Most Leave Plans Benefits are defined. If her reasons meet those definitions, then why shouldnt she take it? Popularity, need or equality arent a part of it. Most plans do not define that all who participate get teh exact same hours.
If they boss doesnt care, why should you? Im still having difficult with your “shouldnt be” comment. Since the donated time is deducted from my bank of hours, I dont see an issue. The employee is taxed on the earningsas well.
I don’t get this. Clearly the plan does not stipulate 8 months+ in the case of a bereavement.
So it’s either:
a) I donate some of my leave, and specify who it goes to
b) I donate some of my leave and an administrator or vote decides who it goes to
Either of these is vulnerable to popularity being significant, particularly a).
For the reason I said in my last post. You can choose to ignore my point but I’m not going to repeat myself.
The relevance is obvious: the amount of leave you ultimately get to take, in an extreme circumstance, is partially based on how much your colleagues decided to give you.
I’m gonna take a wild guess that you don’t belong to a union. I’m also gonna guess that you think unions have no place in American society. Oh, the irony!
She may be combining bereavement with FMLA with a sabbatical
It may not be under 1 definition of approved leave. We have a lady who lost her son here on a hiking accident. He fell from Camelback Mountaiin into a crevasse. It has been more then a year, and she is still on medical leave. It runs out in 6 months. She lost him about 12 months ago.
Im not ignoring it, I fail to see it. Your making a connection to “shouldn’t” that I just dont understand.
Youre making a presumption. Where I work, leave is based on years of service. Being a professional in the Benefits field for 30 years, I would guess the amount of time she can take is outlined and based on years of service.
Based on my current years of service, I can be gone 18 months on an approved leave without fear of losing my job.
Currently, I have banked about 3 months of time.
That doesnt mean I will automatically get compassionate leave. For instance, if I wanted to traverse the Wilds of England for 12 months, I wouldnt get compassionate leave. However, when I was doing my dads dialysis prior to his passing, that probably would have qualified.
There is one more thing you may not be considering. She may be on Disability.
Very nice point. Where I work many of our long term employees have 350 or more vacation hours built up. They donate to the leave bank rather than lose it because they are close to the maximum cap.
Just because you have 320 hours doesn’t mean you can skip off to a trip to Europe for 8 weeks. No supervisor would ever authorize it. You’d have to file a FMLA and get it approved.
You can also be fired for abusing FMLA. If you take off two months to help a dying relative and instead take off to Aspen for a ski trip. If you get caught, you’re fired.
Its donated time. She’s got a perfect right legally and morally to accept it. I’m happy she’s getting that time off to pursue her righteous agenda which involved the shooting death of her son. If we could all have as much sympathy when we lose a loved one, that would be great
It might be unfair if you’re an employer, but hopefully things remain skewed for the employee. Its rare that people need a lot of time, so in the rare instances where this happens, the person who needs it should be able to get it instead of being denied through some kind of possible abuse.
Individuals making choices, even based on popularity, is in no way an abuse of this system, unless you believe that individuals should not be able to make choices. Is that what you believe?
I’ve never said that it is an abuse of the system.
As for whether people should have a free choice there are two points to make (which I’ve already made, but anyway):
A system where everyone gets a free choice does not necessarily lead to a fair situation. If people got the free choice to say which government programme their tax dollars went to, say, it would lead to a very unfair situation.
Furthermore everyone consenting to be in a system, while certainly relevant, does not in itself entail that the system makes sense or is fair (probably the majority of people would consent to a tax earmarking system without appreciating why it is flawed).
Permissions are not normally transferable. If someone gives you permission to stay over at their house, you don’t have the right to pass that permission to a hobo you pass on the street.
No one is transferring permission to take time off. They’re transferring the actual time off. Permission was given by the supervisor. TIme off was donated. If no one had donated permission could still be given for 8 mos. of leave but it would be mostly unpaid.
No time gets passed: it’s a linguistic convenience. It’s implicitly the permission which is transferred.
There are X working days in the year. Time off means you have the permission to spend Y of those days at home instead of at work. The total amount of time is (obviously) the same, it’s what you are allowed to do.
It is permission to spend 20 hours away from work when you would otherwise expect to be at work which has been passed. Not time itself. You disagree with this?
How is that significantly different from my two weeks’ paid vacation—which is actually *permission *to spend two weeks somewhere other than work while still collecting pay, and not a large box with a bow on it that contains two weeks?
Say a friend gives you permission to spend a day in their house while they are away. It would be wrong to say “OK, I have 24 hours, I’m now going to give those 24 hours to a hobo”.
You have a permission, and permissions generally aren’t transferable.
Now let’s return to PTO. Now here people do talk about having X hours, spending X hours etc. This is a linguistic convenience. It’s still a permission. You’re expected to be at work every week day (say), except for public holidays.
And PTO is permission to not be at work. If you “have” 20 days PTO, what you actually have is permission to not be at work on 20 days when you would otherwise be expected to be there.
Now you could argue that this is a situation where a permission should be transferable. That’s fine (though I disagree). But you won’t get very far trying to prove that you’re actually passing around lumps of time.