Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Talk to me about FMLA
Nope, not me...I just started a new job.
Ditto.
Bridey, Momi and missussbee all raise good points about the misinformation on the internet (zomg especially the bump. it drives me bonkers) about FMLA so the DOL website is a great resource for starting.
But in the situation you described - the sick person isn't capable of doing the job when their FMLA runs out, I guess. But the issue sounds more like poor management, not the federal law itself.
Agreed. One company's incompetent management does not convince me that FMLA protection is, on the whole, a bad thing.
Wait, what??
oh..just to be clear..I wasn't saying that at all. I think the general idea is a good one, but it seems to me that employers can let things get out of hand (ie. when they allow for more than the 12 weeks).
Not to mention that it's not SPECIAL TREATMENT if it's something that is available by law to everyone. There is no such thing as an FMLA employee - everyone at a company either gets the protection or doesn't. If someone doesn't use it - then that's because they didn't have a medical problem or baby that year. Which is probably what most people want most of the time.
But then that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with incompetent management. Because even in the absence of the law, an employer could have done this exact same stuff. It's not as though pre-FMLA, the employer would have been required to fire the employee.
Again, read my other post. I agree that FMLA is not special treatment; however, I do think that certain employer decisions to extend, etc that cause extra work for fellow employees can come off as special treatment to said employees. It makes for a lot of conflict.
Not living in a state here (TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION) but the law here is called -- wait for it -- The D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act. Different and yet, the same somehow.
In any case, I thought 2V was asking generally and was just sharing what happens here in D.C. and with my employer.
I think the issue you describe 2V is not a FMLA issue and more a poor management issue. Maybe they fear firing the sick employee could result in some sort of backlash or lawsuit.
Ditto pp - it doesn't matter if it's an inconvenience for others, FMLA still protects people for 12 weeks (and as momi explained, it can be intermittent too) as long as their illness or whatever meets the criteria for FMLA. If people want to be angry, then be angry at the federal government for this.
Plus, those same a-holes who get pissy about other people could end up needing FMLA themselves at some point, so I don't get the anger.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home DMaybe they fear firing the sick employee could result in some sort of backlash or lawsuit.
Ahhh. Yes, I think this could be what is going on...
However, if the employer is not bound by FMLA law to give more than 12 weeks, then why would a lawsuit be a concern?
*jawdrop*
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home DOr, maybe she's a valued employee - moreso than the whiner - and they are hoping she'll be able to come back on board full time once her illness is over.
FMLA is the minimum requirements that must be met by certain employers. If those employers want to go above and beyond FMLA requirements (which are actually pretty damn week) to support their employees with medical needs, why on earth are we complaining?
Jeesh.
How dare the boss man give employee X extra time for chemo treatments! Where's my extra time for chemo treatments!?
Eff that noise.
~Benjamin Franklin
DS dx with celiac disease 5/28/10
If they let it get out of hand, then the employer suffers by losing a presumably good employee and/or allowing the one constantly sick to abuse the policy.
I can see how it can get old to watch someone constantly be out, but I can't imagine being so annoyed by it that I would quit. I mean, even if the employer allows it to continue, I'd assume they notice when it comes time for bonuses, raises, promotions, etc.
See, I think I am usually just sad for the coworker who is so sick they are unable to function and who are accumulating massive medical bills, while having to worry about whether they will lose their job, while trying to beat whatever illness they have that has taken them out of work unexpectedly. And relieved that I am not in that boat.
True. However, this illness is chronic and isn't going away. I think the "whiner" questions whether the other employee takes advantage of her ability to take time off.
I see both sides ....the "whiner's" and the "valued employee's".
I do think this is a management issue. Perhaps the employer should have on-call coverage.
See, I think FMLA has a self-regulating mechanism to prevent this from happening. It's unpaid time. Granted, there are going to be people for whom this is no concern, but for most of the working population, the very fact that this is medically necessary, unpaid time is a deterrent to abuse.
I cannot fathom the wanton and self entitled douchbaggery that would lead a person to whine about a fellow employee's, shoot a fellow human being felled by illness and availing themselves of legal time off.
Red Hot ***, that person.
The thing is is that I'm not so sure that this is unpaid time. I think I read somewhere in one of these links that if the employer extends (beyond the 12 weeks), employee uses accrued time off (ie. paid time off.)
How is that an FMLA issue, then? Don't employees have the right to use accrued PTO, with or without the involvement of FMLA? FMLA only ensures that employees can have their jobs back after 12 weeks of unpaid qualified leave. Anything above and beyond that is the employer's discretion. Again, a management issue.
Actually I think it is decent of an employer to be understanding when one of their employees has a serious illness. Whatever illness she has probably didn't get the memo it should have run its course within 12 weeks. I honestly would think less of an employer who would fire an employee when they are dealing with an illness and then leave them to deal with not only the illness but the stress of not having a job during what is presumably already a rough time. At my place of employment we have quite a few people who have taken longer than 12 weeks for medical reasons. It is part of the reason why I stay. Even in my own situation I took time for maternity leave and when I got back to work my dad was dying. I think between emergency "he is on his deathbed trips" and time for the funeral, etc. I took another 2 weeks. I would have been extremely upset if I had been told, forget your dad's funeral your maternity leave took up all your FMLA.
This is entirely up to the employer. At my employer, I had to use my PTO/sick time and FMLA concurrently, meaning that the first 4 weeks of FMLA time were paid with my PTO, and when that ran out the last 8 weeks were unpaid.
If an employer wants to offer paid time off, that's their right. But legally, they are only required to give 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
I honestly cannot believe that someone is upset that their employer is going above and beyond for an ill employee. I bet she would feel differently if she were the sick one.
In my scenario, when I came back to work I did begin accruing time so I had some hours that I could use to offset the additional unpaid leave. I am not sure why this matters given she has been coming into work for part of that time.
Um, yeah, my company once had an employee who never worked a full week and only worked here for maybe 3-5 months. She would call out or come in late or go home early because she was hung over (she would actually say this) or not feeling well, or really tired from going out at night. She was rear-ended and stayed home for 5 days because she was "really sore." If you call out sick 3 days in a row, you need to bring a doctor's note with you on your return per company policy. She did not see the doctor and therefore, as a matter of company policy, she was terminated. FMLA did not extend to that situation.
If the other employee has some kind of agreement or notice with the employer that she needs the unpaid time off, she might be covered under FMLA. If she uses more than 12 weeks/year, that's the company's problem to address. Perhaps this woman has chronic fatigue syndrome or another medical issue that makes it hard to work full time. If that's the case, the company could drop her to part time or hire another part time or full time employee to pick up the slack. But your friend really needs to address that.
40/112