Sick time

[tvguy]

Isn't that what I said?

I never said it was.

 

[tvguy]

Both are correct. There is no requirement to use sick leave as part of FMLA but an employer can require you to do so. My employer requires you use paid sick leave while you are out on FMLA but you can "buy it back" with CASDI or WC payments.

Well, you're splitting hairs. The employer is allowed to require you to use sick and vacation time first.

 

[disneychrista]

Well, you're splitting hairs. The employer is allowed to require you to use sick and vacation time first.

But is it not a requirement to be on FMLA leave. Which is what you originally said. My former employer had no such requirement. My current one does. In both cases all FMLA did was protect the employees job/employment.

Just because your employer allows or requires something does not make it true across the board. In fact some employers require things that are expressly against labor laws.

 

[disneychrista]

I never said it was.

Then why post something as if you are correct me?

 

[disneydreamer1980]

My DH owns a business and gives his employees a pool of 5 weeks PTO to use for vacation, personal days and sick time to start and they accrue time each year they work there. And he tells them to make sure they take all the time they’re entitled to, saying people are more productive at work when they have a healthy work life balance. I don’t understand why people feel bad using the time off they’ve earned, and no one should ever come to work sick, it endangers everyone else and they won’t be very productive. My relatives in France always talk about how they can’t understand the work ethic in America. They say we work too long, too hard and can’t enjoy life because of it.

 

[tvguy]

But is it not a requirement to be on FMLA leave. Which is what you originally said. My former employer had no such requirement. My current one does. In both cases all FMLA did was protect the employees job/employment.

Just because your employer allows or requires something does not make it true across the board. In fact some employers require things that are expressly against labor laws.

See post 101. I said it was my former employers policy, and my wife's former employer too is allowed under the law in California.

 

[disneychrista]

See post 101. I said it was my former employers policy, and my wife's former employer too is allowed under the law in California.

This was the post that was quoted that I then quoted.

Don't you have to use up all your sick and vacation time before you can use FMLA?

Enough going around in circles. Bottom line there is no requirement to use your accrued time to be covered by FMLA except as part of a company policy. And even then FMLA protection is separate from the company policy to require you to use your leave time while out for something that is covered by FMLA.

 

[tvguy]

This was the post that was quoted that I then quoted.




Enough going around in circles. Bottom line there is no requirement to use your accrued time to be covered by FMLA except as part of a company policy. And even then FMLA protection is separate from the company policy to require you to use your leave time while out for something that is covered by FMLA.

Yes, I did ask because I didn't know. My impression was based on the complaints of coworkers who had to use their sick time and vacation up before they could use FMLA which is apparently a requirement that is allowed in California if the employer so chooses.

 

[DisneyHardin]

This is what I find and this was my last employers policy
the law permits an employee to elect, or the employer to require the employee, to use accrued paid vacation leave, paid sick or family leave for some or all of the FMLA leave period.

I guess my employer doesn't require it. When I was out 7 days in a row because of being hospitalized, I had FMLA paperwork waiting for me in the mail when I got out. I had over 100 available sick days. I didn't fill out the paperwork because I went back to work, but they sent it as soon as I was out several days in a row.

 

[tvguy]

I guess my employer doesn't require it. When I was out 7 days in a row because of being hospitalized, I had FMLA paperwork waiting for me in the mail when I got out. I had over 100 available sick days. I didn't fill out the paperwork because I went back to work, but they sent it as soon as I was out several days in a row.

I was speaking of California. Not sure what if any other states it is allowed. Actually, my old employer would move you to Short Term disability after 5 consecutive days, so you wouldn't use any sick time or FMLA time.

 

[disneychrista]

I was speaking of California. Not sure what if any other states it is allowed. Actually, my old employer would move you to Short Term disability after 5 consecutive days, so you wouldn't use any sick time or FMLA time.

If you are out on Short Term disability (either CASDI or another policy) then you are should most definitely using FMLA time, not Paid Family Leave (income replacement) time but employment protected FMLA.

 

[tvguy]

If you are out on Short Term disability (either CASDI or another policy) then you are should most definitely using FMLA time, not Paid Family Leave (income replacement) time but employment protected FMLA.

Why not short term disability? It leaves your FMLA time, sick time and vacation untouched. And to be honest, I would have never thought about FMLA for my own illness, just a family member. Sick leave, vacation time, short term disability and if necessary, long term disability have that covered.

 

[disneychrista]

Why not short term disability? It leaves your FMLA time, sick time and vacation untouched. And to be honest, I would have never thought about FMLA for my own illness, just a family member. Sick leave, vacation time, short term disability and if necessary, long term disability have that covered.

You don't seem to understand the FMLA is nothing but job protection. Short Term Disability, sick time, vacation time, etc are income replacements. Two different things.

When one is out due to illness or injury and can not work, they apply for FMLA to protect their job and short disability to replace their lost income. Unless your former employers short term disability policy also had a layer of job protection, anyone who went out on disability was also covered by FMLA. They are two sides to the same coin. One side pays you, the other said protects your job.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You don't seem to understand the FMLA is nothing but job protection. Short Term Disability, sick time, vacation time, etc are income replacements. Two different things.

When one is out due to illness or injury and can not work, they apply for FMLA to protect their job and short disability to replace their lost income. Unless your former employers short term disability policy also had a layer of job protection, anyone who went out on disability was also covered by FMLA. They are two sides to the same coin. One side pays you, the other said protects your job.

Is this state specific to CA?

I know when my mom went out on Short-term disability (twice) in 2019 for total knee replacements no FMLA was used because that's not how it's used here. She, by company policy, was required to use 40 hours of PTO, then short-term kicked in.

FMLA whenever I saw it used was after all PTO was taken because PTO at that company was for any and everything no separate sick time. FLMA was unpaid and like you said was job protection although there are certainly ways around that such as performance-based termination.

 

[disneychrista]

Is this state specific to CA?

I know when my mom went out on Short-term disability (twice) in 2019 for total knee replacements no FMLA was used because that's not how it's used here. She, by company policy, was required to use 40 hours of PTO, then short-term kicked in.

FMLA whenever I saw it used was after all PTO was taken because PTO at that company was for any and everything no separate sick time. FLMA was unpaid and like you said was job protection although there are certainly ways around that such as performance-based termination.

FMLA is a federal law.

from https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla

FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave.
The FMLA only requires unpaid leave. However, the law permits an employee to elect, or the employer to require the employee, to use accrued paid vacation leave, paid sick or family leave for some or all of the FMLA leave period. An employee must follow the employer’s normal leave rules in order to substitute paid leave. When paid leave is used for an FMLA-covered reason, the leave is FMLA-protected.

Of course an employers POLICY can give more protected job leave than federal (or state) law requires.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

FMLA is a federal law.

from https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla


Of course an employers POLICY can give more protected job leave than federal (or state) law requires.

No I know what FMLA is...

Your early quote said "If you are out on Short Term disability (either CASDI or another policy) then you are should most definitely using FMLA time" so is that specific to CA? Because that is def. not how FMLA is used here.

Short-Term Disability and FMLA are two different things but there is nothing that says if you're on Short-Term Disability you MUST be using FMLA time and it is not how it is utilized here. Not even my husband's company either (his previous or present).

FMLA is treated completely and utterly separate than Short-Term Disability.

 

[tvguy]

You don't seem to understand the FMLA is nothing but job protection. Short Term Disability, sick time, vacation time, etc are income replacements. Two different things.

When one is out due to illness or injury and can not work, they apply for FMLA to protect their job and short disability to replace their lost income. Unless your former employers short term disability policy also had a layer of job protection, anyone who went out on disability was also covered by FMLA. They are two sides to the same coin. One side pays you, the other said protects your job.

I did not understand then. I thought FMLA act was strictly to protect your job during a qualified FAMILY member's illness. I always assumed Short Term disability protected YOUR job and your income, and workers comp covered your job and your income if it was a work related illness or injury. . I know from my wife's place, the company, the Short Term Disability insurer, the Long Term Disability insurer and Workers comp may not all agree on what is legally required. One employee was told he was recovered enough not to need Long Term Disability and should go on Short Term Disability or Workers Comp. Short Term disability and Workers Comp both felt he should be given a light duty position since he could do that job. The company said they didn't have any light duty positions. All ended up in Court with the employee suing, with Workers Comp, Short Term Disability and Long Term Disability all filing "friend of the court" statements siding with the employee.
So who has responsibility for paying an employee since FMLA is paid time off for 8 weeks in California? Does it kick in first, or does Short Term disability kick in first until depleted?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

My work has DTO, so we do not separate sick days for any other time off. That being said I don't believe I took any days off this year because I was sick. I had COVID in April, but it was mild, and I work at home.

 

[disneychrista]

No I know what FMLA is...

Your early quote said "If you are out on Short Term disability (either CASDI or another policy) then you are should most definitely using FMLA time" so is that specific to CA? Because that is def. not how FMLA is used here.

Short-Term Disability and FMLA are two different things but there is nothing that says if you're on Short-Term Disability you MUST be using FMLA time and it is not how it is utilized here. Not even my husband's company either (his previous or present).

FMLA is treated completely and utterly separate than Short-Term Disability.

No, this is not specific to California. I agree that FMLA and short term disability are two different things. In the way I understand short term disability, it is an income replacement and nothing more. It does not provide any job security, that is where FMLA comes in. Now of course an employer can have a policy that if you are out on company short term disability that your job is protected. A company can do anything that enhances the law.

I did not understand then. I thought FMLA act was strictly to protect your job during a qualified FAMILY member's illness. I always assumed Short Term disability protected YOUR job and your income, and workers comp covered your job and your income if it was a work related illness or injury. . I know from my wife's place, the company, the Short Term Disability insurer, the Long Term Disability insurer and Workers comp may not all agree on what is legally required. One employee was told he was recovered enough not to need Long Term Disability and should go on Short Term Disability or Workers Comp. Short Term disability and Workers Comp both felt he should be given a light duty position since he could do that job. The company said they didn't have any light duty positions. All ended up in Court with the employee suing, with Workers Comp, Short Term Disability and Long Term Disability all filing "friend of the court" statements siding with the employee.
So who has responsibility for paying an employee since FMLA is paid time off for 8 weeks in California? Does it kick in first, or does Short Term disability kick in first until depleted?

NO ONE is technically responsible to pay the employee under FMLA because FMLA is UNPAID LEAVE. One can be out on FMLA and not be getting paid at all. That is what I have been saying. CASDI or PFL or a private/company short term disability is income replacement only. These do not provide job protection, only income replacement. As I stated above your company can have a policy that holds your job while you are on short term disability.

FMLA covers your own illness, a well your families. It is technically the Family and Medical Leave act, though most shorten it to Family Medical Leave Act.

Eligible employees are entitled to:

• Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
  • the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
  • the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
  • to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
  • a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
  • any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;” or
  • Twenty-six workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave).

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No, this is not specific to California. I agree that FMLA and short term disability are two different things. In the way I understand short term disability, it is an income replacement and nothing more. It does not provide any job security, that is where FMLA comes in. Now of course an employer can have a policy that if you are out on company short term disability that your job is protected. A company can do anything that enhances the law.

I think the problem I'm having is you're describing it as FMLA time.

That just hasn't been utilized the way you're describing IME and through HR paperwork. Like when my mom went out on Short-Term disability she did not use FMLA time as that made no sense whatsoever. That's up to 12 weeks of unpaid time. Why would anyone do that when they can instead get paid 60-70% (I believe that was Short-Term) when that is available. I think that's why the poster was bringing up the other ways their company did it.

At the company we worked at FMLA time was when you've exhausted your PTO (which could be 3,4,5,6+ weeks plus up to 40hours you could carry over year to year) for qualifying events but it was unpaid. Whereas short-term was use 40 hours of PTO (which is 100% fully paid) then short-term kicks in (at whatever percentage it was can't exactly remember).

I don't know about you but exhausting your PTO before FMLA can be used isn't an enhancement. I think what the law is there for is just to prevent a company from terminating you for a qualifying situation but that isn't the same thing as using FMLA time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is they are two completely different programs. FMLA is unpaid time. I sorta view it as it kicks in depending on one's company policies (or applicable state laws if there is one) but not mutually exclusive with other programs out there that a company may have. Not all companies have disability insurance or employees paid into that so in the absence of those FMLA is there.