gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,298
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 8, 2021 11:49:19 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that to make it equitable, the staff should have been able not to report their time off? Just making up some numbers for an example: 5 sick days = 40 hours x 30 years = 1,200 hours. If a professor is retiring making $100,000 their hourly rate would be roughly $48 x 1,200 hours = $57,600. Now, I know that not all professors work the full 30 years or make $100,000 when they retire but when you're talking about ~14,000 professors across the university system then that's a huge liability (although not annually). And that is just for sick pay. It's nothing compared to what CEO's get, or the pensions politician's walk away with. If the system can afford that stuff it can afford to be generous with the lower rungs as well. 1. I think many CEO's are grossly overpaid. 2. Companies sell something that funds their profits, which includes paying the CEO. 3. State universities rely on tax dollars and tuition to pay their bills. During any economic downturn their budgets are slashed. 4. These are two very different funding systems.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 11:57:23 GMT -5
It's nothing compared to what CEO's get, or the pensions politician's walk away with. If the system can afford that stuff it can afford to be generous with the lower rungs as well. 1. I think many CEO's are grossly overpaid. 2. Companies sell something that funds their profits, which includes paying the CEO. 3. State universities rely on tax dollars and tuition to pay their bills. During any economic downturn their budgets are slashed. 4. These are two very different funding systems. I edited while you were posting to include University President's. And no, they are not vastly different, tax payers pay politicians and government officials as well.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,298
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 8, 2021 12:02:16 GMT -5
1. I think many CEO's are grossly overpaid. 2. Companies sell something that funds their profits, which includes paying the CEO. 3. State universities rely on tax dollars and tuition to pay their bills. During any economic downturn their budgets are slashed. 4. These are two very different funding systems. I edited while you were posting to include University President's. And no, they are not vastly different, tax payers pay politicians and government officials as well. What's that got to do with CEO's? I think the simplest solution would be that no-one gets paid out for sick or vacation time beyond a single year's accrual and faculty and staff (who incidentally could not cash out any sick pay only vacation pay) are subject to the same PTO policy.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 8, 2021 12:09:32 GMT -5
The only way unlimited PTO is not gonna be a disaster for employers is if they somehow convince their employees not to take it— most likely fear of being fired.
The tech industry in general is known for working people to death. I’ve spent months on end working 10+ hour days, and 90% of the unpaid overtime I put in has been due to piss poor management. – Not having the right tools for the job, users who don’t know what they want but they want it yesterday, not getting proper support from other groups, usually because they’ve been gutted. When they say unlimited PTO, what they really mean is no PTO.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,361
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 8, 2021 12:20:17 GMT -5
I'm currently accruing 2.5 (or so) days per month of "PTO" per year (30 days). My PTO 'bank' hovers around 15 days. I'm working to get it to 10 days. but it's difficult. Taking 2 weeks off of work is stress full. (I was also thinking the payout would be nice if I get let go before the end of the year.) If I were to work for a company with "unlimited" PTO - I would probably do what I've done in the past to manage my PTO accrued time - so I didn't 'lose' any of it. I would just schedule two to three days off each month. I've been doing that since we went WFH last March (and when my employer announced they wouldn't offer the vacation day "buy out" at the end of the year (2020). Actually, if I had unlimited PTO - I'd probably just go to a 4 day work week - I'd vary the day off each week (to fit the monthly work cycles that I support). That way - if I knew I needed a long weekend I'd just shuffle my "4 days off" for that month to handle it (and maybe work a full 5 days for a week or two or three.). I can see how not having to keep track of employee's time off and not having to pay out for vacation when an employee quits would help employers. I can also see my work-aholic coworkers who would never use any 'vacation' time. (there is a joke about one coworker who uses "vacation" time - but is still connected to the office 8 or 9 hours a day - while he's sitting in a hotel room and his family is out doing fun things. He'd probably still go on this 'vacation' - my employer wouldn't have to account for his time differently - it's just another work day. )
|
|
Ryan
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 16, 2014 13:40:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,202
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 8, 2021 12:43:59 GMT -5
During the 2008 crash and recession I worked in the Dean's Office for a university. The faculty were allowed to carry over sick and vacation days and I remember the discussions (really complaining) about retiring professors who were claiming never to have taken a sick day in 30 years. It was a nice perk for faculty but during a massive budget crisis it became obvious that people were taking advantage of the policy. How could they take advantage of one of their benefits? They were playing within the rules. Our company used to leave it up to the individual departments to track sick days and vacation days. While we don't get paid out for sick days, you would get paid out for vacation days if you accrued them but never used them during that year. There were too many people leaving the company and there was no record of any vacation days or the records were not great. As a result, the company mandated all vacation requests to be submitted through a centralized website so it could be tracked.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 13:03:59 GMT -5
I edited while you were posting to include University President's. And no, they are not vastly different, tax payers pay politicians and government officials as well. What's that got to do with CEO's?
I think the simplest solution would be that no-one gets paid out for sick or vacation time beyond a single year's accrual and faculty and staff (who incidentally could not cash out any sick pay only vacation pay) are subject to the same PTO policy. It's part of a pattern of a way of thinking. My vacation time is a percentage of my pay and once it is earned it is owed. Not letting it accrue means paying it out at year end if I have not used it. Sick time is part of the pay package that was offered to make my job attractive, other benefits were conceded to have that one. I see no reason for the company to get out of ponying up for something that was negotiated in good faith at some point. Which brings us back to my original point, make the other contracts better, don't make theirs worse.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,298
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 8, 2021 13:29:48 GMT -5
What's that got to do with CEO's?
I think the simplest solution would be that no-one gets paid out for sick or vacation time beyond a single year's accrual and faculty and staff (who incidentally could not cash out any sick pay only vacation pay) are subject to the same PTO policy. It's part of a pattern of a way of thinking. My vacation time is a percentage of my pay and once it is earned it is owed. Not letting it accrue means paying it out at year end if I have not used it. Sick time is part of the pay package that was offered to make my job attractive, other benefits were conceded to have that one. I see no reason for the company to get out of ponying up for something that was negotiated in good faith at some point. Which brings us back to my original point, make the other contracts better, don't make theirs worse.I think we are making two separate points. I wasn't saying that the professors' contracts should be "made worse". I was saying that professors were taking advantage of an honour system that relied on them reporting their sick and vacation time. So a nice perk resulted in massive payouts that became a source of contention during an economic crisis. If they had honestly recorded their days off and had a few days to be paid out then no-one would have blinked an eye. Where I work now had a policy when I was hired that PTO (we have one bucket for all) could accrue ad infinitum. When long-term employees left and cashed out massive amounts of PTO, the policy was changed. New hires now have a "use it or lose it" policy and old hires (I'm one) now get to roll-over no more than the maximum accrual every year.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 13:50:06 GMT -5
It's part of a pattern of a way of thinking. My vacation time is a percentage of my pay and once it is earned it is owed. Not letting it accrue means paying it out at year end if I have not used it. Sick time is part of the pay package that was offered to make my job attractive, other benefits were conceded to have that one. I see no reason for the company to get out of ponying up for something that was negotiated in good faith at some point. Which brings us back to my original point, make the other contracts better, don't make theirs worse.I think we are making two separate points. I wasn't saying that the professors' contracts should be "made worse". I was saying that professors were taking advantage of an honour system that relied on them reporting their sick and vacation time. So a nice perk resulted in massive payouts that became a source of contention during an economic crisis. If they had honestly recorded their days off and had a few days to be paid out then no-one would have blinked an eye. Where I work now had a policy when I was hired that PTO (we have one bucket for all) could accrue ad infinitum. When long-term employees left and cashed out massive amounts of PTO, the policy was changed. New hires now have a "use it or lose it" policy and old hires (I'm one) now get to roll-over no more than the maximum accrual every year.In my opinion the company should have been putting the unused earnings aside each year. Somehow the company has convinced people that the problem was that people accrued it, not that they did not plan to pay up on their liability. So they have effectively reduced the compensation package for everyone and have people defending it. It is comparable to raiding a pension fund.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 13:52:32 GMT -5
It's part of a pattern of a way of thinking. My vacation time is a percentage of my pay and once it is earned it is owed. Not letting it accrue means paying it out at year end if I have not used it. Sick time is part of the pay package that was offered to make my job attractive, other benefits were conceded to have that one. I see no reason for the company to get out of ponying up for something that was negotiated in good faith at some point. Which brings us back to my original point, make the other contracts better, don't make theirs worse. I think we are making two separate points. I wasn't saying that the professors' contracts should be "made worse". I was saying that professors were taking advantage of an honour system that relied on them reporting their sick and vacation time. So a nice perk resulted in massive payouts that became a source of contention during an economic crisis. If they had honestly recorded their days off and had a few days to be paid out then no-one would have blinked an eye. Where I work now had a policy when I was hired that PTO (we have one bucket for all) could accrue ad infinitum. When long-term employees left and cashed out massive amounts of PTO, the policy was changed. New hires now have a "use it or lose it" policy and old hires (I'm one) now get to roll-over no more than the maximum accrual every year. More that we are looking at the same situation very differently. The professors were able to flex their time as long as they got the job done. They got the job done. They were entitled to the promised PTO. A situation where they would have had to use sick time would have been in the case of a long term illness or disease. Something that went on long enough to make it impossible for them to get the job done. You see it as the professor abusing the system, I see it as him collecting on his promised compensation.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,298
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 8, 2021 14:37:47 GMT -5
I think we are making two separate points. I wasn't saying that the professors' contracts should be "made worse". I was saying that professors were taking advantage of an honour system that relied on them reporting their sick and vacation time. So a nice perk resulted in massive payouts that became a source of contention during an economic crisis. If they had honestly recorded their days off and had a few days to be paid out then no-one would have blinked an eye. Where I work now had a policy when I was hired that PTO (we have one bucket for all) could accrue ad infinitum. When long-term employees left and cashed out massive amounts of PTO, the policy was changed. New hires now have a "use it or lose it" policy and old hires (I'm one) now get to roll-over no more than the maximum accrual every year. More that we are looking at the same situation very differently. The professors were able to flex their time as long as they got the job done. They got the job done. They were entitled to the promised PTO. A situation where they would have had to use sick time would have been in the case of a long term illness or disease. Something that went on long enough to make it impossible for them to get the job done. You see it as the professor abusing the system, I see it as him collecting on his promised compensation. I flex my time to ensure I always get the job done that doesn't mean I get to not work on a particular day because I'm sick and not use my PTO. I think we just fundamentally view this scenario very differently and we're not going to agree.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,369
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2021 14:51:04 GMT -5
Were they? If someone did not work one day and did not record it as a sick day or vacation day - did they really follow the rules? Do companies follow rules when they "require" more than 40-hour work weeks? IMO, the more companies create an environment that bends the "rules" in their favor, the more employees should feel free to do the same. The difference is that a company (I will stick with right to work situations) can fire you for lying on your time submission. And you can quit if they make you work too much overtime or whatever, but it isn't devastating to the company. I think we should bring back labor unions of all types to close the power gap, and therefore the income gap. I think as an employee, randomly deciding that you will just take what you feel is owed to you is risky.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 8, 2021 15:04:03 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that to make it equitable, the staff should have been able not to report their time off? Just making up some numbers for an example: 5 sick days = 40 hours x 30 years = 1,200 hours. If a professor is retiring making $100,000 their hourly rate would be roughly $48 x 1,200 hours = $57,600. Now, I know that not all professors work the full 30 years or make $100,000 when they retire but when you're talking about ~14,000 professors across the university system then that's a huge liability (although not annually). And that is just for sick pay. It's nothing compared to what the President of the University would get, or what CEO's get, or the pensions politician's walk away with. If the system can afford that stuff it can afford to be generous with the lower rungs as well. Really, why are people so good at the math for what the middle class or lower income folks get but suck so bad at figuring out the chunks of their money going to the wealthy? Tuition in the US is already prohibitively high for many - I wouldn't sound so free and easy about increasing the compensation package for every employee in the university system as though it's easy and meaningless to those paying taxes, tuition or both. You're making a gross oversimplification of the issue gs11 was presenting, and I'm not 100% sure that the premise that "the system can afford that stuff" is necessarily true.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 8, 2021 15:06:47 GMT -5
Because no-one actually believed they had never been sick in 30 years. Professors can re-schedule classes or not have office hours or not be teaching in a particular semester, etc. It's not like an office job where you have to show up every day but they were still supposed to record when they were not working because they were sick. And, that policy only applied to faculty not university staff who had to be in the office and log sick time when they were actually sick. T he professors have a different kind of contract, it's based on getting the work done, not on how long it takes. The plan isn't to make them give up stuff, it's to get the same kind of benefits for everyone else. Or said another way, don't pull them down, pull everyone else up. Then why do they have paid sick days? If their time is endlessly flexible and they can just be there when they choose and never need to take a defined sick day for 30 years, I'd argue that they don't need sick days.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 15:10:04 GMT -5
It's nothing compared to what the President of the University would get, or what CEO's get, or the pensions politician's walk away with. If the system can afford that stuff it can afford to be generous with the lower rungs as well. Really, why are people so good at the math for what the middle class or lower income folks get but suck so bad at figuring out the chunks of their money going to the wealthy? Tuition in the US is already prohibitively high for many - I wouldn't sound so free and easy about increasing the compensation package for every employee in the university system as though it's easy and meaningless to those paying taxes, tuition or both. You're making a gross oversimplification of the issue gs11 was presenting, and I'm not 100% sure that the premise that "the system can afford that stuff" is necessarily true.
I said IF it can afford other high paying compensation packages it can afford these ones.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 15:11:14 GMT -5
T he professors have a different kind of contract, it's based on getting the work done, not on how long it takes. The plan isn't to make them give up stuff, it's to get the same kind of benefits for everyone else. Or said another way, don't pull them down, pull everyone else up. Then why do they have paid sick days? If their time is endlessly flexible and they can just be there when they choose and never need to take a defined sick day for 30 years, I'd argue that they don't need sick days. For long term illnesses that interfere with their ability to get the job done. Something like the 6 weeks I had to take off for surgery once.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 8, 2021 15:14:59 GMT -5
Tuition in the US is already prohibitively high for many - I wouldn't sound so free and easy about increasing the compensation package for every employee in the university system as though it's easy and meaningless to those paying taxes, tuition or both. You're making a gross oversimplification of the issue gs11 was presenting, and I'm not 100% sure that the premise that "the system can afford that stuff" is necessarily true.
I said IF it can afford other high paying compensation packages it can afford these ones. okay, but that's still not true. IF it has tons of money left over after paying those, it can afford to pay more. I do not think that is the case, at least not the majority of the time. If I can afford to give one friend a thousand dollars, it doesn't mean I can afford to give all my friends a thousand dollars. Money is not infinite. I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree compensation is often unbalanced and not fairly allocated. But that doesn't mean if a benefit package for one group is overly generous and ripe for abuse you should compound the problem by expanding it to all groups.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,369
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2021 15:16:30 GMT -5
T he professors have a different kind of contract, it's based on getting the work done, not on how long it takes. The plan isn't to make them give up stuff, it's to get the same kind of benefits for everyone else. Or said another way, don't pull them down, pull everyone else up. Then why do they have paid sick days? If their time is endlessly flexible and they can just be there when they choose and never need to take a defined sick day for 30 years, I'd argue that they don't need sick days. Getting paid on "getting it done" does not mean there are no schedule requirements.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 8, 2021 15:17:49 GMT -5
Then why do they have paid sick days? If their time is endlessly flexible and they can just be there when they choose and never need to take a defined sick day for 30 years, I'd argue that they don't need sick days. For long term illnesses that interfere with their ability to get the job done. Something like the 6 weeks I had to take off for surgery once. A - that's typically what short and long term disability is for B - it sounds like if that is the true intention there would be a smarter way than allocating it in a certain # of days each year and accruing for infinity. So if I need that surgery in my first 5 years with a company, before I've accrued enough time, then I'm screwed. And if I've been there 30 years I can take 2 years of sick time in a row?
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 8, 2021 15:19:57 GMT -5
Then why do they have paid sick days? If their time is endlessly flexible and they can just be there when they choose and never need to take a defined sick day for 30 years, I'd argue that they don't need sick days. Getting paid on "getting it done" does not mean there are no schedule requirements. I agree. That's why I think it's unlikely that someone not gaming the system never needed a day off for 30 years.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 8, 2021 16:05:35 GMT -5
Do companies follow rules when they "require" more than 40-hour work weeks? IMO, the more companies create an environment that bends the "rules" in their favor, the more employees should feel free to do the same. The difference is that a company (I will stick with right to work situations) can fire you for lying on your time submission. And you can quit if they make you work too much overtime or whatever, but it isn't devastating to the company. I think we should bring back labor unions of all types to close the power gap, and therefore the income gap. I think as an employee, randomly deciding that you will just take what you feel is owed to you is risky. I agree. When I am a new employee for any company, I follow the rules and I expect the company to follow the same set of rules. The longer I am at a company, I learn the secrets that the company and/or department didn't want to tell you at the beginning. So I talk with other employees to figure out how they keep their sanity. I don't randomly decide what I will do. I assume that others do the same. For example, most people on this board at this moment are likely posting/reading during their working hours. How, as an employee, is each of you accounting for this time? (This is a rhetorical question.)
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 16:34:43 GMT -5
Then why do they have paid sick days? If their time is endlessly flexible and they can just be there when they choose and never need to take a defined sick day for 30 years, I'd argue that they don't need sick days. Getting paid on "getting it done" does not mean there are no schedule requirements. I'm assuming their scheduling requirements were met, otherwise the topic would have come up before he retired.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 16:41:22 GMT -5
I said IF it can afford other high paying compensation packages it can afford these ones. okay, but that's still not true. IF it has tons of money left over after paying those, it can afford to pay more. I do not think that is the case, at least not the majority of the time. If I can afford to give one friend a thousand dollars, it doesn't mean I can afford to give all my friends a thousand dollars. Money is not infinite. I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree compensation is often unbalanced and not fairly allocated. But that doesn't mean if a benefit package for one group is overly generous and ripe for abuse you should compound the problem by expanding it to all groups. It sure doesn't justify everyone race to the bottom to be "equal". The PTO was part of their compensation package, the university was negligent not to treat it as a liability throughout the years. And it's not hard to track these things, every payroll program I am aware of has it itemized and it's just a matter of printing report or two.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 8, 2021 16:57:18 GMT -5
okay, but that's still not true. IF it has tons of money left over after paying those, it can afford to pay more. I do not think that is the case, at least not the majority of the time. If I can afford to give one friend a thousand dollars, it doesn't mean I can afford to give all my friends a thousand dollars. Money is not infinite. I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree compensation is often unbalanced and not fairly allocated. But that doesn't mean if a benefit package for one group is overly generous and ripe for abuse you should compound the problem by expanding it to all groups. It sure doesn't justify everyone race to the bottom to be "equal". The PTO was part of their compensation package, the university was negligent not to treat it as a liability throughout the years. And it's not hard to track these things, every payroll program I am aware of has it itemized and it's just a matter of printing report or two. For pete's sake, don't be so dramatic. Expecting employees to use their paid time off when they are sick rather than playing schedule games to hoard the time so that they can achieve a massive payout sometime down the road is not a race to the bottom. Capping PTO payouts at a reasonable level is also not a race to the bottom and in fact encourages people to take it when they need it rather than working when ill or contagious. Nowhere does she say the university didn't have it as a liability, nowhere does she say they didn't pay it - I have no idea why you are accusing anyone of "negligence". That doesn't mean paying out huge piles of cash in lean years is fun or easy or that people aren't going to comment on those that gamed the system to get it. I'm actually confused what you are after here. I believe all the employees got paid sick time throughout the year. The treatment of payouts upon retirement is definitely unequal, but you want to argue that it can only be made equal in one direction - that everyone should have unlimited payouts rather than capping carryovers for all. But moreover the difference seems to be in flexibility of scheduling. Those that can't change their schedules have to take it sick time if they aren't there when expected. How do you change that?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,369
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2021 17:02:08 GMT -5
Getting paid on "getting it done" does not mean there are no schedule requirements. I'm assuming their scheduling requirements were met, otherwise the topic would have come up before he retired. Talking about professors - I bet you will find many stories about their offices being empty and locked during their stated office hours. But students, generally, won't go to the dean if it happens once. And maybe they only went to office hours twice during the whole semester - so each individual student wouldn't recognize a pattern, nor would have the power to know if the professor's absence was excused and recorded.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 17:10:02 GMT -5
It sure doesn't justify everyone race to the bottom to be "equal". The PTO was part of their compensation package, the university was negligent not to treat it as a liability throughout the years. And it's not hard to track these things, every payroll program I am aware of has it itemized and it's just a matter of printing report or two. For pete's sake, don't be so dramatic. Expecting employees to use their paid time off when they are sick rather than playing schedule games to hoard the time so that they can achieve a massive payout sometime down the road is not a race to the bottom. Capping PTO payouts at a reasonable level is also not a race to the bottom and in fact encourages people to take it when they need it rather than working when ill or contagious. Nowhere does she say the university didn't have it as a liability, nowhere does she say they didn't pay it - I have no idea why you are accusing anyone of "negligence". That doesn't mean paying out huge piles of cash in lean years is fun or easy or that people aren't going to comment on those that gamed the system to get it. . Screw off with your accusations of being dramatic. It's extremely petty to begrudge the professors perks they were able to negotiate for themselves. Having the ability to retire six months early with pay is a huge incentive and other benefits were traded off for that one. The University knew what they were doing and what they were saving in the short term making that deal. Taking that away has decreased the value of the over all compensation package and you guys are blaming the employees just because they did exactly what was offered to them. This is how positios end up with no real increases in income in decades while politicians and University Presidents walk away with million$.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,369
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2021 17:40:08 GMT -5
Do professors negotiate?
I just realized I don't know squat about being a professor at a University. Maybe I just assumed there was a standard package and you take it or leave it.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,347
|
Post by laterbloomer on Feb 8, 2021 18:11:10 GMT -5
Do professors negotiate? I just realized I don't know squat about being a professor at a University. Maybe I just assumed there was a standard package and you take it or leave it. Even something as simple as here's the offer, take it or leave it is a negotiation. The university would be offering packages competitive enough to attract the quality of professors they were interested in.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 8, 2021 18:59:43 GMT -5
T he professors have a different kind of contract, it's based on getting the work done, not on how long it takes. The plan isn't to make them give up stuff, it's to get the same kind of benefits for everyone else. Or said another way, don't pull them down, pull everyone else up. Then why do they have paid sick days? If their time is endlessly flexible and they can just be there when they choose and never need to take a defined sick day for 30 years, I'd argue that they don't need sick days. Because things happen where you need to be out long weeks. I e worked at universities since I graduated from college, so 4 different institutions over 30 years. I have always accrued lots of sick time, because I rarely got sick. That is, until I had surgery and was out 6 weeks (and I worked from home most of that time). Then 7 years later, I got sick and was out a year. This doesn’t happen to everyone, but it does happen. My sick time covered 4 months of that, vacation another 6 weeks to get me to LTD.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,037
|
Post by teen persuasion on Feb 8, 2021 21:10:25 GMT -5
One of DH's previous employers had separate sick time and PTO, on top of his built-in school holidays. After he'd been there a few years, they changed policy to cap PTO annually - you could no longer carryover more than one year's worth of PTO (whatever it was, 10 days, maybe). At year-end, it was cashed out at 50%; if you didn't burn it, cashing it out was a tiny bump in pay over your normal salary. Sick leave, though, continued to carryover.
Now, teachers hate taking sick days, it's much more work to prep a lesson for a sub to do in your absence, and then catchup after losing that day in your schedule. So DH accrued a lot of sick days over a dozen years with that agency. Partially it was an insurance policy in case he ever got seriously sick or needed surgery, etc, but mostly it was just the massive inconvenience of actually taking a sick day.
When he got fed up with the administration, and was ready to quit, he began seriously researching policies to see what he could expect to get when he left (normally he doesn't think about that stuff). I think PTO was paid out 100%, and sick leave 50%. He arranged to contribute 50% of his final compensation to nearly max his 401k (left a bit of room to capture a match at the next employer), spread it over 5 checks (to reduce tax withholding by not having it in one big lump sum), and the remainder was enough to cover our expenses for the rest of the year (he quit in June).
A few months later, he heard thru the grapevine - New policy: sick leave accrual payout capped at $2500. I'm positive the change in policy was because of the pain of paying out that chunk to DH. They had to pay him, because of current policy, but then they changed policy so it wouldn't happen again.
Something I hadn't calculated until that situation: when they pay out your accrued PTO or sick leave years later, they are paying it out at your current pay rate, not the pay rate you necessarily earned it at.
|
|