Federal and state laws define paid leave as a benefit and impose taxes and other obligations accordingly.
Add to that that in many cases earned leave that isn’t used must be paid out in cash.
Actually having been a member of th United Paperworkers International I am a little surprised that the rank and file go along with such an arbitrarily applied leave scheme.
As a point of debate, in a collective bargaining setting I would think such a leave trading program runs counter to the goals and protections of the Union. Unless of course as aceplace57 points out the goal is to continue to accrue leave from the employing agency despite having reached individual bankable limits.
Interesting. If the leave then has a defined cash value (presumably the current wage rate of the earning employee), why is it not banked and distributed as such?
(ex: A $30/hour employees 1 banked day provides 2 days of leave for a $15/hr employee. Or the other way it takes 2 days of the $15/hr leave for the $30/hr employee to get a days leave.)
First, I can’t believe anyone sees anything wrong with this.
Secondly, use of paid leave is both a monetary benefot AND permission to be absent during the period in question. She has both permission from her management (we assume) and paid hours while she’s off work (courtesy of the voluntary donations of co-workers).
What is the objection??
Not all leaves are based on permission. If one qualifies for FMLA, the employer has no choice for the established period in the paperwork. Additionally, if the Plan Document establishes specific events (Death of a defined Family Member), the leave does not need permission for the time established in the Plan Document. I have 4 days for bereavement. If I wanted more, then permission comes into play
It’s not fair.
Apparently.
Are “paid benefits” normally transferable?
What’s with this tempest… and what’s it doing in a tea pot?
Honestly, I had not known any benefit system existed. I think it is wonderful that fellow employees can donate their personal leave to another in need. It sounds as though there is plan administration so that tempers my initial reaction that such plans would be fraught with potential abuse. I will hold my tongue though, as I find no demonstrable evidence of such abuse and being unfamiliar with such plans I can’t speak to the level at which they are regulated.
I think the sense of unfairness is just a visceral reaction. Such length of leave is uncommon and unknown to many in the workforce and at least in my case triggers an unconscious pang of jealousy. A little introspection and rational analysis and I realize no matter what the feeling, I wouldn’t want to trade places with her.
What, you aren’t allowed to give someone else money?
Apparently, some are.
Paid Benefits are defined by a Plan Document. This document is established by the employer or a collective bargaining unit. There are boiler plate designs, but that doesnt mean changes cannot be made. Federal Guidelines govern some structure, but that doesnt limit the structure.
What youre seeing in this case is not unusual.
Nice word play there. But I’ve shown why it’s not the same thing at all as currency.
That permission has no financial value. You have transferred nothing intrinsic to me. I cannot give the hobo that which not mine to give. But an employee gets PTO, which has intrinsic value. It is his to do with what he pleases; he can take the time off himself, and spend the wages as he wishes, or he can give the hours off to a coworker, who can spend the wages they earn as they wish.
Your analogy fails because there is no intrinsic value in a permission alone.
Then exactly what is it that you are arguing against?
You seem to feel that Ms. Martin’s situation (using PTO donated by others) is somehow wrong. You use the term “vulnerable”, but you then say that you don’t mean “vulnerable to abuse”. In what way do you feel that it is “vulnerable”? “Vulnerable” to what?
No, you haven’t shown it. You’ve merely asserted it.
In the exact sentence I assume you’re talking about I said “vulnerable to popularity being significant”. It’s pretty obvious what I mean by that: a popularity contest.
IOW the system itself is broken, not the system is being abused.
I have given several examples of why it’s not like currency.
For example I illustrated that from the company’s point of view it is not the same thing if one person takes 20 days versus 20 people taking 1 day: that’s a ramification that obviously doesn’t apply to movement of cash.
And, tacitly, there is awareness of this built into the system (because it may require approval by a supervisor, there may be limitations etc). It would be a strange position indeed to claim that this is, or should be treated like, currency.
Sure, but that isn’t what is happening. If it was it wouldn’t be a day for day transfer.
As a side note, it would be interesting to know how this balances out. Anyone know of any studies? Off the cuff I would guess the transfers are typically downward to assist employees with less tenure and accrued leave, so they net a cost savings. However as you pointed out, some long term employees use the system as a means to somewhat circumvent personal accrual caps. Is this prevalent? I’m guessing it is a small percentage though. Seems to me this system probably results in a net reduction in benefit costs. Interesting… think it is time to put a proposal together for my employer.
If that’s what you meant, you’ve failed utterly to convince me (and seemingly anyone else) that your argument makes any sense or that your conclusion is supported by any rational assessment of the facts.
It most definitely is not currency. If it were the plan would be assured of resulting a net loss due to administration costs. Now a public agency might put up with this, and some Unions might support it if the company bears the admin costs, but it would be exceedingly rare in the private sector. However some googling seems to indicate it is a prevalent and growing trend.
It is not an equal value exchange. It is appealing because it is not dollar for dollar and because the economics of it are favorable to the employer as well as the employee.