Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see your point but I also want to make something clear. Where I have worked under a PTO plan, the days given WERE generous, even for the first year, and we were told in no uncertain terms that these days were meant to cover both vacation AND sick days and that we should not ever come to work sick. Due to the coverage being combined, we had more PTO days - in other words we had the equivalent of two weeks paid vacation and a week of sick leave, the very first year (it went up in days from there). It was just lumped under the same heading.
If people made the mistake of using all three weeks for "sick days" and then they wanted vacation on top of it, that's THEIR miscalculation and misapplication of the policy.
Right...And I experienced in my first two positions 10 and 12 days of PTO (No sick days.) That is very fair if there is sick days outside of that, but with that amount of time off, people came into work sick all the time. Think about it; if you planned for a week off at Christmas, and Dec 1 you come down with a nasty cough, would you cut your time with your family short? I doubt it; you would tough it out and cough all day. Now, my younger brother was given 22 days of PTO as a first year employee. That makes sense as it is generous enough that he won't come in sick.
and paid maternity leave. On the maternity leave, isn't that a choice and a very personal one? Why should anyone else pay someone's time off to have a baby?
Should she go on welfare instead? Go broke? SOMETHING has to happen, because women aren't going to stop having babies and they're not going to stop needing to eat and pay rent while pregnant. So either the government/charities pays for her living expenses, or her employer does. Which do you pick?
Agreed. Or are we now supposed to save up a years salary before getting pregnant ?
People don't seem to comprehend that we actually need a population to keep this country going.
As far as the nitwits are concerned, there are only two kinds of babies being born in the United States in 2015:
1) Babies born to financially prudent, Libertarian parents who can afford all the medical expenses. And seriously, why is the mother working in the first place? She should be making her husband a sandwich, dammit.
2) Welfare babies who are born to illegal-alien welfare parents who are cheating the system and will grow up to be welfare queens themselves.
Easy to see why they don't want things like maternity leave or pre-natal (and post-natal) care.
]These laws are in place for people like my boss. I've worked, uninterrupted, since 2002. Still not missing work, but I'm hurting. I see a doctor. They tell me I'm sick. I tell my boss I need to work 8 while I concentrate on my health. He tells me to either take a 70% pay cut and keep my insurance or to leave and to decide the DAY BEFORE I'm to go into surgery. My story is an anecdote, but when I look at a 5 year list of workers comp claims, I see that EVERY SINGLE employee has been terminated.[/b]
Laws are what I get to point to and have his attorney agree to give me a severance and continue my insurance for a period of time to prevent being sued. Without laws, I'd have no recourse but to use vigilante tactics....and nobody wants that, especially the third party taxpayer that doesn't want to fund a prison surgery...right?
So guess what. If you are going to use the labor of another human being in this country, then part of the price is in making sure certain provisions are taken care of. Without laws setting a minimum floor of expectation, then the biggest miserly executive would win, investing nothing in safety, training or development. Relax, executives get paid plenty to figure out how to make it work without cheating.
This my friend, is pretty much why I am pro-union. A union job would let you leave work for surgery, if it wasn't job related, at my work, at least you get short term dissability, or even better, your job back once your felling better..
There are jobs that offer paid maternity leave, and those that don't. Women are free to take either.
Really? Did the last 5 years not teach us anything? Plenty of people have to take jobs that they can get, which means that folks lose out on benefits that should be universal in our country.
These combined buckets are often a "use it or lose it" setup, whereas with dedicated days for each purpose, at least a portion of unused vacation can be rolled over to the next year.
That would be interesting if that were true at my company. Dedicated days, no rollover.
This my friend, is pretty much why I am pro-union. A union job would let you leave work for surgery, if it wasn't job related, at my work, at least you get short term dissability, or even better, your job back once your felling better..
Totally agree I work in a union shop and it's very hard to beat the benefits. I am blessed that I have never had to have surgery but if I did I wouldn't have to worry about losing my job because of it.
Agreed. Or are we now supposed to save up a years salary before getting pregnant ?
Yes, if your job doesn't provide it. Or, find a job that does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
