If it’s an irrational argument you can point out what’s irrational about it.
To summarise what I’m saying:
Not every system where everyone has a free choice is necessarily fair. Choice and fairness / equality are not the same thing (as illustrated by the tax example I gave).
A system where PTO can be transferred is one such system. It could mean e.g. that Mr Popular gets ample time to grieve the death of his grandfather, but Mr Shy has to come straight back to work following the death of his family in a car crash.
(Some would argue that everyone gets sufficient time but some people get extra time as a “bonus”. But it would be strange for people to donate to such a system. People give some of their PTO because they feel other people need it).
PTO is not inherently a fungible commodity – it is flawed to equate it to currency or to claim that time itself is something that can be passed around. The best description of it is as a permission, so there is no inherent reason why it necessarily must be transferable.
Where I work, we have approx 4700 employees that can benefit from a Leave Donation.
Our leave programs are based on years of service. They range from 6 months, to 3 years of job protection.
This isnt paid time, it is job protection time.
Employee benefits can be continued via this time, but the time runs concurrent with COBRA clocks as well.
Any person can apply for Compassionate Leave assistance. Important note here
Compassionate Leave doesnt extend your leave time off. It extends paid time during your leave time off.
One may qualify for 3 years of job protection, but only have 3 months of paid time.
It’s not a permission , at least not in any job I’ve had. Because every job I’ve had of “approved leave without pay”. The approval is the permission to be absent from work and payment is a separate issue. So Mr Shy and Mr Popular* don’t necessarily get different amounts of time off- they may get paid for more or less time, but that’s no different than coworkers taking up a colections for Mr Popular and not doing so for Mr Shy
I don’t know about your workplace, but in my workplaces it would be more accurate to describe them as Mr Well-liked and Mr Can’t
I don’t know about any studies, but I do know that at my workplaces, it actually seems to be people with more tenure and accrued leave who benefit. There are few requests from relatively new employees with little leave time compared to long-term employees ( who tend to be older) with catastrophic medical problems ( strokes, heart attacks , etc ) who have already used up four of five months of their own accrued leave.
Actually several people a few posts ago agreed that it is not like currency.
And what response do you have to my point that repercussions like 1 guy being off for 20 days being different to 20 guys taking a day off shows that it is not a simple tradable asset?
It’s not a permission , at least not in any job I’ve had. Because every job I’ve had of “approved leave without pay”. The approval is the permission to be absent from work and payment is a separate issue. So Mr Shy and Mr Popular* don’t necessarily get different amounts of time off- they may get paid for more or less time, but that’s no different than coworkers taking up a collection for Mr Popular and not doing so for Mr Shy
I don’t know about your workplace, but in my workplaces it would be more accurate to describe them as Mr Well-liked and Mr Can’t Get Along with Anyone. We don’t really have people who are “popular” for no reason.
The hours have a budget line. Thus, a tangible $$ figure is assigned to them
20 days is covered by FMLA. Thus, compassionate leave is not an issue.
That being said, lets address it any way
I would say it depends on the staffing in the department. My dept (compensation/benefits) we currently have numerous people off for far more then 20 days. We are picking up the works and still getting it done. There is no “loss” associated with that time in a monetary form.
One of those people are being supported by compassionate leave because their personal leave time did not equal the time off. Additionally, that person isnt the issue, her husband (Major CVA) is. So she isnt getting LTD.
She has 3 months left of job protection at which time, she has to decide to either retire, come back to work, or figure something else out or her job will be replaced
If I get health insurance at my job, can I give it to my brother in law who needs it more than me? It is a “paid benefit” after all, and why should the state care?
Can he drive my company car or use my company cell phone?
I agree with an earlier poster that if a company can go without the services of someone for 8 months, they can go without forever. Seems like a job that the taxpayers are shelling out $70k/yr plus benefits that isn’t necessary.
Im guessing, but I bet your 3 days was for bereavement.
She probably had a similar time (I get 4 days)
After that, she may be on medical leave for mental stress. This is an approved leave reason. I dont think it is a stretch to presume she is under mental stress considering how public this case is.
So I would ask you, does your situation equal the same media, political, message board storm where your child is derided for being shot?
OK, what is that dollar value? Since it has already been revealed that it’s irrelevant the salary of the person taking / giving PTO; it’s just PTO which is pooled.
That dodges the issue. The point was 1 person taking 20 days may be better or worse for the organisation than 20 people taking 1 day. Agree?
A couple of questions for those outraged about this for whatever reason:
Are you just taking issue with this particular occasion of PTO pool use? Or do you object to the concept altogether on principle? If you don’t object to the idea of PTO pooling in general, then why is this particular occasion so distasteful to you?
Also, for those saying that if someone is off work for an extended period of time that this proves that their position is not needed and should be eliminated, do you think the same thing any time a woman takes off several months for maternity leave? I mean, if her workplace can survive without her for a few months, then why not just eliminate that job too, right? She is obviously not necessary for her workplace to function, if she can be gone for several months with no issues, right?
The budget is assigned to each department. Example
Our compassionate leave program allows anyone to donate 1 - 2 days a year at our open enrollment. If I donate 2 days (16 hours) at $20 an hour, then $320 of budget is transferred to the compassionate leave bank.
LOL, so applying reality is a dodge? Yes, it may be better or it may be worse. That in no way supports your position as a negative impact.
This is not something that is handled the same way everywhere. Leave time has a value in my company. I can request to be paid cash at the end of the year instead of taking leave. I can donate leave to a specific person. When I do that they take my salary times the number of hours I want to donate and divide that product by the salary of the recipient. It is not a day-for-a-day it is paid-time-equivalent.
When I worked, I earned a salary and had my leave balance increase. My leave balance is a liablility to the company and there is no net change in their liablility when I donate.
Does anyone know how it works in the specific case that is causing outrage.
I am under the impression that it is a day for a donated day. However that may be information I picked up erroneously in this thread.
In your companies case I agree the benefit being traded is functionally equivalent to cash.
In dngnb8’s case I haven’t seen it described the same. They have shown that a cash value is assigned when it is added to the bank, but not really explained what happens at dispersal. If I earn $40/hr and draw from the pool that dngnb8 contributed 16 hours at a value of $320 to, is there only 8 hours available to me?
I have a Canadian cousin who got nearly 18 months’ maternity leave for each of her two children, combining government-mandated leave and employment contract-based leave. A big chunk of that was paid leave from the employer, her union kicked in pay for a few months, and the remainder was without pay.