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 work in a big company with around 275-300 employees. Everyone is entitled to a month leave of absence during the first three months of the year.
One part-time employee had a mother dying of cancer. There was no definite date set as to when she would die, so it could have taken months, maybe even longer.
Well this employee took a whole month off to care for her mother, and when she asked to extend her unpaid leave, my company basically did not give her the option of doing that. Their philosophy is basically an employee can only have unpaid undetermined leave of absence for dying spouses or children. Other close family is not allowed, even if you live with them.
Do you think this is wrong? Or would granting this employee an undetermined leave open the doors for other employees leaving to take care of close dying relatives?
If the employee has worked at least 1250 hours in the previous year they can take 12 weeks of leave under FMLA. Since this person is PT, they may not qualify.
Personally, I would not let a good employee go after a month if they were taking care of a dying mother. If it took longer than 3 months I would need to talk to them, I might need to fll their current position, but I would find something in the company for them.
Yes, it is wrong. Unless the employee is covered by FMLA, it's also legal.
It's not a question of being right or wrong. It's about business and the company policies.
The policy is what it is. The policy is not meant to punish or harm the employee. Unfortunately, company policies will not fit or accommodate every individual's life circumstances.
Any company policy that treats people like disposable tissues and happily grinds them into dust is a bad one. Perhaps this is legal - we live in a "wonderful" nation where workers are treated like trash equally under the law - but it certainly is not "right." No doubt the same big-wigs who created the policy have no shortage of extra perks in their positions and certainly wouldn't lose their jobs if the situation were reversed.
As for this opening the door for abuse, realistically, a person is not going to be able to claim that they have a dying relative frequently. This sounds like the old gag about the kid who tries to get out tests in school by claiming he has to "go to his grandma's funeral" 4 or 5 times in a year. Yeah... that's not a real strategy for work avoidance, IMHO.
I think people who manage and own companies should act reasonably and letting someone go in that situation is unreasonable in my opinion. Not to mention, I bet that employee would always remember the kindness of an understanding employer.
Any company policy that treats people like disposable tissues and happily grinds them into dust is a bad one. Perhaps this is legal - we live in a "wonderful" nation where workers are treated like trash equally under the law - but it certainly is not "right." No doubt the same big-wigs who created the policy have no shortage of extra perks in their positions and certainly wouldn't lose their jobs if the situation were reversed.
It's sad that this person's mother has cancer. However, life happens. The policy is already broad for a reason. I think it's acceptable to only offer extra time off (over 30 days) for sick spouses and children. That's the immediate family.
Where do we draw the line? If we add parents, why not other relatives? Why not friends or pets?
As to the big wigs, I don't see why it's an issue that those who work in upper management have different employment benefits. Isn't that the point of working hard to "move up the ladder?" Some people, because of their seniority, get a few extra weeks of vacation. Is that wrong? Some people are allowed to work from home while others must report into the office. Is that wrong?
I'm sorry that this woman is going through all of this. Life isn't always nice or easy. I believe the lady will be able to get unemployment benefits.
It's sad that this person's mother has cancer. However, life happens. The policy is already broad for a reason. I think it's acceptable to only offer extra time off (over 30 days) for sick spouses and children. That's the immediate family.
Where do we draw the line? If we add parents, why not other relatives? Why not friends or pets?
As to the big wigs, I don't see why it's an issue that those who work in upper management have different employment benefits. Isn't that the point of working hard to "move up the ladder?" Some people, because of their seniority, get a few extra weeks of vacation. Is that wrong? Some people are allowed to work from home while others must report into the office. Is that wrong?
I'm sorry that this woman is going through all of this. Life isn't always nice or easy. I believe the lady will be able to get unemployment benefits.
I don't feel that way. Not everyone gets married (or can get married, but that's for another time), nor does everyone have children. Does that mean that they shouldn't get that time to spend with the one or two people who meant the world to them as they leave this world?
Last edited by redandorangeskittles; 10-18-2013 at 07:42 PM..
Reason: some people are raised by their grandparents too. it's hard to say.
This is one of many disadvantages to being a part time employee. Not having enough hours to qualify for FMLA. Even as a full timer, with my company, if you've been with the company for less than 6 months, you can get 1 month of unpaid leave for whatever reason. If it extends past that time, you can be terminated, with the understanding that you can reapply at a later time. And yes, if you were a good employee, they will let you back in.
Maybe it depends on the company, but I know of quite a few people using FMLA to take care of their parents, whether they live with them or not. I thought parents were covered, but not grandparents, siblings, etc. Just spouses, children, and parents.
Is the OP's case wrong? Well, what's the point of the employee keeping an unpaid job if they're not getting paid anyway, unless there are some other benefits that haven't been mentioned? What's the point of the employer keeping a position unfilled for an indeterminate amount of time? No one is benefiting here.
But seriously, who's going to abuse unpaid leave? In this economy!?!
I'm going to ask a few questions, and as someone who has been through some serious illnesses, including cancer, I'm not asking this to be insensitive. Does the employee really need to take a whole month off? If this person is a part time employee, can they not juggle doctor's appointments, chemo, etc, around their work schedule? Are there no friends or family that can assist? Does the parent need constant care? I assume hospice is not an option, so can a home health nurse be hired and paid out of pocket?
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.
