In furthere reading the thread, it seems many of you think FMLA time off is paid...it is not!!!
Heather, a payment is a thing of value received at another's expense. The act of holding a job for a person not working it is a payment, even if salaries or benefits are not received.
Heather, a payment is a thing of value received at another's expense. The act of holding a job for a person not working it is a payment, even if salaries or benefits are not received.
They do not have to hold your position...all they have to do is re-employ you in a comparble position with the same pay IF you come back. Even then, if they do not have a comparable position, they can just not hire you back until a comparable position comes up.
I went thru this.....I know...I have the paperwork and the law telling me how it works. And that is how my employer did it with me...and it was all legal according to that law.
After 1 year, they then can just let you go...if a comparable position never arises.
Someon else got my position and would not had been removed if I returned. They got paid what I would had, or less, since they likely had less experience.
Its not what you think.
BYW...I know a bunch of employers who have no idea haw this works and veen tell their employess thye are not qualified when they reqest FMLA...many say they never heard of it. Its happened to my family members. I have helepd them force their employers to obey this law.
Heather, a payment is a thing of value received at another's expense. The act of holding a job for a person not working it is a payment, even if salaries or benefits are not received.
Oh...and the thing of value is not at another expense...whoever took over the position is getting paid for THEIR work, not the perosn off on FMLA>
your distinction has no meaning. you have a contractual agreement with the united states...
No, I don't.
you will abide by its laws as decided by its citizens and representatives and in return it will offer you the benefits of united states citizenship. we covered this just the other day.
Yes, we did. And you cannot produce or point to a contract indicating where I consent to what you say above. All you have is your own version of Original Sin -- obligation by birth.
you whined about how you never signed the contract so you're not really a citizen so it's just wrong that you have to pay taxes. it applies equally well to me whining about how i never signed a contract saying i was a citizen so it's wrong for them to arrest me for murder. so which is it?
It's both. The difference is that you, as a murderer, have no right to whine as defined by your own moral code as a murderer.
if you're going to say you didn't "contract" with the government how can you expect accountability for murderers from that government?
Hehe...a murderer is accountable for his or her own actions -- the very act of their murder has demonstrated that they pay no heed to the will or freedoms of others, soulsinging. The murderer has already sanctioned, by their own actions, any action the state may choose in seeking justice.
like i said, you are not arguing some principle, you are just arguing the extent... you cant have it both ways with the government being legitimately empowered via contract with the people when you agree with what it's doing and illegitimate when you dont like what it's doing.
I don't believe the government is empowered via contract. There are no such contracts and that same government cares not for consent.
you either give credibility to the us government by contract or you dont.
I don't.
if you do, then you have to accept that its laws might occasionally burden you, but at other times will benefit you. that is the give and take (compromise remember) of any social organization. not everyone can get exactly what they want all the time.
Completely agreed!!! That's the essence of contracts and compromise. What you're ignoring, however, is that the system you're discussing pays little heed to either. It largely imposes those "compromises" on people.
all of this is true. the point people are arguing here is societal values are and should be changing. that family and parenting should be placed ahead of the almighty dollar and protected more than profits. thus is the nature of discourse. people talk and decide the best course of action.
Ok.
no. im not going to play that game with you becos this is a ridiculous hypothetical that we both know will never come true here.
"Never come true here"??? It's been true here. It's been true in places throughout this world. It remains true in others.
how's that for a moral absolute: sometimes life is a bitch, suck it up.
Hehe...yep, life is a bitch sometimes.
do YOU understand that your positions are realistically creating a kind of slavery? when you talk about abuse of power and taking by force, you ignore so much. yes, government uses force to limit your business practices, but what you dont understand is that that government was created by the weak and powerless to protect against the more dangerous evil of people like you that own businesses using the force of economic pressure to essentially enslave those who do not have the strength to protect themselves.
Huh? Government wasn't created by the "weak and powerless". Government, throughout history, has been created time and time again by property owners seeking to protect property, and influence peddlers seeking to acquire more of it.
slavery was only defeated through this process of the weak banding together to restrain the strong. government in a capitalist economy is essentially a mediator. i appreciate that you personally would not do such things, but you cannot deny that historically, those in positions of absolute power often abuse that power. so who should have the greater power? private companies that could wield absolute control over their workers if unchecked, or a government that is answerable by election to its people?
Both of your propositions involve absolute control, soulsinging. And absolute control doesn't interest me at all, regardless of what side of it I'm on. Personally, I'll take any chance I have to stay out of those propositions. However, I certainly respect your right to choose whichever you prefer.
Hehe...what about the person paying both expenses -- the pay of "whoever took over the position" and the empty slot for the "person off on FMLA"?
I did not get paid for my time off. FMLA does not say you get paid for the time off...maybe in maternity leave, but not otherwise.
They do not leave an empty slot open. Thye keep all thei positon fills...adn all I was guarnateed is that if within on year I returned they would have to find me a comparable positon....and in my case, since they did not have a comparable position, they and me had a one year window to find one. Thye didn't and I never went back to that job.
I could had taken a less postion, but I opted not to...welll mainly cuz I couldn't return. But its only if a comparable position one exists.
I used the FMLA when I first got sick. I did not get paid time off, but I did not have to worry about losing my job. I am very glad it existed. Actually, the law held me a position for a year.
You got a year??? My husband was canned as soon as his 12 weeks hit.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
This is the condensed summary of the FMLA, just so we're all on the same page with what we're talking about:
"Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:
* for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
* for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
* to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
* to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.
Covered employers: An employer covered by FMLA is any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce, who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
Eligible employees: An ``eligible employee'' is an employee of a covered employer who:
(1) Has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months, and
(2) Has been employed for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, and
(3) Is employed at a worksite where 50 or more employees are employed by the employer within 75 miles of that worksite.
(a) RESTORATION TO POSITION.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any eligible employee who takes leave under section 102 for the intended purpose of the leave shall be entitled, on return from such leave--
(A) to be restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced; or
(B) to be restored to an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(2) LOSS OF BENEFITS.--The taking of leave under section 102 shall not result in the loss of any employment benefit accrued prior to the date on which the leave commenced.
(3) LIMITATIONS.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any restored employee to--
(A) the accrual of any seniority or employment benefits during any period of leave; or
(B) any right, benefit, or position of employment other than any right, benefit, or position to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee not taken the leave."
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
What if I don't have a "comparable position", and what if I don't want to re-employ you?
That is the loophole for the employer. In my case, they eliminated my position and then said there was no comparable positiion. I could take a less position, but not at the price of firing someone already in those positions.
So, if after one year no position comes available, they can let you go.
I got a letter one year to the day terminating my job. I didn't want to go back, but did want to keep the option open. The employer must be careful though, they can't go hire someone else in a spot that I could had taken. My employer, luckily for them, didn't do that.
And its too bad if you don't want to hire them back. You should had fired them BEFORE they claimed FMLA. If you had reason...do it after they come back.
It's interesting to realize that there is a tendency in this country to place companies and business rights ahead of the health of the majority of citizens of the country.
It seems almost equivalent to caring more about machinery than living creatures. I know companies aren't machinary, but they are given protections and they aren't living beings like the employees. It seems backwards to me.
To protect non-living entities and harm the living workers...and not just a FEW workers, it's the majority of people who aren't being valued.
It's seems to me that America is all about the business (money), the little people who actually make the business run mean nothing and are replacable.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Comments
Heather, a payment is a thing of value received at another's expense. The act of holding a job for a person not working it is a payment, even if salaries or benefits are not received.
I went thru this.....I know...I have the paperwork and the law telling me how it works. And that is how my employer did it with me...and it was all legal according to that law.
After 1 year, they then can just let you go...if a comparable position never arises.
Someon else got my position and would not had been removed if I returned. They got paid what I would had, or less, since they likely had less experience.
Its not what you think.
BYW...I know a bunch of employers who have no idea haw this works and veen tell their employess thye are not qualified when they reqest FMLA...many say they never heard of it. Its happened to my family members. I have helepd them force their employers to obey this law.
No, I don't.
Yes, we did. And you cannot produce or point to a contract indicating where I consent to what you say above. All you have is your own version of Original Sin -- obligation by birth.
It's both. The difference is that you, as a murderer, have no right to whine as defined by your own moral code as a murderer.
Hehe...a murderer is accountable for his or her own actions -- the very act of their murder has demonstrated that they pay no heed to the will or freedoms of others, soulsinging. The murderer has already sanctioned, by their own actions, any action the state may choose in seeking justice.
I don't believe the government is empowered via contract. There are no such contracts and that same government cares not for consent.
I don't.
Completely agreed!!! That's the essence of contracts and compromise. What you're ignoring, however, is that the system you're discussing pays little heed to either. It largely imposes those "compromises" on people.
Ok.
"Never come true here"??? It's been true here. It's been true in places throughout this world. It remains true in others.
Hehe...yep, life is a bitch sometimes.
Huh? Government wasn't created by the "weak and powerless". Government, throughout history, has been created time and time again by property owners seeking to protect property, and influence peddlers seeking to acquire more of it.
Both of your propositions involve absolute control, soulsinging. And absolute control doesn't interest me at all, regardless of what side of it I'm on. Personally, I'll take any chance I have to stay out of those propositions. However, I certainly respect your right to choose whichever you prefer.
What if I don't have a "comparable position", and what if I don't want to re-employ you?
Hehe...what about the person paying both expenses -- the pay of "whoever took over the position" and the empty slot for the "person off on FMLA"?
They do not leave an empty slot open. Thye keep all thei positon fills...adn all I was guarnateed is that if within on year I returned they would have to find me a comparable positon....and in my case, since they did not have a comparable position, they and me had a one year window to find one. Thye didn't and I never went back to that job.
I could had taken a less postion, but I opted not to...welll mainly cuz I couldn't return. But its only if a comparable position one exists.
You got a year??? My husband was canned as soon as his 12 weeks hit.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
"Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:
* for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
* for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
* to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
* to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.
Covered employers: An employer covered by FMLA is any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce, who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
Eligible employees: An ``eligible employee'' is an employee of a covered employer who:
(1) Has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months, and
(2) Has been employed for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, and
(3) Is employed at a worksite where 50 or more employees are employed by the employer within 75 miles of that worksite.
(a) RESTORATION TO POSITION.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subsection (b), any eligible employee who takes leave under section 102 for the intended purpose of the leave shall be entitled, on return from such leave--
(A) to be restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced; or
(B) to be restored to an equivalent position with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(2) LOSS OF BENEFITS.--The taking of leave under section 102 shall not result in the loss of any employment benefit accrued prior to the date on which the leave commenced.
(3) LIMITATIONS.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any restored employee to--
(A) the accrual of any seniority or employment benefits during any period of leave; or
(B) any right, benefit, or position of employment other than any right, benefit, or position to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee not taken the leave."
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
So, if after one year no position comes available, they can let you go.
I got a letter one year to the day terminating my job. I didn't want to go back, but did want to keep the option open. The employer must be careful though, they can't go hire someone else in a spot that I could had taken. My employer, luckily for them, didn't do that.
And its too bad if you don't want to hire them back. You should had fired them BEFORE they claimed FMLA. If you had reason...do it after they come back.
It's seems to me that America is all about the business (money), the little people who actually make the business run mean nothing and are replacable.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.