3 ms·
No. He offered to work two weeks, which would have meant they owed him two weeks of pay plus two weeks of vacation days. Instead he took two weeks of vacation p
by jacalata 13y ago
No. He offered to work two weeks, which would have meant they owed him two weeks of pay plus two weeks of vacation days. Instead he took two weeks of vacation pay and no pay for work.
- logn 13y agoYeah but it's the same difference. If you resign, they can ask you to immediately stop working. At that point, you're cut a check for your vacation days. If the company decides to let you use your vacation days, you're paid with a normal payroll check. It should amount to about the same thing. I'm guessing this made things simpler paperwork-wise but amounted to the same pay. And the employee would also get two weeks with health benefits.
- jtbigwoo 13y agoIANAL, but this practice is illegal in many places. If your days off are called something like "vacation days" or "PTO", they're regulated by the government. Generally the company has to pay them out after leave and the company can't make you work them. If they're called "personal days" or something similar the company usually doesn't have to pay you for them when you leave. This case was probably wage theft. If it was within the last few years, the government would probably like to hear about it. Most states have a department of labor or something similar that investigates this sort of thing.