a few months ago. That was the height of the most recent busy period. Which shall return about a year from now.
I was going to leave it at this point because clearly you’re unwilling to have an actual discussion.
But this takes the piss:
Let’s review.
I laid out my position clearly in post 161. The only thing you found to dispute was my assertion that PTO is not a tradable commodity or currency.
When I’ve illustrated for you why this assertion is correct and the alternative position leads to absurdity, you’ve repeatedly tried to dodge the issue and now you’re talking about plan documents, that it’s a gov funded employer etc.
If you’re interested in having an actual discussion you can begin by acknowledging that it is not a fungible commodity or currency. Then you should say whether you actually dispute anything I said in post #161.
(Excuse my interruption, please. But FWIW, while trying to find a schedule of the parent’s speaking dates and places, I ran into a list of the county employee donators dated 4-29-12 which was published in the Miami Herald.)
What, precisely, is your point? That employers are limited in the benefits they should be permitted to offer to only those you’ve personally encountered?
I’ve never worked at a job where errand-runners are provided, so when Google does it, have they violated some precept?
“Oh, but the taxpayers! The taxpayers! Won’t anybody think of the taxpayers!” you caterwaul.
Well, it happens that GOOG shareholders stand in the same position as the taxpayers in this instance. Would your rule entitle these shareholders to sure for dissipation of corporate assets? Or do you suppose instead that, in the main, the permissibility of a given benefits package is left to the sound business judgment of the employer. Which judgment is not second-guess except in cases of extraordinary abuse.
Researcher at a major education organization: If I left for 8 months, my project management duties would be easily handed off to the project management team. My research would be less reproducible, but is more of a long-term investment than an immediate need. In any case, the organization is rapidly growing, and it would be easy to bring someone on to work on this project for a while and transition to a new position in eight months. It could also be handled by a consultant.
Researcher at a think tank: The job is typically held for 6-9 month periods by grad students. It’d be completely seamless to leave and come back.
College teacher and high school teacher: Timed right, an eight month absence wouldn’t matter at all. In fact, most universities give their professors sabbaticals. Leaving mid-semester would not be ideal, but wouldn’t be an unworkable tragedy. There are tons of substitutes and part-time teachers would jump at an eight month sure thing.
Researcher and office manager: Could be easily filled by temp manager, and the interns would have loved the research stuff.
Of course there is always some impact. Just like vacation, retirement, sick leave, and everything else in the benefits package has some impact. Presumably the employer realized that people tend to use the benefits they are given.
My place of work will give a whole 5 days bereavement leave, but only if it’s a parent, grandparent, child, sibling, or spouse. Anybody else and it’s one day with the rest coming out of vacation time. If someone doesn’t have enough vacation leave, it’s unpaid leave or donated leave. Of course, the donated leave is contingent on the potential donors not being tapped out from making a massive donation a few weeks prior.
Just because you laid out your position clearly, doesnt make you correct. repeating your position clearly, still doesnt make you correct
No dodges here. You just refuse to accept my rebuttals, and keep repeating yourself. Kinda like youre doing now.
Youre not interested in a discussion. You just want people to accept what you say and move on. That isnt a discussion. Tell ya what. Youre real good at linking what you said. Youre real good at repeating what you said. Try reading what others have said. I have rebuked your position. Other have as well. Little bit of advice for ya too. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and youre not always going to be correct.
I find it ironic that you say I have dodged you. Too Funny
dngnb8, you clearly believe you have refuted my argument, but I honestly do not know what your objection, or refutation, is.
Earlier your objection was that you believed PTO is a form of commodity or currency. But after I’ve illustrated the issues with this position you’re refusing to say whether you still hold it. Do you?
Humour me: just repeat your point one last time please.
