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.
If something is true for 51% of the people, why is it a blanket policy without a written exception? Obviously if something is true for 99.9% of the people, I would not expect the handbook to devote much space to the exceptions. But is "reasonable" too much to ask?
In many white collar jobs in the modern world, workers often do have idle days when business is slow. This is not in any way a rare phenomenon. So I'm puzzled why the leave policy is written as though these days don't even exist.
You're again looking through the lens of your particular desire (unpaid leave at will) and making assumptions about other workers' conditions to bolster your argument.
I don't know what line of work you're in but for the places I've worked with the types of employees we had I can think of a few reasons why.
I would never want to manage a team where one day I have Team Members A, B, C, D, and E and then next day it might be A, C, D, E and then next day maybe B, C, E, and so on. And I'd really rather not spend the time necessary to determine what really constitutes an 'idle day' and what happens if someone takes one (unpaid) and then maybe answers one email and then demands to get paid because she 'worked.' I could go on and on.
You're again looking through the lens of your particular desire (unpaid leave at will) and making assumptions about other workers' conditions to bolster your argument.
I don't know what line of work you're in but for the places I've worked with the types of employees we had I can think of a few reasons why.
I would never want to manage a team where one day I have Team Members A, B, C, D, and E and then next day it might be A, C, D, E and then next day maybe B, C, E, and so on. And I'd really rather not spend the time necessary to determine what really constitutes an 'idle day' and what happens if someone takes one (unpaid) and then maybe answers one email and then demands to get paid because she 'worked.' I could go on and on.
Why not simply require employees to get their work done? If someone abuses the policy, then remove the privileges. But to take that freedom from everyone just because some might abuse it seems overkill. Maybe in your particular line of work there is a high potential for abuse or the employees need a lot of coaching, or maybe a high propensity for highly urgent tasks on super-short notice. In those cases I can see it. However, it seems like many large companies have this policy just because all the other companies do it.
Heck, even allowing the manager to exempt his/her team from the policy would be a HUGE improvement over the companywide-one-size-fits all approach.
Why not simply require employees to get their work done? If someone abuses the policy, then remove the privileges. But to take that freedom from everyone just because some might abuse it seems overkill. Maybe in your particular line of work there is a high potential for abuse or the employees need a lot of coaching, or maybe a high propensity for highly urgent tasks on super-short notice. In those cases I can see it. However, it seems like many large companies have this policy just because all the other companies do it.
Heck, even allowing the manager to exempt his/her team from the policy would be a HUGE improvement over the companywide-one-size-fits all approach.
Again, I doubt we work in similar industries but, respectfully, your explanation still sounds pretty self-serving. The bigger overall point is every company and manager has to evaluate how much time they can devote to making individual decisions for their team based on a number of factors. It's not hard to imagine that having to negotiate unpaid PTO amongst a team would be too much of a hassle.
And "get their work done" doesn't have just one definition.
Also, sounds like a payroll nightmare, and benefits etc. And at some point enjoy your unpaid PTO...you're expendable or maybe downgraded to a 1099/gig worker there.
Last edited by rokuremote; 06-20-2023 at 05:29 PM..
The company that forced remote work was my previous employer. I am looking for an employer that has policies that are actually based on logic, and not on weird assumptions about people. If such employers don't exist, maybe I should move to somewhere where the COL is very low and try to live off my investments. Being of an INTJ personality type, I don't take too well to silly rules. I am happy to abide by reasonable rules, but not rules that simply make no sense at all in the situation I find myself in.
Time to start your own company but that takes ideas, initiative and time. Plan B anyone? Maybe Plan C and invest in an island where your reasonable rules apply.
Some analysts concoction is not really a good guideline for how to find happiness. I am an introvert of the worst kind and have had an extrovert's dream job for the last 20 years. Go figure.
If something is true for 51% of the people, why is it a blanket policy without a written exception? Obviously if something is true for 99.9% of the people, I would not expect the handbook to devote much space to the exceptions. But is "reasonable" too much to ask?
In many white collar jobs in the modern world, workers often do have idle days when business is slow. This is not in any way a rare phenomenon. So I'm puzzled why the leave policy is written as though these days don't even exist.
If you dig down deep enough you'll find that many, perhaps most, silly rules came about because someone either
a: Took advantage if a good situation. IE there's always someone who ruins it for everyone else.
or
b: Someone who complained or sued because someone else got something or didn't have to do something.
or
c: Both of those things. Took advantage of generosity then sued when they got called out on in it.
Me? I'd much rather deal with things on an individual basis, but HR departments and legal departments like to have all these rules in place for the they get sued.
Again, I doubt we work in similar industries but, respectfully, your explanation still sounds pretty self-serving. The bigger overall point is every company and manager has to evaluate how much time they can devote to making individual decisions for their team based on a number of factors. It's not hard to imagine that having to negotiate unpaid PTO amongst a team would be too much of a hassle.
And "get their work done" doesn't have just one definition.
Also, sounds like a payroll nightmare, and benefits etc. And at some point enjoy your unpaid PTO...you're expendable or maybe downgraded to a 1099/gig worker there.
I'm honestly starting to reconsider why I might or might not want to be a 1099. I simply cannot believe that it is reasonable or rational to spend all those hours pretending to work, just to save a few bureaucrats some paperwork.
Maybe just let me do the paperwork if they are so afraid to and it can't be automated.
If the company allowed unpaid time more liberally, they could even use the saved money to hire some help with the paperwork. But they are far too traditionalist and stuck in their ways it seems.
The company that forced remote work was my previous employer. I am looking for an employer that has policies that are actually based on logic, and not on weird assumptions about people. If such employers don't exist, maybe I should move to somewhere where the COL is very low and try to live off my investments. Being of an INTJ personality type, I don't take too well to silly rules. I am happy to abide by reasonable rules, but not rules that simply make no sense at all in the situation I find myself in.
Ooooh, so you now have issues with the NEW employer too, eh?
Like I said, this is a you issue, not an everybody else issue. You have problems with authority and being told what to do. You should start your own business where people are free to come and go as they please. Good luck enforcing that and, hey, the paperwork/payroll involved. All this "money saved" would go to your payroll vendor trying to figure out who is on this ridiculous unpaid leave because they got their work done early. Oh and LOL, this seriously ranks up there with one of the more ridiculous "ideas" I've read on this particular thread and I've read many.
Ooooh, so you now have issues with the NEW employer too, eh?
Like I said, this is a you issue, not an everybody else issue. You have problems with authority and being told what to do. You should start your own business where people are free to come and go as they please. Good luck enforcing that and, hey, the paperwork/payroll involved. All this "money saved" would go to your payroll vendor trying to figure out who is on this ridiculous unpaid leave because they got their work done early. Oh and LOL, this seriously ranks up there with one of the more ridiculous "ideas" I've read on this particular thread and I've read many.
100% truth. Someone with that mentality will take it from job to job to job and learn nothing except how to complain more and blame others.
And here's the likely truth...if the OP and his colleagues truly have enough down time to be considering unpaid PTO (and I assume that he's not talking about a day here and there) then a couple things are likely to be true:
Salaries are too high.
and/or
Headcount is too high.
If you dig down deep enough you'll find that many, perhaps most, silly rules came about because someone either
a: Took advantage if a good situation. IE there's always someone who ruins it for everyone else.
or
b: Someone who complained or sued because someone else got something or didn't have to do something.
or
c: Both of those things. Took advantage of generosity then sued when they got called out on in it.
Pretty much, yup.
At a recent previous gig, we hired someone during the height of COVID (my unit was about 80/20, in-person vs. WFH) to deal with a specific, limited set of important responsibilities (in person) and over time he picked up little bits of other things, but not much. When COVID issues went away, he started grousing for more and more WFH but the real issue was his job duties went from 100 to about 15 and he was bored and made little effort to increase his worth. It was just WFH, WFH, WFH, and comparing his situation with everyone else's. That kind of negative attention put him in the crosshairs for staff reduction, and solely because it amplified how little work he had anymore.
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.
