January 12, 2010reader question about coworkers who abuse sick leave
Meryl,
How would you go about addressing an issue regarding your co-workers abusing vacation and sick leave time? Two of my co-workers use and abuse their leave as soon as they earn it. My Administrator does not seem to want to address this issue and it is causing low morale for those of us who are at work every day and get stuck handling additional responsibilities.
Suggestion,
You use the word abuse to describe what your coworkers do. Do you think they would agree with your word choice? I’m not there, but I suspect they might choose a different word like… oh …say enjoy.
Your coworker might be slackers who are gaming the system at everyone else’s expense. Or they might be people who like their time off and have different assumptions about what leave time is for. They might think everyone should use the time like they do and be happy to reciprocate covering for when their colleagues leave.
So instead of abuser/victim language, talk about it in terms of needing to operate under the same understanding of what the time is for. Your administrator might be more willing to address the issue if it’s framed without accusation. Something like this:
- Most of us see vacation time as something we plan in advance so our co-workers can arrange to cover for us. We see sick time as being for when we’re really ill. Some of us operate under a different mindset, and it’s creating low morale for those who feel overloaded when our collegues take off. Can we collaborate and clarify our policies around time-off so we can minimize surprises and all enjoy our days away without guilt or disharmony?
Again, since I don’t know the situation, this might not apply – but do let me know.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
I agree with Meryl, and on this topic in particular. Years ago, there were a handful of production operators at my company that did the same thing, taking a sick day as soon as it had been accrued. Because of accrual rates and shift length, this amounted to taking one day off every three months. Executive management reacted by revising the policy in such a way that it is terribly restrictive. I have three children, and as they were growing up, they were often sick, and my youngest is developmentally delayed. My wife also works outside the home, so when they were too young to be left alone it was often me who stayed home with them. I ended up being on “warning” for “probabtion” for almost ten years continually (my 20th anniversary with this company passed in November) because of the restrictions of the policy. And “emergency vacation” has been deemed inappropriate as an alternative (“we have a sick leave policy for incidents like that…”).
So don’t be too quick to punish these co-workers before you get to understand where they’re coming from.
Comment by Ken Rhodes — January 13, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
This sounds like an example of people who used the system in a way that it was not intended and that led to the system changing so those it was intended for didn’t get what they needed. It also sounds counterproductive, since the new system didn’t accommodate the genuine need of a valuable employee. I wonder how many great people they lost because of it.
We tend to talk about this kind of leave as a woman’s issue. Clearly it is much more than that.
I wonder if the kind of conversation I am suggesting could have prevented the shift to a policy that was too rigid for the company’s own good.
Thanks for your post!
Comment by merylrunion — January 14, 2010 @ 9:05 am
Well, in my company’s case, it was management that had a problem with how it was being used. The coroporate culture has become so skewed in favor of not taking sick time that some employees regularly come to work, even when they are ill. Because of the policy, I have more than 100 hours of sick time accrued, and I’m afraid to use it if I want to keep my job. Fear is not a good work environment variable.
Comment by Ken Rhodes — January 14, 2010 @ 9:30 am
Really. Fear and mixed messages. When official policy and ground reality are different, it can really create a push-pull mind-boggle. In the case of the original post is sounds like some people are interpreting the policy too leniently and that creates tension with those who are following the intent. In your case it appears management interprets it too rigidly.
The irony is that when people push themselves when they’re sick, it costs in terms of performance in the long run. Wise management would encourage people to use time the way it is intended… for when they really need it… and create a culture where employees respect that intent enough that anyone misusing it would not be condoned among peers.
Comment by merylrunion — January 14, 2010 @ 11:33 am
A little creativity on the part of management can solve many of the problems created by people who misuse sick leave I knew a CPA who published several CPA oriented news letters. Often he would be at the office until 3AM getting out the news letter because somebody took “sick leave” as soon as it was accrued, which may have fallen when a newsletters were due out.
He decided to give the sick leave time a financial value. On January 2, he would buy back any sick leave hours a person wanted to sell at a half of the employees hourly rate. The employees had the options to accrue the hours, sell them back, use them when sick, or use them as “vacation/sick time”. He sold the idea to the employees by reminding them that he would buy back the hours just about the time when their Christmas bills came due.
Most people accrued the time until January, then cashed in some of their hours. Surprisingly, as the office culture changed because the sick time had a monetary value, more people started to accrue large numbers of sick hours. This minor change, saved the CPA money because he bought the time back at half the rate he would have paid if the people had taken sick time, plus he reduced the stress when the newsletters were due out.
That was a win-win situation for the employees and the CPA.
Comment by Bob Huss — January 15, 2010 @ 10:09 am
What a great example. Of course this kind of creative resolution is easier for smaller organizations where the people who make policy are also affected by it.
Ideally, individuals are engaged enough in small environments to not casually take off when the team needs them most. Ideally, knowing that their taking off means someone they work with day-to-day will go in at 3 AM to cover would carry more weight than the fact that the hours accrued that day. If it was my team and I was the one up at 3 AM, (or another team member,) I would wonder about our team mission and values. I would wonder if I hadn’t shown enough commitment to them for them to be committed to me. I would wonder for a while and initiate a few explorative conversations. I think sometimes people get short-sighted. They do care, but need to be reminded of the effect of their actions on the whole.
That still might lead to a solution that was based solely on self-interest. But at least the sense of community would be introduced into the culture.
I applaud the manager you describe here, and thank you for sharing this story!
Comment by merylrunion — January 16, 2010 @ 8:54 am
If the business or other employees suffer when a coworker is out, that sounds like a company that is understaffed to me. Employees have personal lives. There are children to raise, houses to maintain, workmen to supervise, pets to care for, our own bodies to maintain for goodness sakes, etc etc. A company that thinks an employee should live their lives around the edges of the job is not a company I want to work for. The cost of doing business with human workers is having enough workers that the business doesn’t suffer any real damage when someone is out. It’s no different in my mind that a company that owns a fleet of trucks and keeps enough on hand so that some are always available when others are being serviced. The cost of doing business. I understand the need for a business to work “lean” but if that starts to mean humans cannot live human lives, there is something wrong with the “guidance systems” of that business. A job and a business should not be raised to the level of deity. Business for people. Not people for business.
Comment by Kathleen — January 24, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
I want to understand correctly. You are saying that a very small publisher with two editors, one clerical person, and the publisher (who is the owner and not an employee) should increase the number of employees by 33% to cover sick time taken as extra vacation leave. The fact that giving the sick time a cash value corrected the problem would indicate that the employees were truly abusing the sick leave benefit. Evidentially they were able to handle all those situations listed without using their sick time benefit.
The solution the CPA employed didn’t penalize a person for taking sick leave for any of the reasons listed. The employees could be paid for the hours taken off at their full salary or cash the hours in at half their salary rate.
Comment by Bob Huss — January 24, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
I think Kathleen’s point is well taken and not meant to suggest that abuses be accommodated. Too many offices burn their employees out by giving them unrealistic workloads. That can actually decrease productivity. I think Kathleen is saying that staff should be sufficient to accommodate contingencies.
On the other hand, Bob, I share your dismay at the idea that the CPA’s office seemed to all be in it for themselves and lacked a sense of team motivation. As you observe, the fact that cash suddenly made it possible for them not to miss shows that they didn’t mind burdening others with absences that suddenly became less essential when cash is in the mix.
It worked for them and I don’t question what people perceive as success, but I would hope to create a more collaborative environment.
Comment by merylrunion — February 4, 2010 @ 10:22 pm