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 was in a role for six years where I had to keep tabs on the goings-on of about 1100 employees (in a 40K employee company). I didn't need to know about vacation or sick days, but I did need to know of maternity leave, disability leave, FMLA, and terminations. Probably 3 out of 5 times what we would see is a woman would use the 8 weeks paid maternity leave (and the insurance), come back for the mandatory 2 weeks, and then that was it, they left the company (and presumably the workforce in general). Just something we observed time and time again. We were surprised when a new mother actually continued working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
I am in favor of companies having PTO. Everyone is given the same amount of paid time off for sick leave, vacation time, doctor visits or however they wish to use the days in an hour bank after they have been working at the company for a given number of months just like a traditional company awards sick time or vacation time after so many weeks or months of new employment.
I like the idea overall, but I do wonder how it would work.
The last time I used a "sick day" was in 2009 when I suffered a double-dislocated left index finger. Generally-speaking I can't just take a sick day on the spur of the moment because I want to (it's okay because I quite literally never get sick). At best I could work remotely. But spur of the moment is kind of the idea behind sick days.
Vacation days typically require a LOT of planning ahead. I have to make sure I won't be impacting any big projects I'm leading or working on, I have to ensure the days I want to take aren't certain days of the month (FBD through FBD+6 are out of the question most of the time), I have to coordinate my days off with colleagues so they can handle my work in my absence (and vice versa), and there's still always the possibility of having to cancel due to a fire drill, or business travel, or senior management visits, etc. Then the week leading up to vacation is a bit of a train-wreck, a sort of self-imposed deadline for all topics. And the day back to work after vacation is a monster. And vacation can still entail attending calls remotely and being available for emergencies (on the plus side I'm 40 years old and planning to retire at age 50).
I'm also not married and have no children so there's a little bit of a bias against my days. I have trouble getting my vacation taken seriously sometimes.
This is pretty typical at the Director level and up. Sick days are necessarily limited to only a few days (6 at my company) but are those days you can (if you're so able) take with no notice, while vacation days are more numerous (22 at my company) but are those days that require a month or more of notice and a lot planning and coordination.
So, is the idea with PTO that every day is supposed to become a 'spur-of-the-moment' day like a sick day, or that every day is supposed to become a 'long-term planning' day like a vacation day?
I don't see why any of this surprises anybody. Requiring employers to provide this is just one more step in Obama's attempt to bring us into socialism. If a company wants to provide this, good for them. But there is no way that it should be provided under a government mandate.
If males were having the babies, nobody would complain about paid maternity leave. It would have been written into the Bill of Rights!
Word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV
Obviously what we need to do is reopen all the mills, and then put both the mothers and those good-for-nothing newborns on the line no more than an hour after the delivery. They are such a drain on our economy. Put those slacker socialist babies to work. I for one am sick of paying their freight.
The Newborns to Work program:
1) Will help with the post-natal depression if mom is back to work immediately.
2) Newborn gets to learn employable skills before his or her first meal.
3) Keeps costs down -- happy customers!
4) Great PR as we nudge our way back to full employment. Every baby in the factory increases that percentage just a smidge.
5) Although our party doesn't believe in that evolution stuff, this is a dandy way to put natural selection into practice. Only the fittest babies survive to pass on their employable "cog in the machiine" genes.
You're not far off at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
I pick have the women pay for themselves. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. There's really no excuse these days.
Seriously? Do we not need the next generation to pay for your social security and medicare? Maybe women should just stop having babies since it's such an inconvenience to everyone. SMH.
For those against maternity leave are you against paid short term disability?
No. And the reason should be obvious. Having a baby is a choice. Getting injured or having surgery is not. Thus, taking the time off to have a baby should come out of whatever regular time off they have, and not be added as a bonus employees who aren't moms (and this usually includes dads in the US) don't get. Just before I had shoulder surgery, I HAD to take time off from work for it because I couldn't lift my arms without having shoulder dislocations. That's different than having a child. I love the PTO system. It's fair for everyone.
I was in a role for six years where I had to keep tabs on the goings-on of about 1100 employees (in a 40K employee company). I didn't need to know about vacation or sick days, but I did need to know of maternity leave, disability leave, FMLA, and terminations. Probably 3 out of 5 times what we would see is a woman would use the 8 weeks paid maternity leave, come back for the mandatory 2 weeks, and then that was it, they left the company (and presumably the workforce in general). Just something we observed time and time again. We were surprised when a new mother actually continued working.
I like the idea overall, but I do wonder how it would work.
The last time I used a "sick day" was in 2009 when I suffered a double-dislocated left index finger. Generally-speaking I can't just take a sick day on the spur of the moment because I want to (it's okay because I quite literally never get sick). At best I could work remotely. But spur of the moment is kind of the idea behind sick days.
Vacation days typically require a LOT of planning ahead. I have to make sure I won't be impacting any big projects I'm leading or working on, I have to ensure the days I want to take aren't certain days of the month (FBD through FBD+6 are out of the question most of the time), I have to coordinate my days off with colleagues so they can handle my work in my absence (and vice versa), and there's still always the possibility of having to cancel due to a fire drill, or business travel, or senior management visits, etc. Then the week leading up to vacation is a bit of a train-wreck, a sort of self-imposed deadline for all topics. And the day back to work after vacation is a monster.
I'm also not married and have no children so there's a little bit of a bias against my days. I have trouble getting my vacation taken seriously sometimes.
This is pretty typical at the Director level and up. Sick days are necessarily limited to only a few days (6 at my company) but are those days you can (if you're so able) take with no notice, while vacation days are more numerous (22 at my company) but are those days that require a month or more of notice and a lot planning and coordination.
So, is the idea with PTO that every day is supposed to become a 'spur-of-the-moment' day like a sick day, or that every day is supposed to become a 'long-term planning' day like a vacation day?
If you can't take a spur of the moment sick day then what's the point of having them. What would happen if you did take one and were to sick to work from home? Why are your vacation days not being taken seriously? Your home situation is none of their business. Benefits are only benefits if you can use them.
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?
How about she not have a baby until she can afford it. How about she improve her education and skills and find a job that offers paid maternity leave? How about she take some personal responsibility? How about our government stay out of the private sector?
If a woman's choice is forced maternity leave at her minimum wage job or welfare, then she needs to be sterilized after the first child.
I am in favor of companies having PTO. Everyone is given the same amount of paid time off for sick leave, vacation time, doctor visits or however they wish to use the days in an hour bank after they have been working at the company for a given number of months just like a traditional company awards sick time or vacation time after so many weeks or months of new employment.
The hours are not separated into categories. More hours are accumulated as the employee continues to work for the company.
In other words, there are no sick days, no maternity leave, no vacation days. There are just hours anyone can take for whatever reason they need as long as the hours are accrued in their bank. Reasons to use the time whether it's to take time off for maternity leave or time off to attend a class. If you have the time you can take it, if not, you can't. It cuts down on arbitrary decision making as far as who gets time off for what.
I have worked for a couple of companies that used this PTO method and it worked very well. The time given has always been far more generous in these companies than those that have separated time out for the individual categories.
Used to be that sick days were separate from vacation. You accrued both depending on the number of hours worked.
I feel that it was actually better when they were kept separate.
The way that it is now in so many companies, if the employee has to be out for illness for any length of time, the vacation time is lost. How is that fair?
I support the President's program. Seven days is NOT a huge amount of time over the course of a year.
And, it will reduce the ripple effect of absences caused by people that either cannot or refuse to stay home when they are sick.
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.
