Everyone here understands what paid time off is. Are you racked with guilt about robbing the taxpayers every time you take a vacation day? Of course not, because you earned that time. Well, all the time she’s taking has been earned, either by her or by someone who chose to give it to her, as is their right.
And the donor gives up a day off with pay. It costs the taxpayers nothing but the administrative costs of the donated leave program, which did not increase due to this one case.
What if someone wanted to take time of for some other politically charged reason? (Example: Some woman gets into a car accident and is 10 weeks pregnant and wants to go mourn her unborn child and campaign a personhood amendment.) Do we care? Is it appropriate? I think the ‘outrage’ is because this sort of thing looks like it has the potential to be abused. 8 friggin months to start a justice foundation? Why can’t she just go chair the damn thing and suck a paycheck out of that?
People clearly thought she should have paid time off, so they donated. I mean, that’s the rule and it’s not costing taxpayers any more than if she hadn’t gotten extra PTO. It just means that instead of money going towards someone who had a sick kid and needed a day off, it goes towards the Justice Foundation efforts.
I object on the grounds that it’s political in nature - and is hellbent on seeing a guy convicted of murder. Her purpose right now is seeing Zimmerman in jail. A board approved this. It does taste funny.
Oh but you do my friend.. It’s pretty obvious what the point of this thread is.. I’ve donated to my buddy who had cancer and another one who’s wife was killed in a car crash.. when he got his settlement from Ford I didn’t think to demand my MONEY back..
Get a grip OP.. I’m weary of the Martin case.. and weary of the “reaction to” the martin case.. let the damn thing play out in court..
To be honest, as long as the leave is unpaid, or (as in this case) is funded by voluntary donations, i would have no problem with it at all.
I would have no trouble with a rule that allowed any employee to donate leave to any other employee for any reason whatsoever. As long as it doesn’t actually cost the taxpayers more money, why does it matter?
Exactly. I’ve done that numerous times at work. The pool of paid leave nets exactly the same, just redistributed. It’s voluntary and capped. It’s actually a great system.
ETA: What Mhendo said, as well.
No, it’s someone’s compensation that has already been granted, legally. It’s no longer taxpayer money. Does your employer get to tell you how you spend your money or paid leave once it’s granted to you?
This seems like a non sequitur. What does any of this have to do with the Martin situation? This is leave that has been legally earned and given away under the rules. I ask again, where is the corruption?
I have a feeling that those who are objecting to this have some kind of political objection to the Martins’ cause. Do you think you should get to monitor the private decisions of state servants becasue they are paid with “taxpayer money”?
Of course it is.
This whole thread is a political rant disguised as a claim about employment ethics.
Exactly.
To stay with the Trayvon Martin case, if George Zimmerman were also a Miami-Dade employee, and his co-workers wanted to donate leave time to him, i think they should be allowed to do so.
I need to update this before someone beats me to it.
Uh-huh. And?
My family/personal and annual leave is mine to spend however I choose, thankyouverymuch. Just because I’m a state employee does not make me a slave to the public.
If someone gives you a dollar because they feel sorry for you, you can spend that dollar on a bottle of booze. You can give it to Mitt Romney. You can tape it to your forehead and run around buck naked. Cuz it’s a free country. Yay.
She’s spending her donated money (time) the way she wants to. I’m sure the people who donated their leave are glad to assist in this way.
All the whining here sounds like pure hateration.
(At least once a year, state employees get asked to donate annual leave to a fellow employee–whose case is laid out for everyone to see. AFAIK, it’s only used to help someone who’s sick/injured and has already burned through their leave. Plenty of work-aholics have racked up a ton of annual leave that they are just going to lose at the end of the year because they’ve reached the “roll-over” limit. It would be wasted otherwise, so these kind souls choose to donate and help someone out. The rest of us slackers appreciate their generosity because it makes us feel less guilty.)
No one held a gun to the donors’ heads demanding that they cede their leave time to Fulton. No one made a big stink about anyone NOT donating leave time and called those non-donors’ names. There was no coercion involved. People voluntarily donated their leave time. This isn’t the first time that this particular method has been used in this particular area of Florida.
What people do with that donated leave time is their business, and if the donors didn’t like what was being done with that leave time, they didn’t have to donate. It’s not like they didn’t know ahead of time the probable use.
Frankly, the outrage seems related to the specifics of the case itself and not to the donated leave time issue.
I’d hope not. I’d also hope no one got pegged for not donating, since those who did donate were made public.
In line with this argument, i’d be interested to know whether the OP is similarly opposed to the use of this exact same mechanism, in the exact same jurisdiction, for donating leave to the families of two murdered police officers last year.
Who do you think you are? I pay your salary, you know. 
I don’t see the taxpayer money claim. It’s true that taxpayer money pays their salaries, but consider an employee of, say, Boeing or Lockheed, working on a government contract. Taxpayer money goes to Boeing and Boeing uses it to pay the salaries of the people building the fighter jet. Is their money “taxpayer money?”
Let’s go back to the Martin family member. She takes her salary and goes to buy $10 worth of groceries. Is she using taxpayer money?
According to the OP, yes she is.
As i said, the OP’s definition of “taxpayer money” would also define any state employee who donates to his or her church as using taxpayer money to support a religious institution. His definition of “taxpayer money” is so broad as to render the term effectively useless.
This is bananas.
Really? That’s just not how these things work.
Welcome back. Cite?