We dont' have a 'sick' days. If you are out sick you still get paid if you're salaried. What's excessive is up to you supervisor. To me more than 5 incidences in 12 months is excessive.
We have some people here that were out sick at least several days a month. When their manager made them start taking vacation days all of the sudden they or they child wasn't sick as much, or they were able to find alternative care.
One of my friends here hasn't worked a full month in years. She's at a job that someone has to cover all day - receptionist. And when she's out 'sick' she's out for 3-4 days at the time but no one ever says anything to her.
So my friend and I were discussing what is an "acceptable" number of sick days a person could take off a year for being ill. Not paid of course- just an I'm sick day and can't make it into work. At what point are absences excessive and what are realistic?
FMLA says 12 weeks. I will go with that
FMLA says 12 weeks. I will go with that
IMO, sicks days are for when YOU are really ILL. In 16 years of works, I dont know if I've even used 5 sick days.
If you are REALLY sick, then I dont know when it should be considered excessive. I'm sure some people call in for just the sniffles and others try to fight thru is an end up making the whole office sick.
Vacation or something of the like is for when you have to stay home with a sick kid....your office (at least in most cases) is not going to pay you to stay home for a family member.
What FMLA says and what is right is not always the same. The problem is that the government, in all it's glory, gets pretty liberal. I agree that it is a fairly good thing that one has their position protected if a real, genuine illness, family or otherwise, should happen.
The bad part is that they don't set up any clear guidelines to protect the employer and then we all wonder why companies are outsourcing their labor force. I have seen massive abuse of the FMLA system and it is extremely costly for business. A business hires people to do a specific job. If they aren't there the job either doesn't get done or someone else has to do it. The business cannot hire someone to replace the missing person because they have to leave that position open for when the FMLA person returns. That means that they usually have to pay time and a half to workers to cover the position. A very costly situation. I guess that when it was structured they assumed that everyone was honest...in today's world that is a pretty foolish thing to assume. At least with FMLA, you can plan to have the position covered and are not scrambling at the last minute to fill it.
We get 15 days PTO which includes planned and unplanned. So that's vacation and sick together--and I think that's sadI had the flu in January, a bad allergic reaction in August... and I had to knock time off of our Honeymoon
![]()
At a previous employer we had our 18 days vacation and 6 days sick time.
DH currently gets 15 days PTO also. This is to cover vacations/sick days/everything. It certainly sounds like it should be enough. But, the last two years he was cutting it close. And we didn't take any vacation this year.
This thread got me wondering and I had to check. JUST our daughter had 26 medical appointments this year. She has two more scheduled before the year is out. She's not driving yet so someone has to take her to these appointments. And that's just one family member out of four.
Next year, both kids will be seeing the orthodontist monthly and DD will still have appointments every six weeks with the specialist. That's a lot of time off just for 'maintenance issues'. I can certainly see how people dealing with cancer or a chronic illness could run into a wall real quick.
How much time is enough?? It really can be relative.![]()
So my friend and I were discussing what is an "acceptable" number of sick days a person could take off a year for being ill. Not paid of course- just an I'm sick day and can't make it into work. At what point are absences excessive and what are realistic?
What FMLA says and what is right is not always the same. The problem is that the government, in all it's glory, gets pretty liberal. I agree that it is a fairly good thing that one has their position protected if a real, genuine illness, family or otherwise, should happen.
The bad part is that they don't set up any clear guidelines to protect the employer and then we all wonder why companies are outsourcing their labor force. I have seen massive abuse of the FMLA system and it is extremely costly for business. A business hires people to do a specific job. If they aren't there the job either doesn't get done or someone else has to do it. The business cannot hire someone to replace the missing person because they have to leave that position open for when the FMLA person returns. That means that they usually have to pay time and a half to workers to cover the position. A very costly situation. I guess that when it was structured they assumed that everyone was honest...in today's world that is a pretty foolish thing to assume. At least with FMLA, you can plan to have the position covered and are not scrambling at the last minute to fill it.