There are usually 2 kinds of paid leave (Paid Time Off) in the US: sick and vacation. Sick leave is an allotment of days where you can call in sick and still get paid. Vacation leave is the same but for vacations.
Until recently, there was an expectation that when you leave a job, your unused PTO would get lumped into your last paycheck.
As you can imagine, corpos have started clawing back that money. This is also egregious since corpos do everything they can to deny that leave in the first place ("You're not sick, you can still work." "Someone already is taking off that week so you can't. No I don't care that you already paid for it.")
Most armed country includes the military and the racist bootlickers who voted the fashies in. Violent revolution would end in civil war where the world’s most well funded military (with massive civilian surveillance infrastructure ever since the PATRIOT act) took a side against it.
Quite frankly it would simply lead to a lot of death and the fascists no longer having a resistance.
Not caused by the people of the country, but the politicians who sold them out to the highest bidder, and the system they built to keep their corrupt kind in power.
It would not lead to civil war. That implies two separate governments that each claim to be the legitimate authority in the country. That will never happen because the American left does not have the spine required for that kind of defiance.
That's why they're pushing full surveillance now that the tech is more or less there and pushing to make everything you do on a computer tied to an ID.
A society-wide panopticon requires too many watchers, until you can automate that sort of thing.
This is why I'm so against AI. It's being built out to create that panopticon that will make it easy for them to start policing thought. Same with the flock and other recognition cameras.
They know. That's why they're building bunkers and stockpiling arms and investing so heavily in keeping the population fractured on pointless cultural lines. If they can stop people from working together it's impossible to revolt peacefully or violently.
The upper class were presented with a clear choice, endorce MLK's views and peaceful integration, or deal with the likes of Malcom X and the Black Panthers who were more than happy to use violence to enforce their rights
Fuck, the final straw being the riots after the murder of MLK, it became clear the choice was rights or violence
(This is of course a MASSIVE oversimplification, the views and positions of MLK and Malcolm X shifted massively during their lives, as did their tactics and methods)
Which raises the question: Who's gonna get publicly shredded by the police first? Because that's what's gonna happen the minute the American public starts doing something genuinely effective. Pretty sure we all know that, even if most of us don't wanna say it. If shit gets violent the police won't hesitate to mow citizens down.
Mind you, I don't disagree with you at all. Just pointing out why no one's made a move yet. Everyone knows the score.
That doesn't make risking death any easier. These aren't people who trained for that sort of risk. These are regular citizens. Facing a potentially very painful death is a huge fear. Not to mention coming to terms with leaving everything and everyone you've ever loved behind.
"No one's going to do it alone" is not very reassuring in the face of that
The truth is that people are willing to get mown down and all these people saying "but who will go first" don't back them up. People are already getting murdered for standing up to fascists, where are all the 2a nuts that are supposed to help them?
>Who's gonna get publicly shredded by the police first?
Lately, that would have been Minneapolis. With ongoing ICE brutality more discretely distributed since they gauged Minneapolis to be an over-pushing of their position, at least until November.
Earlier, Kent State.
When is it going larger scale? Hopefully never. Kent State got us a 50+ year reprieve from the draft.
Nonviolent protesting is one of the most effective ways of pushing back, but it's only so effective when the upper class owns all the channels of media that are supposed to show people what's happening in their cities. A classic tactic is making the protests sound more violent than they are, which means taking clips of the most intense moments and playing them on repeat. This is one reason why violent protest is unwise, you're handing them free materials to spin their narrative because the general population is more scared of violence they can see than whatever you're protesting.
And they gotten really fucking good at brainwashing the under exposed and educated what the "right" enemy is and to hate all ideas remotely anti capitalistic.
Dude we aren’t even protesting. To protest we’d have to leave that system and we aren’t united like that. Like when people stopped using buses altogether.
Because trying to move to a different country is a complete pain, can take years, and/or be too expensive to afford.
Not to mention if you're LGBTQ+ (especially the T part anymore) it limits what countries you can move to, and each one of those have their own rules about moving there that you may or may not fit.
Seriously, my wife and I have been looking at options since 2020...
Oh, absolutely. And some of the rules to move and become a citizen are... odd, and we can't do them. So while some people would say 'Well, trans people can go to X country!' that's not always the case...
My wife has her own web programming business that she's managed to hire me for data entry, but it's 99% solo work. Because of this, we can't move to Canada. Because it's not a business that specifically promotes Canada, or can hire mostly Canadians.
Australia won't take us because I was diagnosed autistic in the 90's, and even though I'm high functioning/low maintenance, I would need to 'prove' that I wouldn't be a drain on the medical system. And autistic people are guilty until proven innocent in that regard.
And so on for several different countries. We have one in mind, but it'll take some doing, and at this point... we don't have enough liquid assets for it. Blarg.
We were in a particularly bad corner of the US for our autistic children about 15 years ago, looked all over the world for options. Most of the international destinations, like Australia, were even worse for our kids than where we were - even if they accepted the kids because we were "employable and valuable."
We looked at the big island of Hawaii, but coming from Florida I can foresee the same overcrowding and paving of paradise starting to happen there that I watched growing up in Florida and I'd rather not become part of another problem like that in my old age.
If you can take the weather, there may be better corners of the US to try, things really do vary from one spot to the next. We only moved 75 miles and things improved fairly dramatically, not perfect, far from ideal, but better.
If you want an honest answer, it’s because they live in the richest country in the world. Salaries are high so people have been content for decades, they still mostly enjoy a high quality of life. This connectedness has allowed the wealthy to accumulate incredible power and undermine workers rights, solidarity, and democracy.
Plus structuring the whole system in a way that if I say fuck it and go out to protest with a bag of cocktails, my family will definitely go homeless/hungry within a couple weeks. Hell, that could happen even if I just got unjustly arrested and shuffled around while the try to figure out the "paperwork errors" that prevent me from getting out of holding even if i didnt actually do shit.
It's also worth noting that many white collar jobs are instituting "unlimited PTO" which means, by their description, you can take time off as you need.
What they don't specify is that you still need to get this PTO approved and it will only be approved as time allows.
And time never allows.
And since you aren't actually accruing PTO, there's no liability and nothing to pay out if the person leaves the company.
Also, on average, people take less time off with these policies. Even ignoring the problem with needing to request it, there's no guidance there on how much you can/should take off.
I live in the UK. Holiday here has a legal minimum but it's use it or lose it - it ensured that I actually take it off so it doesn't go to waste (I can carry over 5 days, per company policy). It's also a requirement that my employer allows me that time off - if I wanted to take all of December off they could tell me no, that's not reasonable, but they can't deny it all year long.
Holiday here has a legal minimum but it's use it or lose it
That seems illegal too? In Australia annual leave builds up, which usually is only a problem for those people who literally never take leave and have some sort of unholy balance and are forced to use it up so the company doesn't have to pay it out in a huge lump sum.
it’s legal, but if the company were found to be preventing staff from taking the statutory amount of leave, they would get in trouble. they’re obliged to allow you to take time off, they’re not obliged to actually force you to or to pay you a bonus in lieu of taking time off.
in practice most companies want to avoid even looking like they don’t let people take statutory leave, so they repeatedly and strongly encourage you to book it over and over again until you do.
I haven’t used up enough leave (I think it’s 70% by October?) so my boss is literally chasing me to book some. Not something a lot of Americans deal with I think.
Nope, your employer isn't obliged to allow rollover but they also have to give you a reasonable chance to take it off. If they don't then you can take action against them.
Many employers will force you to take time off to avoid any chance of accusations
which usually is only a problem for those people who literally never take leave and have some sort of unholy balance and are forced to use it
They rarely ever enforce that at large organisations I've found. I personally like to build my leave up and take a few months off. It takes too long to fly anywhere from here, waste half your holiday on travel if you only took a week. Like they can legally ask you to use it to the point there's like 6 weeks remaining I think, but I've never heard of HR actually forcing the issue, but I imagine it's different at smaller organisations.
The rules will differ country to country. My uncle had his accrue and when he was getting ready to retire he basically took a year long vacation before retiring. He'd given that company decades and they owed it to them so it was only fair.
not illegal at all (edit: in the US), unfortunately. in very few cases will PTO of any kind accumulate for more than a year. if you don't use up your PTO by the end of the (fiscal) year, the number of hours is just reset and you lose whatever you didn't use.
Here in Germany no, or ill say not to my knowledge which is based on my experience. Everywhere I worked at had different rules how they deal with overtime and vacation days, but in most cases it was: take time off. My vacation days were 35 with usually around 20-30 overtime days accumulated over the year, with a bunch of attempts to take time off but I kinda really liked the job and the last one to pick time off. Also cancelling it when projects needed more time. That also meant come December with all of its offical holidays id have 2-3 months off in one go (20 is 1 month, so 55 is already almost 3 months, plus all the holidays of which we got a ton around the time)
Huh, very interesting! I have really admired the German system for the amount of vacation time you get, honestly surprised to hear you can just lose it.
Its not really that you can lose it, I havent seen it once that it happened at least. You are just forced into using it, even if you are at the most troublesome time (project wise).
Overtime is a bit of a different topic since you have the option to pay it out or take it as vacation, but many companies I've seen stopped paying it out and instead force you to take vacation with it. I will say this could be seen negative or positive, but I think it's a positive thing to not encourage working yourself to death for extra money.
Every employer I've ever had will absolutely chase you up and remind you of the remaining holiday you have left to book. Particularly in the latter half of the year if you've got a fair bit left
My current job has a sort of vague expectation you'll spread it relatively evenly throughout the year, and it's semi frowned upon to take more than two weeks together without a good reason. They don't want people saving up loads and then half the business attempts to take most of December off because they "accidentally" forgot to use it
But if I know I've got a big holiday coming up in say, September, and I book that plenty in advance, nobody is going to be hassling me in May to book anything. Generally employers are flexible enough, within reason
There is a Canadian company that posts on tik tok that has unlimited time off but has a 3 week minimum on it.. Which is actually pretty cool. They actually want to give their staff the time they need.
Most unlimited pto scams are just designed to screw employees.
Yeah, as an accountant, them ensuring the 3 week minimum means they're still taking a liability and not just using it to avoid costs. That's more responsible.
They might *have* to give that 3 weeks by law, but it really depends on the province and the amount of time you have worked at that company. (2 weeks is the minimum across the country, but places like Saskatchewan starts at 3weeks)
And while that's better than most parts of the US 3 weeks off a year is still complete bullshit. If you add in holidays that's like maybe 8% of the year you're not working. 92% of the time you're stuck doing some bullshit you don't even care about because otherwise you'll die.
10 days is the legal minimum for most of Canada. Lots of places offer more though, I was able to negotiate to get 20 days to start at my current workplace and will be getting more at various amounts of years employed there. I also get to bank a weeks worth of OT to take off in the same calendar year, and every other week is a flex day so every other weekend is a long weekend.
Wish it paid better though :(
Edit: Forgot to mention, also 11(min)/13 Stat holidays per year at least in my province.
Damn, that's so messed up. My work does unlimited PTO but they don't hold it over your head like that. In fact, after folks weren't taking very much time off, they decided to institute at least one three- or four-day weekend per month (sometimes more, if there are relevant holidays) where the whole office is closed so employees will actually get time off without having to worry so much about covering work. I will admit we're a small team, so maybe it's easier to pull off, or maybe there's just less middle management nonsense to get in the way, but they're a rare, great company in the US.
Even without unlimited it isn’t great. My doctor needed me to take time off to recover from a chronic condition that was flaring up - he asked me to find a week where I could take off I said I found a good spot I can take off 4 days without disrupting the company. My boss wrote me a nasty email claiming I was faking being “sick”
Did you really think you could just take whatever amount of PTO you wanted and not need approval? Like you would just say "40 years of PTO see y'all later!"
No one actually thinks that, don't be absurd. But it's not unreasonable to think "oh, this has unlimited PTO where my last job maxed at 40 hours of PTO, so this means my yearly vacation can be a week and a half instead!" Or "oh thank God, I don't need to choose between getting and recovering from a major surgery or affording food".
You're one of those people who hears that some European country has unlimited sick leave and thinks "well then why doesn't everyone just claim they're sick for the entire year?" As if smarter people than you haven't already thought of that.
Why would they call it "unlimited" if they don't plan on even giving you any at all? The defense you're giving for it is an extreme that never happens.
What actually happens is people get no PTO at all.
It's like getting the choice of getting 3 weeks PTO or a "mystery box" which contains anywhere between 0 to actually infinity PTO. Do you honestly think the company would put infinity PTO in that box?
EDIT: and just to add, what "unlimited PTO" actually is is "discretionary PTO", and that doesn't sound as good to employees as "unlimited".
My boss managed to avoid the legally required sick days that are given at the start of the year by rolling sick time and vacation time into the same PTO policy which is accrued every pay period.
Hey if they're doing that it means the sick time can't be denied when you quit. He basically decided to shoot himself in the foot with wages in order to deny you like three hours of early sick time every year
On the other hand I've found that people with a single PTO bucket tend to avoid taking time off work when they're sick so it doesn't eat into potential vacation time.
Same in Virginia, anytime I have ever been laid off I got all of my PTO. In fact last time I was laid off I had 600+ hours of PTO, I bought a new car because mine was dying and had money left over
It's so cool and fun how we have all our basic workers' rights split between state borders so some people just have a worse quality of life for absolutley no reason lmao
Californian checking in here with like 350 hours of banked PTO. I used to get paid out annually for extra hours that would normally just get rolled over and disappear in the new year, but they changed the rules to just increase our maximum PTO. So another year or two of no vacations if I want to start collecting that extra pay check again.
My company has pretty much the same policy with a max amount you can carry over from year to year, but California laws say you can't have PTO time taken away from you and it needs to be paid out
Yeah, but "not accruing" isn't the same as "taken away" legally so the max doesn't cause you to start getting paid. We have to actively get it paid out by choice before it maxes out or it goes into the void before we ever "get" it
For sure not 1:1, we get all our hours on Jan 1st so there isn't a sense of monthly accrual. I know California has a minimum number of sick time that has to be given though, so I'd be curious how that might conflict with the "not accruing" set up.
Paying out accrued sick time is a ridiculous concept to me. It's effectively insurance - if you're sick, you can recover without losing income. It's not just extra money that everyone gets.
Vacation, yes, because you're supposed to take a certain amount of vacation every year and if you don't, then the time/money is still owed to you.
That kind of policy incentivizes companies to only provide a minimal amount of sick time. Say you get 5 days a year. Fine for a lot of healthy adults, but if you have a bad year or a chronic illness, you get punished for being sick more often with unpaid sick days. For the intent of sick time - to allow people to recover from illness without financial burden - I think having a generous bank of time that does not get paid out is much better. If it's going to get paid out if unused, then you may as well just bundle it with vacation days.
Ten is the legal minimum in Australia and it has to roll over to the next financial year. They have to be separate as it count towards super and attendance pay but doesn't has the 17.5% loading of annual leave .
Not uncommon to have 20 or 30 days bank up and that shouldn't disappear because you leave
This is the best part. Then you can apply for "donated leave" which HR must approve. The catch is that your fellow employees can't donate their sick leave.
They can only donate the few types of paid non-sick leave like vacation or comp time that they have.
Some liberal states have state supported programs that can supplement you if you have an injury or illness or short term disability, but they don't pay your full wage and are of limited duration.
It’s more common that you get disciplinary action taken. I once worked a ten hour shift with the stomach flu because my work basically told me I was going to get fired if I left because I didn’t have enough sick time
This is especially common in public schools. Teachers often also don't get "vacation" PTO because of how the school calendar works, so only sick leave.
I've regularly seen teachers get cancer, which needs months and months of time to get through the treatments and chemo, and there will be huge campaigns to get all the other teachers to donate their sick days to the teacher with cancer. And yes. You can "run out" of sick days, even with cancer, and then you're just fired.
Last place I was at, everyone got 5 sick days per year, and yes, we were asked to donate some of those days.
Teachers. Notoriously working with one of the healthiest, non-snot-covered populations.
You stay sick, and don't get paid. In states like Calirfornia, you can't be fired for taking sick leave, even outside of your allotted amount, but the company is not required to pay you for your time off beyond it either.
yeah dude. we're all sick, constantly lmfao the healthcare jokes are super funny to this day because it's our actual lives that get played with by these companies
Yeh, this is for hourly workers also, salaried employees have different rules, i dont think they adjust your salary necessarily if you take "too much" sick time off
I am so shocked how the people in the freaking richest country of the world ended up letting corps stew them so hard. In Europe streets would be burning - literally...
That's the trick, the citizens arent the holders of those riches, theyre the ones that got exploited so others could become rich. Its ok though cuz theyre the "richest" country
Ya instead of using raw economic power, comparing median QOL metrics puts america at best in the middle of the pack of the 3 dozen or so fully developed nations on earth, and more realistically near the back of that pack.
Its a good country to be in for the top ~15% of the population, and thats it. It exponentially increases in being "good" as you climb that 15%.
Because America is large and decentralized. Want to protest the Capitol in a European country? Take the day off and drive a couple hours to the Capitol and block the limited pathways and roads.
Want to do that in America? Take at least two weeks off, drive for at least a day and at most a week or so, then go block streets that are easy to get around and don't really have any strategic advantage.
There isn't a person or building we can take out, as again, power is decentralized. Taking out one person or group, there's hundreds more spread throughout the country that are constantly changing locations. Think taking over the Capitol Building and holding it will do, ask January 6thers how that went for them.
Americans are constantly having protest. Our protest are often bigger than even Europe's largest ever protest. But to actually change things, you'd need to get at least 30% of the population to all work in unity, at the same time, and have a workers strike. Which would end up in a lot of bloodshed as that's what the powers that be do when we start being effective. We're not quite ready to pull that lever yet. We're trying this voting thing one more time. If it doesn't work, we all agree the system is fucked and start taking more drastic measures.
Why would you need to drive a week? Labor law relating to PTO is state level, which arguably makes things easier if less even. Like look at how much Mamdani has been doing at just the city level. Never underestimate local politics.
So your solution to deal with federal persecution is to throw out the advantages that decentralization give you and gather everyone in perhaps the most heavily protected city on the continent to be scooped up by the feds, all for policies that are handled at the state level anyway? I don't follow the logic here.
No, I understand perfectly. I am objecting to this:
Want to do that in America? Take at least two weeks off, drive for at least a day and at most a week or so, then go block streets that are easy to get around and don't really have any strategic advantage.
That's just a huge misrepresentation of what actually needs to go down for protests in America. And clearly you know that, because you go on to point out that we are capable of having massive protests like No Kings and the George Floyd protests, both of which happened in largely decentralized manners across the country rather than carting everyone to DC.
Also, most strikes aren't just workers sitting at home. There are generally demonstrations by the workers that serve to remind the capitalist class that there are more of us than there are of them and to discourage scabbing. And if you want a revolutionary or near-revolutionary strike (which is what it seems you want), you want striking workers demonstrating. I could probably go on, since I am politically adjacent to anarcho-syndicalism and have therefore given the idea of the general strike a bit of though, but I think that's enough of that for now.
we are capable of having massive protests like No Kings and the George Floyd protests
Neither of which were effective...
Nor was Occcupy Wallstreet, the Women's March on Wallstreet, BLM protest, March for Our Lives, or one of the other hundred or so protests we've had in the last 30 years.
That's the point. Americans protest. The problem is most of us miss what actually made movements like the Civil Rights Movement and Workers Rights Movement effective. And that was large scale economic activity/boycotting/strikes. Schools in America love to go on and on about the marches, which was part of it, but often downplay the part where they stopped working for corrupt companies, made their own goods, didn't use services that treated them as less than human, and sometimes did resort to either display of force (see when farmers prevented bankers from buying farms with large, intimidating gatherings of farmers at auctions with the implied threat of violence to said bankers if they bid or Black Panthers standing at street corners, with guns so their kids wouldn't get harassed going to school) and occasionally violence when protecting their communities.
A simple march isn't enough. It takes large scale, coordinated efforts to actually make the government bend a knee.
And now you're missing my point while explaining things that I agree with at me.
My point is that:
You misrepresented the problems caused by the size and decentralization of the US for protest movements. They exist, certainly, but nobody needs to drive a week to get to a protest. That's just not a thing that happens unless someone really wants to go to a DC protest rather than a more local demonstration. J6 is the odd one out, largely because that was more of an attempted coup of the federal government.
You're glossing over the advantages that a decentralized system gives to reformers and radicals. You don't need to organize the entire country and march to DC to push for better labor law in Oklahoma. You can even get quite a lot done at the county or municipal level, be it from within the system or from the outside.
So leading with "The country is big, so people need to drive a whole week to get to a protest, but that doesn't even matter because the country is decentralized" isn't especially helpful to people trying to understand why America is the way it is and distracts from the more solid point of Americans broadly being unwilling or unable to break out more sustained strategies and direct action for the past several decades.
You mean the country founded on Protestant ideals? The ideals that value spending as much time as possible working as a moral obligation? And choosing to spend time on leisure as a moral failing?
Americans don't seem to mind spending a lot of money on leisure, but you're right they take like 1 week off a year and spend $20K at once, its a bit ridiculous.
Somehow spending on leisure is admired, as long as you can spend it as fast as possible so you can get back to work
Ah right. Important and simple distinction. The corpos are rich. And the nation is pretty rich, though less and less in comparison to the corpos.
The rest of us, even the very high income, unless we're corpos, politicos, or influentially wealthy, we're just not hungry and can mostly afford our healthcare. Some of us can afford regular international vacations, or even homes. I guess influentially wealthy is also important here. Depending on where you are, you could have real power while being a "mere" multimillionaire. Where as you'd need hundreds of millions in other places. (I hear weird and crazy stuff about small town economies.)
In retrospect, it's not that different vs anywhere else, it's just our corpos are kind of overachievers at enshittification.
"Something something COMMUNISM!" is how many Americans justify voting away their rights as workers. I don't get it either i just suffer the consequences
Oof. I work in Europe and it's a similar system, except that sick days are always on the cost of the employer (but you need a doctor's note). After a certain point, health insurance takes over and it's not on the employer anymore.
Where I work we also don't pay back vacation days that weren't used, but we approve 99% of vacation requests and it's very explicitly stated that you need to use them up before your contract ends. Only those who never read their contract and don't pay attention during onboarding miss it and that's on them.
Part of the problem here is that corpos do everything they can to stop you from using PTO to begin with. It wouldn't be a problem if the system were the same but we could use our PTO freely.
They will use any reason they can to deny you your PTO, and when they can't deny it they implicitly threaten you that people who aren't "team players" are more likely to get laid off.
The real fun was when places just started offering unlimited PTO / sick.. which basically means the same amount or less and they can still just deny. Now clearly you can't just vanish randomly but it never means MORE PTO, just no tracking of a balance.
AND don't have to pay out when you leave because there isn't a that formal balance tracked.
best place i ever worked gave you X amount of PTO hours a year, and you could still accrue time while working. so i got to leave hours early or come hours late, or just take full days off when i felt like it unless it was like a mandatory time period. i think it was 80 hours your first year and 120 the next. i miss that job
Had the sys admin where I work quit a couple years back. He basically never took his PTO and we can rollover our entire amount each year. Idk what he was being paid (likely over 100k/year) but he told me that his PTO cash out was 5 figures. Even if it was $10k that's still like 200 hours of PTO lol.
I switched companies a month and a half ago and this is exactly what happened. I got my vacation time paid out but my sick leave would be gone so I was just “sick” the last week and quit after lol
At my company, sick time is use it or lose it, rolls over every year.
Vacation never expires, can be sold at your current hourly equivalent rate at any time, and is paid out in a lump if you leave. We only get 3 weeks of vacation and a week of sick a year but I guess that’s the price of getting those other things
I lived in Chicago and then took a job in Virginia. When I left my job in Chicago, I was paid out my PTO. When I left my job in Virginia, that was not the case. I think this was due to state law.
Where i worked last (doing temp work right now) they did pay out your pto when you leave but it didnt roll over year to year and you only got the payout when you left, so we had people taking an hour off on like random days to use up the last of it towards the end of the year. We also didn't have sick leave just a lot of pto so the leave early thing would happen when people reached like mid december with a couple days left in case they got sick or something
Until recently, there was an expectation that when you leave a job, your unused PTO would get lumped into your last paycheck.
I had over 400 hours of PTO in a job I lost 2 weeks ago, and I saw only a 40 hour workweek's worth of pay of it as a cashout.
Complete fucking bullshit.
Shame, I just never used it. I don't go out and do things. I stay in and play video games. Vacations for me are like.... a Monday off to get some sleep.
I dont know how it is everywhere in the us, but in my scope, pto and sick leave are somewhat blended together because badgering someone to prove they were sick is considered harrassment.
So you can "call in sick" and the hr approved response is just "ok."
It's only an issue if you run out of sick days and still "call in sick."
So what's the punchline? He's faking illness and taking 8 weeks holiday out of his sick pay, that he won't get paid for, because he has no PTO that he would get paid for?
It always blows my mind, that being sick has a LIMIT in the US. "Oh, you have cancer? Well, better make sure your credit cards still work or start making meth"
But what's news to me is that you get your unused sick leave paid out once you leave?
I wouldn't say "usually". These days most companies are getting rid of "sick leave" and just having one pot of time-off. If you're sick and call in, it comes out of your PTO. If you take a vacation it's PTO. Helps keep the system simple, and most people won't abuse sick days because they want to save PTO for planned vacations.
3.7k
u/Luutamo 1d ago
I think this comic might be too American for me to understand