5 ms·

How? The sabbatical is unpaid.

dazc 8y ago
Yes, indeed, although, I guess, the knowledge that you can go back and pick-up from where you left off is sufficient security for some?
numbsafari 8y ago
Because you are guaranteed to return to your existing job. Sure, you’ll need to use savings for those six months, but you know you can go back. That’s not nothing.
- speedplane 8y ago
  I’m curious how they enforce the policy of allowing you to keep your job after you’ve left for six months. What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? This doesn’t seem like a good long term solution. A better one would be several weeks off, then half time work for several more months. It allows you to keep you head in the game, make money, and take care of your kid.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    I would guess it would work the same way as it already does when the position you had is no longer needed/replaced by automation. I'm not sure what the situation in Sweden is like, but I'd wager to guess that that would at least have to come with a severance package (assuming I'm using that term correctly here - not a native speaker). You can't just fire people that are not on unpaid leave either.
  - lucozade 8y ago
    > Would they be forced to rehire you The employees aren't unhired, they are on leave. And yes, the employer is required to return you to your old position, or a very similar one. > What if the position ... is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Then they return you to a similar position and/or run less efficiently than they may have done otherwise. I don't see this as particularly different from similar issues you get with parental or education leave arrangements. There are sometimes edge cases that complicate things a bit but any reasonably sizeable organisation can usually deal with them without too much bother.
  - alkonaut 8y ago
    > What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? The person is still employed so still has the same protections as if they never left. It's very hard to fire someone in Sweden so that is important.
  - rightbyte 8y ago
    It's enforced by the state. Simple as that. If the company want to let you go for not being needed any more they need to follow the last in first out rule for similair positions/qualifications and if you are that person the company has to give you x months of notice and pay, but I'm not sure what happens if they do that during a leave.
- ourmandave 8y ago
  What's the flip side if you succeed and don't want to go back to your old job? Do you have to give X days notice?
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Yes, since you are still hired, just on leave.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dazc 8y ago

Yes, indeed, although, I guess, the knowledge that you can go back and pick-up from where you left off is sufficient security for some?

numbsafari 8y ago

Because you are guaranteed to return to your existing job. Sure, you’ll need to use savings for those six months, but you know you can go back. That’s not nothing.

speedplane 8y ago
I’m curious how they enforce the policy of allowing you to keep your job after you’ve left for six months. What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? This doesn’t seem like a good long term solution. A better one would be several weeks off, then half time work for several more months. It allows you to keep you head in the game, make money, and take care of your kid.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  I would guess it would work the same way as it already does when the position you had is no longer needed/replaced by automation. I'm not sure what the situation in Sweden is like, but I'd wager to guess that that would at least have to come with a severance package (assuming I'm using that term correctly here - not a native speaker). You can't just fire people that are not on unpaid leave either.
- lucozade 8y ago
  > Would they be forced to rehire you The employees aren't unhired, they are on leave. And yes, the employer is required to return you to your old position, or a very similar one. > What if the position ... is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Then they return you to a similar position and/or run less efficiently than they may have done otherwise. I don't see this as particularly different from similar issues you get with parental or education leave arrangements. There are sometimes edge cases that complicate things a bit but any reasonably sizeable organisation can usually deal with them without too much bother.
- alkonaut 8y ago
  > What if the position you previously had is no longer needed or has been replaced by automation? Would they be forced to rehire you for a period to satisfy the rule with the intention of letting you go later? The person is still employed so still has the same protections as if they never left. It's very hard to fire someone in Sweden so that is important.
- rightbyte 8y ago
  It's enforced by the state. Simple as that. If the company want to let you go for not being needed any more they need to follow the last in first out rule for similair positions/qualifications and if you are that person the company has to give you x months of notice and pay, but I'm not sure what happens if they do that during a leave.
ourmandave 8y ago
What's the flip side if you succeed and don't want to go back to your old job? Do you have to give X days notice?
- jacobush 8y ago
  Yes, since you are still hired, just on leave.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]