5 ms·

Compare it to sick leave: I am healthy person, but I feel jealous of people who are sick and take extended leave . I would feel more included if healthy people

by jkot 11y ago

Compare it to sick leave: I am healthy person, but I feel jealous of people who are sick and take extended leave . I would feel more included if healthy people could also take sick leave..

the_ancient 11y ago
This is why many companies have replaced their Sick leave policy with Personal Time off, or PTO policies People accrue time off, that time off can be used for anything, Illness, or just because you are having a bad day. >take extended leave Most companies do not offer "extended paid leave" for illness either, that would be covered under your healh insurance, unemployment, or some other supplemental insurance policy (aka AFLAC). FMLA requires a company give you unpaid extended leave for illness, not paid.
pixelmonkey 11y ago
What a bizarre comparison. People do not choose to become sick -- at least not usually! One would hope that in a modern society, most people choose to have children, although it is true that sometimes becoming a parent can happen outside the realm of choice. Even then, though, the comparison falls down, as extended leave due to sickness is usually covered by disability insurance rather than by employers. Company policies cannot possibly cover every life circumstance but one hopes that over time companies who value their employees offer (fair) policies that make work a little more compatible with the common circumstances of life that tend to be out of the control of employees.
- jkot 11y ago
  Why bizarre? It is not like one can choose when wife has complications after pregnancy, kid gets sick or suspended from school. One can not choose to "pause" parentship.
  - pixelmonkey 11y ago
    But nothing you list there is a reason for parental leave. The concept of parental leave is to spend time taking care of a new child while adjusting to the changes of parenthood. Companies could choose to have "puppy leave" for when employees choose to adopt newborn puppies. Choosing to have a dog (or not) and choosing to have a child (or not) are life choices about time and money investments in taking care of another being, and in the right circumstances they are choices! I imagine a company with a puppy leave policy (however absurd on the surface) would cause jealousy in coworkers who choose to have children, instead. And, rightfully so! One can not "pause" parentship, it is true. But one can and should choose parentship in most circumstances, and one should not expect an employer to provide special relief from all its obligations, financial/time/otherwise. Employers should instead provide adequate comp and leave to all its employees, regardless of their life choices. It is ultimately about fairness and a rule that says employees deserve what they earn and don't get unreasonably special treatment for choices that are, frankly, none of the company's business.
    - c17r 11y ago
      > Companies could choose to have "puppy leave" for when employees choose to adopt newborn puppies. The Motley Fool has a "pet-ternity" leave policy. I believe it's a week or two when you get a new pet.
    - jkot 11y ago
      What would be a valid reason for parental leave, if not sick children or sick partner? And why is parental leave at Etsy spreaded over 2 years (some companies have even 7 years). Children is not a puppy. And some companies have dog friendly policy. There is also a leave for weddings, funerals, menstruation... It is another perk offered by company to its employees. I dont play ping-pong or dring free soda, should I be offended if company does offer that?
      - pixelmonkey 11y ago
        I think there's a straightforward difference between a fringe office perk of marginal value (like free soda) and a form of direct compensation (like paid time off, options, and salary), and I think it's important for employers to distribute the latter based on fitness for job, market rates, and employee value, rather than on arbitrary life choices -- at least wherever possible.
wtbob 11y ago
Of course, at some point an employer really has to consider whether an employee who is often away sick is contributing enough to justify his continued employment. That's not uncharitable — it's a fact: if one's not working, then one's not producing value, and if the value one produces is less than the cost of one's wages, then the employer is taking a loss. How many such losses can an employer survive?
Trundle 11y ago
PTO instead of sick leave is a thing so I don't see your point.

by jkot 11y ago

Compare it to sick leave: I am healthy person, but I feel jealous of people who are sick and take extended leave . I would feel more included if healthy people could also take sick leave..

the_ancient 11y ago

This is why many companies have replaced their Sick leave policy with Personal Time off, or PTO policies People accrue time off, that time off can be used for anything, Illness, or just because you are having a bad day. >take extended leave Most companies do not offer "extended paid leave" for illness either, that would be covered under your healh insurance, unemployment, or some other supplemental insurance policy (aka AFLAC). FMLA requires a company give you unpaid extended leave for illness, not paid.

pixelmonkey 11y ago

What a bizarre comparison. People do not choose to become sick -- at least not usually! One would hope that in a modern society, most people choose to have children, although it is true that sometimes becoming a parent can happen outside the realm of choice. Even then, though, the comparison falls down, as extended leave due to sickness is usually covered by disability insurance rather than by employers. Company policies cannot possibly cover every life circumstance but one hopes that over time companies who value their employees offer (fair) policies that make work a little more compatible with the common circumstances of life that tend to be out of the control of employees.

jkot 11y ago
Why bizarre? It is not like one can choose when wife has complications after pregnancy, kid gets sick or suspended from school. One can not choose to "pause" parentship.
- pixelmonkey 11y ago
  But nothing you list there is a reason for parental leave. The concept of parental leave is to spend time taking care of a new child while adjusting to the changes of parenthood. Companies could choose to have "puppy leave" for when employees choose to adopt newborn puppies. Choosing to have a dog (or not) and choosing to have a child (or not) are life choices about time and money investments in taking care of another being, and in the right circumstances they are choices! I imagine a company with a puppy leave policy (however absurd on the surface) would cause jealousy in coworkers who choose to have children, instead. And, rightfully so! One can not "pause" parentship, it is true. But one can and should choose parentship in most circumstances, and one should not expect an employer to provide special relief from all its obligations, financial/time/otherwise. Employers should instead provide adequate comp and leave to all its employees, regardless of their life choices. It is ultimately about fairness and a rule that says employees deserve what they earn and don't get unreasonably special treatment for choices that are, frankly, none of the company's business.
  - c17r 11y ago
    > Companies could choose to have "puppy leave" for when employees choose to adopt newborn puppies. The Motley Fool has a "pet-ternity" leave policy. I believe it's a week or two when you get a new pet.
  - jkot 11y ago
    What would be a valid reason for parental leave, if not sick children or sick partner? And why is parental leave at Etsy spreaded over 2 years (some companies have even 7 years). Children is not a puppy. And some companies have dog friendly policy. There is also a leave for weddings, funerals, menstruation... It is another perk offered by company to its employees. I dont play ping-pong or dring free soda, should I be offended if company does offer that?
    - pixelmonkey 11y ago
      I think there's a straightforward difference between a fringe office perk of marginal value (like free soda) and a form of direct compensation (like paid time off, options, and salary), and I think it's important for employers to distribute the latter based on fitness for job, market rates, and employee value, rather than on arbitrary life choices -- at least wherever possible.

wtbob 11y ago

Of course, at some point an employer really has to consider whether an employee who is often away sick is contributing enough to justify his continued employment. That's not uncharitable — it's a fact: if one's not working, then one's not producing value, and if the value one produces is less than the cost of one's wages, then the employer is taking a loss. How many such losses can an employer survive?

Trundle 11y ago

PTO instead of sick leave is a thing so I don't see your point.