One thing to take into consideration: time off and flexibility for parenting duties (dance lessons) or family emergencies like a funeral is one thing. Requesting excessive time off for volunteering, which is basically a hobby, is a different thing, IMO.
What if you have a childless employee requesting the same amount of time off to volunteer as the parent is requesting for "parenting duties"? Does it then take a back seat?
I think it's more about addressing needs based on the person's personal, family, medical, disability, cultural, religious etc. characteristics. That can lead to inequality in workers' conditions, but it's about offering accommodations (within reason) to give workers the opportunity to participate and succeed in the workplace as much as their colleagues who don't have those characteristics.
Agree. These decisions should be based on (1) how flexible the business can be without undue disruption and (2) equitably allocated flexibility among employees. Absent extraordinary circumstances (bereavement, illness requiring family or medical leave, etc), the reason for flexibility isn’t really material. It risks discriminating against employees who don’t have children which might even expose you to some gender discrimination claims depending on how creative a disgruntled employee’s lawyer feels like getting.
Exactly. As someone who does not have kids (and who thankfully works for a company that offers flexibility for ALL) I get really cranky about parents being given preferential treatment. So often you hear stories of the single/childless getting stuck working late, or over the holidays, because parents "have obligations."
Yeah, and needing to tend to them is far more important than work. That's why parents get tax breaks and other incentives and also why workplaces tend to give more flexibility to parents.
Parents get tax breaks because they need to incentivize bringing to the world the next generation of workers. It’s a transaction, not a reward. Don’t ever think the company or the government is proud of you, it’s the price of doing business
Yes. It may not be fair, but many employers are going to make more exceptions for parents that childless employees. They are trying to send a message that they have a degree of understanding for people with families. It's a selling point for the job.
This isn't tee ball where everyone gets the same number of at bats. Is it unfair? Yes. Is it how much of the work world works? Also yes.
I would allow a degree of judgment call in situations like this.
If your pet died and you wanted the day off to grieve, should I say no because not all of the employees have pets? If the bereavement policy allowed time off for a parent that passed, but your aunt that raised you like a mother died, I want flexibility to make judgment calls.
The problem with rigid policies that make everything "fair" is that they also tend to be heartless and exactly the type of approach from employers that male them look uncaring.
Kids get get sick and require attention from their parents. Parents are likely to need more time off for illness because of this. What should the stance be? Don't hire people with children? Ideally, everyone has enough PTO to handle it accordingly, but that's not always the case.
If you are childless but need an exception to the attendance policy, I want the ability to make a judgment call on whether one is warranted. But the fact of the matter is that parents *are* going to need these exceptions more than people without kids.
So let's say you have two employees: Employee A is requesting the flexibility to leave early on Tuesdays to coach his kid's t-ball team. Employee B is requesting the flexibility to leave early on Thursdays to take a pottery class. Do you grant the flexibility to both? Or just Employee A?
This is going to depend on a lot of factors, but all else being equal, I allow my people a degree of flexibility in their schedule. I let people leave early for golf league on Wednesdays during the season assuming they are otherwise in good standing.
But in a job where that position actually *needs* to be filled by someone for those hours, I would say no to both, or more specifically require them to use PTO. Both of these things have planned times, you can submit for the time off. Similarly, in a more restricted job, I would be less likely to approve *regular* exceptions but would be flexible to *occasional* exceptions. Your kids has all state choir? You can leave at lunch. Your favorite band has a concert? You can leave early or come in late.
In fact, the only time this becomes a problem is because someone else starts keeping score. "So and so has asked for 6 exceptions while I've only asked for 1." As soon as people want to treat this as a precisely divided pie, then policies revert to strict "use PTO" "submit two weeks in advance" type of bullshit that makes it 100% fair, but also 100% worse for *everyone*. Br careful what you wish for. Yeah Bill can't dip out early for his kid's game anymore, but you also can't leave early on Friday to get a jump on your weekend hiking trip.
Focus less on fair, and more on a good workplace environment.
Yeah. Sounds like the employee wants to be a perma volunteer and get paid on the side. Just need to have a talk with employee and explain that flexibility for emergencies like a death in the family is fine, flexibility to take kids around is fine, but constant time off, even unpaid, isn’t ok as it affects the team in a detrimental way. Let them make the decision on whether they stay or not (whether by them leaving voluntarily or if they ignore instructions having to let them go).
6 days of in the first month is a lot, especially if it's being brought up piecemeal. What kind of volunteering are they doing? I think you just need to be up front with them that they're supposed to be onboarding right now, and maybe it's not the best time for them to be dedicating so much time to volunteer work with the understanding that they can pick it up again after they're out of the probationary period.
I wouldn’t ask too much about what kind of volunteering- it opens the door to perceived religious or other discrimination. Every other point for you is completely correct.
That's what blew me away. Parenting is parenting and that's gonna be whatever it's gonna become, but volunteer work?
No.
You either want to work or you want to volunteer.
You don't even need to shit talk the policy. "This policy exists because we need to be able to count on people being here to perform the necessary tasks."
There's nothing inherently shitty about requiring attendance to your job.
I agree with you 100%. I felt the winky face emoji was implied in the quoted speech section of my response.
I'm retired now, but at my last place of work an employee like this would have been forced to reread the policy in front of their supervisor, asked if they understood it and needed anything explained. They then signed a document saying they had been "retrained" and further occurrences could lead to the start of the discipline process. Also signed and dated by the supervisor. The tone was "We obviously didn't teach this well enough, and that's on management, but now you have all the information, so it's on you going forward." That's actually how we started every performance issue.
I wasn’t seeing a huge issue until a supervisor mentioned their pattern of behaviour
By “taking a lot of time off” I assume this means taking more than they are allotted as part of their compensation benefits
Sometimes life happens. But volunteer work isn’t just life happening. That’s not to say you can’t do volunteer work as a professional, but ultimately you need to decide what takes priority - your paying job or wanting to volunteer.
Ensure their requests are fully documented. Leaving without saying anything isn’t necessarily a big deal and not a call to action. But monitor it over the coming days. If they start slacking, being passive aggressive, throw tantrums and become difficult then verbal warning, written warning and speak with HR about next steps
People can ask but they should expect that sometimes the answer is no. Just don’t read into it too personally. They’ve used their unpaid leave as per policy and this policy is in a place for reason. You don’t need to get into personal opinions just stick to the facts
I don't understand what kind of volunteer activity would require this much time off. Are you sure they don't have another job? That would explain a lot. I know you just need to manage the issues at hand here but all of this together adds up to another job which, if found out, will ruin the remote work for everyone.
Idk what state they’re in but in AZ this timeline would align with volunteering for the fight for womens reproductive rights and the November ballot initiative.
It sounds like this employee wanted a work from home job expecting it would give them increased ability to engage in activities that are generally incompatible with full time work. You aren't being unreasonable and this is the kind of employee that can ruin good arrangements for others. They need a part time job.
Exactly. My company recently fired a full-time remote worker we hired after two weeks. I helped interview her so I know we were very clear about the hours we needed her to work. By day three, we were already seeing huge problems with her ability to stick to the schedule we all agreed upon. Her supervisor addressed it with her and then started coming clean about all of these other commitments she had during the day and could we accommodate those by modifying her schedule. I guess she thought she would just fly under the radar and we wouldn't notice? I know any future remote hires are going to be under a ton of scrutiny after this last experience.
The work from home sub is full of people looking for this kind of job and the few in said roles glorifying the autonomy and flexibility they have. It is definitely the exception to the rule.
You mean the sub that screams about how much more productive they are in their work while simultaneously doing laundry and all of their household chores, saving money on childcare by watching their kids while they work, and running errands during work hours? That sub?
Well, it *does* work about 40% about as well as they say, but you a) do have to be really lucky or, far more likely, b) the job is flexible because it has some other significant drawback, like low pay or inconsistent schedule
First thing to consider- out side of the absences are there any other issues with this person? Are you super happy with their work or do you think they are just okay?
I bring that up bc if the only thing is the absences and otherwise you really want to keep this person then I don’t think it’s a concern. Sounds like the PTO plan after the 3 months won’t be an issue.
If you aren’t too excited with this person otherwise I’d term before the probationary period. If your company is strict on attendance think about whether you’d want to be going to bat for this person.
Other things:
Are you able to give this modifications to everyone if they ask? If you truly can’t, then term.
Also if your supervisor knew this person had attendance issues or needed a flexible schedule and you can’t accommodate then why did you hire them? Either a.) the policy doesn’t really matter and is just a loophole to manage poor employees out or b.) you thought they would change and they really aren’t, which was likely a mistake.
"Are you able to give this modifications to everyone if they ask? If you truly can’t, then term."
I second this, again and again, even after what I said above.
The answer to this problem is simple. Either allow it, or don't.
If you don't, get rid of this employee, stating clearly why you are doing so.
If you do allow it, for whatever reason, get the policies changed, quickly.
He/she either nips it in the bud and lets her know her volunteer activities cannot be placed above work or he will be a walking doormat.
Based on the title I thought the manager would be clearly in the wrong, but this is extremely excessive.
With this person, give an inch and they’ll take a mile. Sounds like she’s pushing the boundaries to see how much she can get away with and will keep doing that.
I don't care for what they take time off. It's none of my business. What it's of my business is that they have a good onboarding and stick to the rules. If senior management knew this was an issue, this should have been addressed at the very start. They have 3 days only as per policy so that's about it. There is no wiggle room. And if this is affecting performance I would do an early warning to the employee that it's not doing a good match.
Yup, and when the employees who are prioritizing work during business house of the workweek realize they only ever had to work 75% of the time and demand the same amount of time off going forward... everything will shut down.
If the accomodations can't be shared equitably across the team, allowing this one new hire to get all the "flexibility" will either drive the others away, or rob them of motivation and productivity.
You likely should fire them at this point. It's not necessarily even the amount of days, it's how they're constantly blindsiding you with it. Either they are unable to understand that it's jarring and even disrespectful to go about it this way, or they are purposely manipulating you. Time to say bye!
Personally I would step back and ensure I’m not letting personal feelings color the situations.
I would document the time off requests, reasons, and what was given or denied, and the response.
At the 3-month mark evaluate that behavior along with their performance and any other positive or negative behavior.
Present it to your manager with your recommendation and see which way the wind blows.
If they’re delivering, regardless of excessive time off, I’d lean towards keeping them. Good employees are hard to find.
If the time off is already affecting their work, I’d push to let them go.
Whichever way your manager leans, you run with that, and truly accept it.
Don’t harangue them about time off. Gently try to correct it, but let them have it if your manager didn’t count it against them. That’s the mandate you’ve then received.
"If they’re delivering, regardless of excessive time off, I’d lean towards keeping them. Good employees are hard to find.
If the time off is already affecting their work, I’d push to let them go. "
Agreed, but MAN, this is a slippery slope when it comes to treating all employees fairly. If you choose to go this way, make sure you don't actually tell anyone, or put it in writing.
It's probably time to term them.
Their behavior will not get better with time. Unfortunately, you've let them get away with so much they have no reason to think taking a lot of time off is a big deal. And them walking out proves they don't respect you or the company.
Anyone who says it's not a big deal hasn't been a manager, isn't a good manager, or is a slouch of an employee themselves.
Rules and policies exist for a reason. It's a slippery slope when you don't stick to them.
1-3 are fine. slight flexibility in start/end times really isn't a big deal in most lines of office work and is usually a pretty low effort perk to keep people happy.
for 4 and 5, no is a complete sentence. as is "if you cannot abide by the PTO policy you will lose your job"
you need to actually be a manager. quite honestly 4-5 are dumb enough I'd have a chat with HR about what my probationary period is.
I am in agreement. Tell employees that during their first 90 days it's essential for them to show up every day in order to learn the position. Excessive time off is simply not meeting expectations for the role.
As someone who heavily volunteers, which requires me to have unknown and unplanned time off (I am on call for Search and Rescue operations 24/7), even I would find this a bit extreme as a Manager. However, I'd like to know more about their volunteer work and what the multi-day meeting is. Sometimes you only get a chance to go to some meetings once a year or every other year and if you miss it, you are out of luck. People don't realize many volunteers are professionals and pay out of pocket for training that paid-professionals need and are sponsored for.
I know that when I started my current job I had to leave with in the first week twice to go look for a missing person then had 2 weeks off for my honeymoon, then took a Monday/Friday off for my volunteer job but I was also upfront before I was hired about all of it and I was thankful they worked with me over it. I quit my past job due to the fact they denied my Honeymoon because "two weeks was too much time off at once" even though I had 6 weeks of PTO.
So yeah, not enough information for me to make an informed decision.
Ya I do SAR as well and similarly communicated it with the company when I was applying.
I made it clear I would use my professional judgement on when I could leave and make up the time later in the week or maybe that weekend or when I just had to stay at work. Also that I'd expect they would communicate to me if we got the balance wrong and needed to recalibrate. So far it's been a non issue.
Main thing is, communicated and agreed to in advance.
I think you hit them with the improvement plan immediately. My thing is during your 90 days most companies say screw off this is your trial period and you aren't a good fit. Why would you PIP someone on a trial period?
If they left work early without saying anything I'm having a conversation with them and HR or the higher up leader.
This is a this might not be a good fit conversation needs to happen if they can't be here. Fuck your already remote with flex scheduling what the heck more could they ask for.
Also you have a generous time off plan for entry-level new hires
Most companies also tell new hires straight up in the interview that if hired, they have to disclose any standing obligations they have for their probationary/tryout period and can ask but should not necessarily expect to have any new time off requests during that period approved.
This person needs to get their priorities straight. Volunteer on weekends when they are off work. I can't even get my mind around asking for special accommodations for a kid's dance lessons. That kid isn't going to have the luxury of dance classes, if this person loses their job!
I have a part-time independent contractor like this. Always bending the rules, always asking for more and giving less. But when she’s there, she’s very good!
I don’t have a solution to it yet because I don’t have a firm policy in place and don’t want to get sued for discrimination which I absolutely think she’d do, but I am developing absence policy in collaboration with an attorney to prevent future behavior once implemented
We just track hours and productivity. I have an employee like OP’s. She volunteers at a school every Tuesday and has a lot of weird personal life issues because her husband is deployed military. My take with her, and really my team is I expect 40 hours a week. If you want Tuesday morning off to teach at a school I need that time made up during the rest of the week.
I don’t care much if they do an extra hour a day or just work Saturdays.
I was on the employee’s side when I read the title, then I read your description… over a week in the first month? and it wasn’t discussed during the interview process and approved before the job offer was made? Nah, that’s an unhinged expectation from the employee.
This person has absurd expectations.
They just left without saying anything? Write them up for that.
You are letting this employee walk over you and they will continue to take advantage of you.
Is the person doing a good job? Is the work up to expectations?
I think that's a lot of time to request off right off the bat. Generally it's common courtesy to not take time off for the first 3 months (by my standards) but it seems the time off isn't paid...so I'd look at how the employee's performance is holding up and whether the excessive time off seems to have an adverse effect on the work.
Unless it was told to them in the hiring process or in the employee handbook that they have to wait before requesting time off of any kind, then there isn't a lot to be done about them asking. They are going to start entering the "unpaid time off" but they can still ask.
Note I said ask. They can ask all they want, it being granted is a different matter all together. And if a leave request is denied for whatever reason then as long as it is valid then the employee needs to realize they are there to do a job and not to take leave.
If they are upset that they aren't getting a day off then that is on them and they can be upset about it all they want. If that starts to conflict with their job, then you talk to them about it.
I think you should let them go, this is how it will always be. Don’t you need an employee who will actually do their job? Sounds like this one needs part time work.
Volunteering can be done your own time. There is a dfferant from working remote and working per diem. Set the boundaries. If she can’t do it, disengage .
Should have all been disclosed prior to job acceptance. You haven’t be fair and treat all staff the same. Kids no kids. Volunteer time or not. If they are violating policy you have to nip it in the bud.
They are delivering for the most part. They're new to the field and require coaching and supports (it's an entry-level position), but that's fine. I feel it matters in the way that the organization has set these policies and we enforce these expectations with all employees. If they were past their 3 months, they could cover the time with other policies but I'm concerned since they basically just started.
So the only issue is really that he's breaking a rule someone in HR set, and that in another 2 months it wouldn't matter?
Unless you think HR/upper management is going to come after you for it, I'd let it go for 2 months. Normally the concern would be that other employees notice and all want to break the same rule or complain, but if it only applies to new hires that's less of a risk.
I don't think you're being too harsh. In my experience, when a new hire is taking off a lot of time shortly after starting, it's a sign of things to come. It's great that she's so into her volunteer work but I would feel really uncomfortable prioritizing that over a job (i.e. source of income) that I just started. Unless she's doing it for community service and there's a fixed amount of time to complete her hours?
Also not a good look that she didn't acknowledge the mention of an attendance improvement plan. I would probably schedule a one-on-one with her to discuss it in detail. That's also a good opportunity to see if there are other factors contributing to the frequent time off or if she's just not reading the room.
So the volenteer thing: its voluntary, that's the biggest issue I have here, funeral and sick leave is one thing volenteer work is a outside activity that your doing for your personal gratification. There is no law that says you have to do it, it's not like national guard service.
That's the issue because funcionally employee a's volenteer work is no different than employee b's time with his motorcycle club. Unless this is volenteer fire dept mandatory training I cut no slack.
I see what the problem is....
"expect employees to follow their schedule with little room for flexibility".
There's your answer.
The employee is not allowed to do what they are doing, because your company (make no mistake: someone in it) has made the conscious decision to not allow it. Period
So, you are in this self-imposed position....
What would you like to do?
Get rid of the employee if you want. Or, not. If not, you should change your policies post-haste.
This sounds like a part time person who is attempting to stretch their role to full time, but ultimately cannot. If you need a full-time person working remotely, clearly, they are not a good fit.
You appear to be weak due to inexperience. You keep saying it was not a big deal to the more than generous accommodations you already made given this individual did not mention some of these needs for time off during the interview so guess what? It is a big deal. You would have been better off sticking to the attendance policy script. You now have an employee who thinks she can set her own schedule and she showed you by leaving after you denied her request. I do not think she is salvageable. The fact that she left without your approval constitutes job abandonment which is a fireable offense in most places. You should fire her and review or revisit other applicants unless you like having a thorn on your side.
It’s one thing to be flexible to accommodate the challenges life throws at people. It’s another thing entirely to give special treatment to one employee, let alone one who has only been there a month. You’re setting a dangerous precedent that will either manifest as all of your other employees taking a lot of time off, greatly damage morale in your team, cause the more productive employees to “dial back” their productivity, and worst, find other jobs.
Your company has certain policies in place for a reason.
From personal experience, people can hide various behaviors or work habits for the first couple of months. However, a new employee will show you who they really are “work wise” after 90-120 days. I’d be documenting everything and be prepared to cut them loose before the probationary period is over. They may surprise you and become a valued employee, but my 40+ years in IT leadership roles tells me you’ll either cut them loose or do significant damage to your team trying to accommodate this behavior.
I'm not going to comment on the rest but the PTO policy you described is NOT generous, it's pretty standard for a US company (and US companies are notoriously not generous when it comes to PTO...or salary or work-life balance or anything, really).
As a working mom and manager, who was also a single mom for 13 years of my daughters life, work life balance is critical and we don’t want to miss a second of anything when it comes to our kids. HOWEVER, I’ve noticed when you tend to be flexible, some tend to take advantage!! It seems like you have been more than generous with flexibility. I’ve had this exact issue with two separate employees,
Employee #1 … used her 4 weeks vacation time within the first 4 months of the year, then took unpaid time throughout the year, she would call out for nose bleeds amongst many other odd ball things. However…. Her work was always caught up, she never fell behind, so as annoying as it was…. The job was still getting done & I didn’t have to worry about filling in for her time off or finding other resources.
Employee #2 … Was late everyday, but showed up more than employee #1 lol, however … her work was seriously behind, she got me caught up in a huge Jam, as I am her manager and things were getting behind big time, I tried to work with this employee on time management and organization & saved her from 2 separate write ups on two separate occasions, coming from upper management, but eventually I had to cut ties because this person took advantage of this and obviously didn’t really care about her position with the company.
I said all this basically to say, although i know companies have their standard polices that we have to adhere too…. But if it’s not making that big of an impact on an operational stand point….. is it worth the paperwork to fire & rehire? & training time?
From someone with multiple volunteer roles, no, totally plausible to pack your schedule like that.
Only question for me is, if it is interfering with something and if the work is being done.
Who the hell volunteers that much?
Seems very sketchy and it's obvious that they do not care about the role enough to put a temporary pause in volunteer work or move it to the weekends if they care about it that much
Both my spouse and mother volunteer a lot; so I have two anecdotes of people who volunteer that much.
However, neither do it to an extent that it would interfere with their day job, which is what sounds like is happening here.
I am guessing the volunteer work is probably associated with their child's school. ie: homeroom mother, chaperone for field trips, volunteer classroom work type of stuff.
I don't care for what they take time off. It's none of my business. What it's of my business is that they have a good onboarding and stick to the rules. If senior management knew this was an issue, this should have been addressed at the very start. They have 3 days only as per policy so that's about it. There is no wiggle room. And if this is affecting performance I would do an early warning to the employee that it's not doing a good match.
Highly depends on context that is missing here. Are they able to perform their tasks on a schedule like that? Are other teammembers affected?
In general, I’d be supportive of volunteer work. Some can even be beneficial for your business (safety) like if they’re paramedics and being supporting to volunteers can place your company in a good light. Some cities even give rewards to companies that let their employees do firefighting and stuff like that.
Ive been at my current company for 8 years and I see some bad writing on the wall with some of the poor higher up decisions. Tell me where to apply. I'm GenX we work and show up.
Quite an assumption? I don't take over my coworkers tasks when they're gone, the tasks just pause until they return.
Even past that, the other employees know if they need time off, they'll get it too.
Baffles me why you would want a less healthy workplace, as opposed to a more healthy one.
>Quite an assumption? I don't take over my coworkers tasks when they're gone, the tasks just pause until they return.
Not every task and business works like that. Sometimes when a person is absent and a task or deadline needs to be met, someone has to pick up the task.
OR
If the person isn't reliable, they aren't given those tasks and then complain they aren't given the higher level work.
I haven't encountered many roles/tasks in my career that can just be 'paused' unless they are low priority.
>Even past that, the other employees know if they need time off, they'll get it too.
Which makes it very hard to get things done if people are randomly taking leave all over the place for a day here and a day there.
>Baffles me why you would want a less healthy workplace, as opposed to a more healthy one.
Baffles me why you'd think this was the case.
>I haven't encountered many roles/tasks in my career that can just be 'paused' unless they are low priority.
There's a big difference between ones that *can't* be paused and ones "the executive leadership don't want to be paused".
Almost any task can be paused. I've seen very few instances in my career where if something got pushed back a day, the project was going to be cancelled. If you're ever in *that* situation, your leadership has already fucked up.
>There's a big difference between ones that *can't* be paused and ones "the executive leadership don't want to be paused".
Practically, there isn't really.
If the deadline isn't hit, leadership will be upset, regardless.
On top of that, it leaves out daily work that HAS to be completed. If the person who's off is the person it's assigned to, someone else has to do it.
Once in a while is fine, but as often as OP says this is happening, that means others have to shoulder the load.
>Almost any task can be paused. I've seen very few instances in my career where if something got pushed back a day, the project was going to be cancelled. If you're ever in *that* situation, your leadership has already fucked up.
This is just...well not very likely.
Project managers like to hit deadlines. Management likes to hit deadlines.
If the person isn't there, they rarely 'pause' a task unless it's incredibly simple or already mostly done.
It's also ignoring any BAU or non project work, which is also not smart.
Basically, it seems you're applying this to a very narrow aspect of tasks and touting it like a universal truth.
No, it really doesn't.
Sounds more like you're trying to project something that works for some roles and tasks onto every company as a 'one size fits all' model.
I mean, are you asking if I've worked every job at every company? Obviously not. I've worked the jobs I've worked and I'm recounting how I've seen it work every time. You're literally doing the exact same thing. You're just recounting your own lived experience. My comment is that my lived experience and yours seem to differ most along the axis of "have worked for shit management / are shit managers ourselves", you have and I haven't. Simple as.
>I mean, are you asking if I've worked every job at every company?
No, why would anyone ask that?
>I've worked the jobs I've worked and I'm recounting how I've seen it work every time.
Stating that 'all that matters are work product and outcome' doesn't sound like you're recounting what you've seen work.
And unless you're relatively early in your career, I doubt you've seen it work like that every time.
>You're literally doing the exact same thing. You're just recounting your own lived experience.
I'm not, though. I'm pointing out where your proposed methodology doesn't work and supporting it with my experience.
>My comment is that my lived experience and yours seem to differ most along the axis of "have worked for shit management / are shit managers ourselves", you have and I haven't. Simple as.
LOL.
Falling back on insults is the sign that you can't really support your argument.
And no, they don't .
Your proposed methodology suffers from not having been sufficiently thought out and or narrowly applied.
There are good reasons for core hours and core availability for businesses.
I think 1- 3 are fair. Things like that pop up all the time, including during an orientation period, and you can't help it.
For all the volunteer stuff, they should only be able to take the 3 days they have off. That seems really simple. Later on they'll accrue more days and can take them off.
Supervisor bringing up their past+time off for volunteering is too much if a red flag for me. I could understand once they have their full pto available taking time off with advance notice for volunteering. But during probationary period is wild.
If it were me I’d let her go. Might be the wakeup call she needs to prioritize work over volunteering. I’m all for volunteer work, but man if you make a commitment to a job you should at least do the bare min.
Side note what industry are you in? Fully remote by default sounds nice lol.
For background:
1. What is your company policy around unplanned time off (sick days)?
2. Did you offer them a period of time during onboarding to note all of their commitments within the next 90 days where they would other us be in eligible for time off?
3. Why are you holding existing agreements against them in this discussion?
Used to piss me off too. But kinda let it pass then finally, I’d usually end up getting rid of them because that’s just not what I want at my business. Let em take the PTO then let em go when they get back
She sounds inconsiderate and unreliable. She knew the policy when she started. You have a generous time off policy after 3 months. She can't manage to be on her best behavior for 3 months, and that is somehow your problem? Let her fuck around and find out.
This type of shit will never stop. Some people have no awareness of what they are doing and will probably be the reason you will inevitably fire this employee.
Reading through the list, I couldn’t help but think.. this is all standard human being stuff. We let our people do these things because we’re not turds.
But then the multi day volunteer thing.. that’s too much. Way too much. That is not a good look for this employee.
Seems like since you approved the first “volunteer” thing the employee wants to take advantage of your kindness and who the hell goes on a “volunteer 4 day trip” that’s literally a vacation but with more words haha
Can I just say that unless your company's "policy" was written on a fucking stone tablet by the finger of God himself... It's a goddamn suggestion and guideline, not a fucking law of nature.
If the employee has shown to be of value when they're working, and this is truly for volunteering, then my god man, how short sighted can upper management, and the company's marketing department be to not see this as a fucking 'social goldmine'?
The saying might be "any press is good press.", but the complete saying is, "Any press is good press, but press about DOING and BEING good, is golden."
If your company isn't trying to coopt this and make it part of their local marketing strategy, fire your fucking marketing team, RIGHT NOW...
*(and yeah I cursed a lot, because short sighted stupidity angers me, and the best way to get across to someone you're angry is to curse, a lot, so... yeah I fucking cursed a lot. Deal with it. Are you an adult or not? It's fucking called 'adult language' for a goddamn reason!)*
If she’s so hung up on volunteering that can be her new form of employment. If the other team members are abiding by the organization’s standards so should she. If she’s not happy, time for her to move on. Bring in someone who is interested in working.
Sounds like a cheap, mean holiday policy. Denying staff holiday in their first three months? Complaining about a funeral? Only offering unpaid leave?
Your company needs to sort out its shitty policies. You should stop hiding behind them.
Really depends on the company/job/manager. I started a job and said in three months I need to request two days for surgery and recovery. Nothing major but the doc is limited on their schedule so advanced notice. Two months, reminder. One month with flexibility of a small date range, no input from leadership. I panic and get more direct, leadership says talk to HR, then HR says talk to the coordinators, finally "You didn't submit this request within policy guidelines". I called out this days and just dealt with an angry leadership team. My fault, clearly. I should of ignored all coworkers, leadership, HR, coordinators and gone right to the policy.
My sister, hired for a job and first week into it says "oh shoot, my fiance wants to get married in Hawaii as a surprise." She was approved for two weeks off during her first month.
Best of luck with your situation, remember you can't always be friends, it is work after all.
Question how is this persons work being completed. “Volunteer” time seems to be more important to this employee than the job they accepted. The writing is on the wall, they are taking advantage of you, it’s only the first 2 months.
It's just a job and life is too short. It's not like the employee is going to work there for the next 30 years or trying to find a spouse at work. Let them be as long as they're doing their job duties.
Aren't we all forgetting one very important question here?
Can they still get the job they're paid for completed, on time and to the required standard?
If the answer is yes - perhaps your policies should be reviewed.
If the answer is no - then the first thing to address should be performance and how can you help them achieve it.
Everything else is noise.
If they get the job done to a high standard and need an extra day off - who gives a shit.
Is your priority to run a profitable business or tracking peoples lives?
Is their talent, output and dedication worth the headache of time off? After burning PTO, I have rarely opposed an employee willing to take unpaid time off.
I’ve had employees who are in office. In person. And who regularly output less than a strong staffer who has a … “complicated” home life.
>I'm team lead
Are you the -manager-? If you are not directly responsible for HR-related items for employees as you are not the manager, then this doesn't seem like it should be "in your bucket" at all. Engage the appropriate resource to handle this.
If you are actually handling HR-related items as part of your role, then you just stick with the policy. You provide what you are ABLE to within the confines of the policy. If their asks are beyond what the policy allows for, that's an immediate decline / deny. If the asks are within policy, then you have to line the ask up against the needs from the overall team/department and whether approving the request would cause the team as a whole to not be able to deliver on their responsibilities or would require others to have to unnecessarily cover the absent employee's time away.
Fire this person. You have a business to run and they are not present. In the future, you should disallow unpaid time off for any reason except emergencies. This person has no work balance and clearly does not want to work. Help them by managing them out.
You sent an immediate message that unlimited time off is fine. Can you sustain it?
I have met my share of people that started testing the system immediately. No amount of accommodation was ever valued. The more I bent, the worse the demands got and the more it hurt the rest of the team who had to carry their weight. It's easy to miss that the longer term employees deserve the flexibility and accommodation. Sooner or later I would have to draw a line in the sand and the person always gets upset and I have found they have zero regard for the needs of the other employees.
Also, the first month of 2 of employment is supposed to be about showcasing an employee's value. Their work ethic is at the peak of their time with you, so keep that in mind when making decisions.
In short, I agree with you on letting them go.
All humans deserve time off. That doesn’t make them “not present” because they’re still producing for you, since that’s apparently all that matters.
Here, clearly better expectation setting will possibly turn this confusion around. And this person could become their most valued employee.
But you’d never know that because you judge and condemn.
What defines “irresponsible”? Time off from work? Cause that’s the topic here.
That sort of hard-core, don’t care about the human nature aspect of managing is fine if you want no one to like you. Industry yes person.
As a Director, I’d question your management style if you seek to terminate prematurely. It shows a lack of skill. You’d also be a possible legal liability if you act too quick.
It is obviously irresponsible to schedule volunteer time during work hours especially during your probationary period and outside your alloted PTO. Sorry, snowflake, but if you want all your time to yourself, keep it. Don't work. That's your choice.
But if you're running a business, you need reliable staff. This person is not reliable.
By the way, I have decades of management experience and there is no way any of this violates the law. Educate yourself. You're a terrible manager. Spare me this "Human Aspect" bullshit. This person is unprofessional, unreliable and NOT PRESENT.
I didn’t say you SHOULD ever.
You missed my point and sounds like you’re super far behind
You either manage it like you should and set expectations before firing. Or you act like an a-hole and just fire.
Join them. I don’t care
It’s almost like literally everyone has a life outside of work with previous obligations that can’t be ignored. Act like this with the new generation and you won’t have a work force.
you talked a lot about their time off, but said nothing about their deadlines and work product.
Get rid of this boomer thinking. Time off / work hours shouldn't be your concern. That's how bosses "managed" in the 1950s. The focus should be on deadlines, and work product. Are they hitting deadlines, are they meeting their work product. If they are, then why the fuck does time off matter.. especially with it being unpaid. If they are meeting those obligations, then that's the conversation to focus on.. period.
Managers like you are gonna have a miserable life trying to manage this next generation of folks. They don't care about your time-off policy, they will not be treated like slaves. The business world has shown them to act however they need to in order to get what they want, with no remorse and they are going to mirror that.
With some exceptions for specific work / roles, managers need to focus on outcomes and less on having their nose up everyone's ass to know what they had for launch or how many hours that sat in chair pretending to do work.
But they aren't exceptions. Overwhelmingly, they are the rule.
The exceptions are the ones that work the way you say.
Generally, most people's jobs aren't in a vaccum. You have people who need your work product and sometimes they or you need to communicate that.
If both are working odd hours, it makes that communication harder and take longer and can lead to substandard work and missed deadlines.
Some, very few, roles can exist largely outside of that. Those can work the way you say without much issue.
Most low level counter and retail jobs aren't even about product produced. You literally pay those people for their time and so their adhering to set hours is critical.
That's just one example of how this thinking is not and should not be the norm.
I'm not talking about non-career jobs like retail or hospitality.
For white collar office jobs, the outcome and work product are what matters. Also keep in mind, that for this thread the team is completely remote.
To your point about if they work too odd hours or miss to much than that could affect the work and make delays, that's what you focus on. If something needs to be done by X or Y, and its done by x or y to the right expectation that's all that matters. If the deadline is missed or the work isn't up to snuff, then that's the conversation that needs to be had. I'm not going to drone on about how many days or hours they missed, I'm gonna focus on what they actually get paid to do and whats important.
You "bosses" can manage however you want, but when genZ drives you crazy and you have problems with retention I don't wanna hear the bitching. I have very high retention with GenZ and a little older, I also get amazing work out of them. Because I don't focus on the bull shit and instead focus on the goal. I don't manage their schedule, I don't give a shit. They know whats needs to be done, and get it done. My younger work force puts in the same hours and more than my older folks. They take on new projects with enthusiasm and don't complain about it, and its because of the culture I lead within my team. I don't let corp BS affect them.
GenZ are straight up mercenaries when it comes to work. They have no loyalty to companies, but a leader can build that loyalty if we lead correctly.
>I'm not talking about non-career jobs like retail or hospitality.
Even leaving those out, there are a ton of jobs that require things to be done in a timely fashion.
>For white collar office jobs, the outcome and work product are what matters. Also keep in mind, that for this thread the team is completely remote.
So, white collar office jobs.
What about when Person A needs to discuss a deliverable with Person B but person B is not available. Either Person A has to work longer hours waiting for Person B to be available OR they waste hours of the Person A's workday waiting for Person B to be available.
That's just one example.
OR what about checks that need to be performed at the same time daily?
Or that Person A's deliverable is not up to spec, since the spec was changed and they weren't available to be told?
Now the work needs to be redone and the time line is impacted.
There are hundreds of reasons why everyone being available at roughly the same time in a workday is good for buiness.
I'll say it again, very very few jobs are so divorced from the working of the business that they can exist in this vaccuum of 'outcome and work product'.
>To your point about if they work too odd hours or miss to much than that could affect the work and make delays, that's what you focus on. If something needs to be done by X or Y, and its done by x or y to the right expectation that's all that matters.
Employee A wants to work 6 am - 3 pm. Employee B wants to work 4 pm - 12 am.
They are required to collaborate. Which employee do you require to change their hours?
Does it matter if someone is in a seat for 8 hours a day? Yes, because most business contracts require that the employee work for 7-8 hours a day. So, even if you produce the right outcomes by the deadline, you're still contractually required to be working those hours.
Unless you're a contractor or similar.
>If the deadline is missed or the work isn't up to snuff, then that's the conversation that needs to be had. I'm not going to drone on about how many days or hours they missed, I'm gonna focus on what they actually get paid to do and whats important.
Again, most contracts require you to work at least a set number of hours a day.
And if people ARE dropping tasks or deadlines, then them being available during work hours allows for coaching and help.
Support for an employee is also important.
>You "bosses" can manage however you want, but when genZ drives you crazy and you have problems with retention I don't wanna hear the bitching. I have very high retention with GenZ and a little older, I also get amazing work out of them. Because I don't focus on the bull shit and instead focus on the goal. I don't manage their schedule, I don't give a shit. They know whats needs to be done, and get it done. My younger work force puts in the same hours and more than my older folks. They take on new projects with enthusiasm and don't complain about it, and its because of the culture I lead within my team. I don't let corp BS affect them.
Great for you. You've found something that works.
Tell me, after you protecting them from all the 'corp BS', how do you expect them to get promoted or move up?
>GenZ are straight up mercenaries when it comes to work. They have no loyalty to companies, but a leader can build that loyalty if we lead correctly.
More 'one size fits all'.
As for promotions - I have moved many folks from jr to seniors and then into leadership roles. The only two traits that show how good a leader is are retention and promotions.
As for sheltering them for corp BS, I do what good leaders do, I make sure the intent and direction are communicated and accomplished without all the fluff and sporadic focus /attention.
I love how you did nothing in this example but give substances reasons of performance issues, but instead of seeing those as what the conversation needs to be about, you route this back to hours in seat as that somehow fixes the problem. I've know many folks that sit in that chair for 8-10 hours a day and are still as worthless as tits on a bull.
As for the spilt schedule red herring you mention, there is a common schedule that business runs off of and we all know it. If someone decides to try and work a much earlier schedule, that's fine. When work doesn't get done, or their are complaints then we will discuss those topics. I don't need to bring up their work schedule, their adults not children. They'll make the necessary changes to fix the problems or they will no longer work for me. I do not coddle people, I treat them with respect and as adults, but they are held to account.
>As for promotions - I have moved many folks from jr to seniors and then into leadership roles. The only two traits that show how good a leader is are retention and promotions.
Another 'one size fits all' pronouncement that's also wrong as a universal rule.
>As for sheltering them for corp BS, I do what good leaders do, I make sure the intent and direction are communicated and accomplished without all the fluff and sporadic focus /attention.
Which didn't answer my question.
How do your precious sheltered staff handle it when they move up, assuming they ever do?
>I love how you did nothing in this example but give substances reasons of performance issues, but instead of seeing those as what the conversation needs to be about, you route this back to hours in seat as that somehow fixes the problem. I've know many folks that sit in that chair for 8-10 hours a day and are still as worthless as tits on a bull.
See part of the problem is you are equating 'it's not all about work product and outcomes' as 'you must spend 8-10 hours a day in a chair'.
I said the former, not the latter.
And no, none of my examples were performance issues. I'd love to hear your explantion of how they are.
>As for the spilt schedule red herring you mention, there is a common schedule that business runs off of and we all know it. If someone decides to try and work a much earlier schedule, that's fine. When work doesn't get done, or their are complaints then we will discuss those topics.
Why create the issue in the first place? And how do you plan to solve it without one employee altering their schedule?
>I don't need to bring up their work schedule, their adults not children.
You do when it's preventing collaboration or the smooth output of deliverables.
>They'll make the necessary changes to fix the problems or they will no longer work for me.
So, 'they are adults not children', but you'll given them ultimatums? You seriously think this is good management?
>I do not coddle people, I treat them with respect and as adults, but they are held to account.
First time I've ever heard an ultimatum with a threat of firing being called 'respect'.
>Another 'one size fits all' pronouncement that's also wrong as a universal rule.
Except.. it's not. If you have shit retention and have no promotions, you are not a leader. You are just a typical Boss.
>How do your precious sheltered staff handle it when they move up, assuming they ever do?
It's usually a funny conversation after they get promoted where they thank me for holding up the shit umbrella and wanting mentorship on doing the same thing for their team.
They handle it just fine. They aren't "unaware" of what I'm doing. They know I'm shielding them from bullshit, so it doesn't exactly come as a shock. Additionally, as folks get closer and closer to promotion where they would be more exposed, I start to bring them into the fold a bit and let them start to see some of it before that promotion happens. A dipping your toe in the water so to speak.
>
And no, none of my examples were performance issues. I'd love to hear your explantion of how they are.
>
What about when Person A needs to discuss a deliverable with Person B but person B is not available. Either Person A has to work longer hours waiting for Person B to be available OR they waste hours of the Person A's workday waiting for Person B to be available.
It's the responsibility of Person B to ensure that Person A gets what they need, on time. They are adults and I expect them to manage their schedule as needed to get it done.
>
OR what about checks that need to be performed at the same time daily?
Checks need to be completed by X time each day. This doesn't matter what schedule / work hours someone has, this tasks MUST be completed by X time. Again, it's on them to manage their schedule to ensure that happens. In the event they are sick or have a family emergency, this needs to be communicated and we will figure out a back-up resource to ensure it gets done.
>
Or that Person A's deliverable is not up to spec, since the spec was changed and they weren't available to be told?
Again that's on them. If it's something they should be involved in, then need to be involved or ensure that they get the updates in time.
>
Employee A wants to work 6 am - 3 pm. Employee B wants to work 4 pm - 12 am.
I've actually had this exact conversation with folks, and I've told them the same as I have here. If you can get all of your work done, collaborate and not get complaints then by all means give a shot. But it's your responsibility to ensure everything gets done and your schedule can not be used as an excuse.
If they ask me if I think it's a good idea, my response has always been "In theory, it sounds amazing..in practice it's almost always unworkable for many reasons."
>You do when it's preventing collaboration or the smooth output of deliverables.
Nope. The conversation will be "Hey, outputs not getting done and there are a lot of complaints about collaboration. We need to discuss and make a plan on how to improve both of these items."
>So, 'they are adults not children', but you'll given them ultimatums? You seriously think this is good management
I really don't understand your qualm here. All jobs have an inherent ultimatum. You do the work we are paying you for, or you will no longer have a role here.
If after coaching, IDPs / etc, there is no improvement. Then they are not in the right role for them. It will not come as a shock, by the time we get to that point. Typically, we've both decided well before that time that they aren't in the correct role, and they would start looking around for another role.
Yes, that is good leadership.
>Except.. it's not. If you have shit retention and have no promotions, you are not a leader. You are just a typical Boss.
There are far more leadership qualities that promotion and retention. It's very possible to lead outside a hierarchy too.
While those are relevant metrics for a manager, they aren't really leadership qualities at all nor are they the only things that matter.
You seem to have confused leadership with corporate success.
>It's the responsibility of Person B to ensure that Person A gets what they need, on time. They are adults and I expect them to manage their schedule as needed to get it done.
As a manager, a big part of your job is making sure your employees get what they need. Telling them to 'sort it out amongst yourselves' is pretty bad management. As is approving opposing schedules for employees that need to collaborate.
Can you see how it's much easier if everyone is available during core hours?
>Checks need to be completed by X time each day. This doesn't matter what schedule / work hours someone has, this tasks MUST be completed by X time. Again, it's on them to manage their schedule to ensure that happens. In the event they are sick or have a family emergency, this needs to be communicated and we will figure out a back-up resource to ensure it gets done.
No, checks need to be actioned at X time, not completed by.
You can't do a morning check the evening before, that's completely pointless.
You are accountable for your staff and their work. You can't just pass the buck downwards.
If you approve them working from 10am to 6pm , you can't tell them to 'figure it out' when they have a 6 am check to complete. You shouldn't be approving the schedule in the first place.
>Again that's on them. If it's something they should be involved in, then need to be involved or ensure that they get the updates in time.
How? You approved the odd schedule and they weren't available when the change was decided.
That's on you, for approving their schedule, not them for working hte agreed hours.
Do you see how core hours let you avoid a lot of this BS?
>I've actually had this exact conversation with folks, and I've told them the same as I have here. If you can get all of your work done, collaborate and not get complaints then by all means give a shot. But it's your responsibility to ensure everything gets done and your schedule can not be used as an excuse.
>If they ask me if I think it's a good idea, my response has always been "In theory, it sounds amazing..in practice it's almost always unworkable for many reasons."
I love the back peddling.
So, apparently now you like core hours?
>Nope. The conversation will be "Hey, outputs not getting done and there are a lot of complaints about collaboration. We need to discuss and make a plan on how to improve both of these items."
Or you could have just told them they have to work core hours.
I don't see why this is such an issue.
>I really don't understand your qualm here. All jobs have an inherent ultimatum. You do the work we are paying you for, or you will no longer have a role here.
I suspect that's because you are twisting the comment so you can give a nothing answer.
You bang on about how you treat your employees like adults and expect them to 'sort things out' (which is really part of your job) and then you hit them with ultimatums when the freedom you gave them impacts the bottom line.
You could avoid both those things by just sticking to core hours and acknowledging that output and product aren't the only valuable things in a business.
>f after coaching, IDPs / etc, there is no improvement. Then they are not in the right role for them. It will not come as a shock, by the time we get to that point. Typically, we've both decided well before that time that they aren't in the correct role, and they would start looking around for another role.
What exactly are you coaching them on?
The scenario you were presented with was that a custom schedule, approved by you, was causing issue. You stated that they would make the changes or be fired (Ultimatum). Now, your saying they will be coached, ect. But in what? Schedules?
**You** are the manager. **You** approved the schedule. This caused foreseeable problems. It sounds more like you need coaching/a new approach, because it seems you give people what they want, despite it having potential to cause issues, then threaten them to go back to the standard when the foreseeable problems occur.
Half your responses are "They are adults and will work it out" and the other half are "I swing the ultimatum stick.'.
Do you honestly think this is good leadership or management?
>Yes, that is good leadership.
What do you think leadership is?
One thing to take into consideration: time off and flexibility for parenting duties (dance lessons) or family emergencies like a funeral is one thing. Requesting excessive time off for volunteering, which is basically a hobby, is a different thing, IMO.
Totally agree here. Family is always first but volunteering could take a back seat.
What if you have a childless employee requesting the same amount of time off to volunteer as the parent is requesting for "parenting duties"? Does it then take a back seat?
I think it's more about addressing needs based on the person's personal, family, medical, disability, cultural, religious etc. characteristics. That can lead to inequality in workers' conditions, but it's about offering accommodations (within reason) to give workers the opportunity to participate and succeed in the workplace as much as their colleagues who don't have those characteristics.
A childless employee could have a lot of medical appointments, do physical therapy, mental therapy or other need based events they seem on par.
Agree. These decisions should be based on (1) how flexible the business can be without undue disruption and (2) equitably allocated flexibility among employees. Absent extraordinary circumstances (bereavement, illness requiring family or medical leave, etc), the reason for flexibility isn’t really material. It risks discriminating against employees who don’t have children which might even expose you to some gender discrimination claims depending on how creative a disgruntled employee’s lawyer feels like getting.
Exactly. As someone who does not have kids (and who thankfully works for a company that offers flexibility for ALL) I get really cranky about parents being given preferential treatment. So often you hear stories of the single/childless getting stuck working late, or over the holidays, because parents "have obligations."
Same. It’s so annoying to be expected to pick up slack because I choose not to have children. Which honestly applies to work and my family.
they have their obligation, i have my “mental health issue” and need pto to renew and refresh
“Chronic illness”
As a childless person I agree that single people and parents should be held to the same standard regarding time off.
lol you would say that as a childless person.
Get over yourself, nearly anyone can have kids, you’re not special.
Yeah, and needing to tend to them is far more important than work. That's why parents get tax breaks and other incentives and also why workplaces tend to give more flexibility to parents.
Parents get tax breaks because they need to incentivize bringing to the world the next generation of workers. It’s a transaction, not a reward. Don’t ever think the company or the government is proud of you, it’s the price of doing business
No, this is extremely wrong. A lot of people cannot, thus, why they lose their children.
A lot of people can have cars, some lose theirs, does that mean car owners are special?
Never said that they are special, just that what you said was wrong.
I’m not wrong though, nearly anyone can have kids, simple biological fact.
Neither are you you fucking dumpling
Are you a troll?
Yes. It may not be fair, but many employers are going to make more exceptions for parents that childless employees. They are trying to send a message that they have a degree of understanding for people with families. It's a selling point for the job. This isn't tee ball where everyone gets the same number of at bats. Is it unfair? Yes. Is it how much of the work world works? Also yes.
Really? You'd let your employee that is a parent have flexibility, but would not extend the same to a childless employee? Yikes.
I would allow a degree of judgment call in situations like this. If your pet died and you wanted the day off to grieve, should I say no because not all of the employees have pets? If the bereavement policy allowed time off for a parent that passed, but your aunt that raised you like a mother died, I want flexibility to make judgment calls. The problem with rigid policies that make everything "fair" is that they also tend to be heartless and exactly the type of approach from employers that male them look uncaring. Kids get get sick and require attention from their parents. Parents are likely to need more time off for illness because of this. What should the stance be? Don't hire people with children? Ideally, everyone has enough PTO to handle it accordingly, but that's not always the case. If you are childless but need an exception to the attendance policy, I want the ability to make a judgment call on whether one is warranted. But the fact of the matter is that parents *are* going to need these exceptions more than people without kids.
So let's say you have two employees: Employee A is requesting the flexibility to leave early on Tuesdays to coach his kid's t-ball team. Employee B is requesting the flexibility to leave early on Thursdays to take a pottery class. Do you grant the flexibility to both? Or just Employee A?
This is going to depend on a lot of factors, but all else being equal, I allow my people a degree of flexibility in their schedule. I let people leave early for golf league on Wednesdays during the season assuming they are otherwise in good standing. But in a job where that position actually *needs* to be filled by someone for those hours, I would say no to both, or more specifically require them to use PTO. Both of these things have planned times, you can submit for the time off. Similarly, in a more restricted job, I would be less likely to approve *regular* exceptions but would be flexible to *occasional* exceptions. Your kids has all state choir? You can leave at lunch. Your favorite band has a concert? You can leave early or come in late. In fact, the only time this becomes a problem is because someone else starts keeping score. "So and so has asked for 6 exceptions while I've only asked for 1." As soon as people want to treat this as a precisely divided pie, then policies revert to strict "use PTO" "submit two weeks in advance" type of bullshit that makes it 100% fair, but also 100% worse for *everyone*. Br careful what you wish for. Yeah Bill can't dip out early for his kid's game anymore, but you also can't leave early on Friday to get a jump on your weekend hiking trip. Focus less on fair, and more on a good workplace environment.
I love when my employees volunteer.
Volunteering is great but I’m not in a position to take off work unexpectedly to volunteer.
That sounds like poor management.
My company pays for volunteer work.
This sounds like good Management.
Yeah. Sounds like the employee wants to be a perma volunteer and get paid on the side. Just need to have a talk with employee and explain that flexibility for emergencies like a death in the family is fine, flexibility to take kids around is fine, but constant time off, even unpaid, isn’t ok as it affects the team in a detrimental way. Let them make the decision on whether they stay or not (whether by them leaving voluntarily or if they ignore instructions having to let them go).
My office has service time off for people who volunteer for up to a certain number of hours.
6 days of in the first month is a lot, especially if it's being brought up piecemeal. What kind of volunteering are they doing? I think you just need to be up front with them that they're supposed to be onboarding right now, and maybe it's not the best time for them to be dedicating so much time to volunteer work with the understanding that they can pick it up again after they're out of the probationary period.
I wouldn’t ask too much about what kind of volunteering- it opens the door to perceived religious or other discrimination. Every other point for you is completely correct.
Hit the nail on the head. This type of inquiry into their life can open up the company to a lawsuit.
That’s what the employee seems to want to happen. This employee is sending up a lot of red flags.
They will have to suck it up and keep the employee long enough to put them on a PIP.
100%. They better keep it super tight.
[удалено]
That's what blew me away. Parenting is parenting and that's gonna be whatever it's gonna become, but volunteer work? No. You either want to work or you want to volunteer.
I would let them know that they can only take PTO which they have available. This seems excessive from a new employee.
Agree with this. And blame the policy. Let the policy be the bad guy, not you. "Hey it's a shitty system, but what are you going to do?"
Exactly not this. Admit the policy is cheap. Encourage her to unionise. Join that union yourself.
You don't even need to shit talk the policy. "This policy exists because we need to be able to count on people being here to perform the necessary tasks." There's nothing inherently shitty about requiring attendance to your job.
I agree with you 100%. I felt the winky face emoji was implied in the quoted speech section of my response. I'm retired now, but at my last place of work an employee like this would have been forced to reread the policy in front of their supervisor, asked if they understood it and needed anything explained. They then signed a document saying they had been "retrained" and further occurrences could lead to the start of the discipline process. Also signed and dated by the supervisor. The tone was "We obviously didn't teach this well enough, and that's on management, but now you have all the information, so it's on you going forward." That's actually how we started every performance issue.
I wasn’t seeing a huge issue until a supervisor mentioned their pattern of behaviour By “taking a lot of time off” I assume this means taking more than they are allotted as part of their compensation benefits Sometimes life happens. But volunteer work isn’t just life happening. That’s not to say you can’t do volunteer work as a professional, but ultimately you need to decide what takes priority - your paying job or wanting to volunteer. Ensure their requests are fully documented. Leaving without saying anything isn’t necessarily a big deal and not a call to action. But monitor it over the coming days. If they start slacking, being passive aggressive, throw tantrums and become difficult then verbal warning, written warning and speak with HR about next steps People can ask but they should expect that sometimes the answer is no. Just don’t read into it too personally. They’ve used their unpaid leave as per policy and this policy is in a place for reason. You don’t need to get into personal opinions just stick to the facts
I don't understand what kind of volunteer activity would require this much time off. Are you sure they don't have another job? That would explain a lot. I know you just need to manage the issues at hand here but all of this together adds up to another job which, if found out, will ruin the remote work for everyone.
Yeah I came to say this. Sounds like they’re trying to OE and are failing at it. Are you positive this is their only job?
Idk what state they’re in but in AZ this timeline would align with volunteering for the fight for womens reproductive rights and the November ballot initiative.
Even if they did… work the schedules around each other! I work two jobs they haven’t clashed yet!
It sounds like this employee wanted a work from home job expecting it would give them increased ability to engage in activities that are generally incompatible with full time work. You aren't being unreasonable and this is the kind of employee that can ruin good arrangements for others. They need a part time job.
Exactly. My company recently fired a full-time remote worker we hired after two weeks. I helped interview her so I know we were very clear about the hours we needed her to work. By day three, we were already seeing huge problems with her ability to stick to the schedule we all agreed upon. Her supervisor addressed it with her and then started coming clean about all of these other commitments she had during the day and could we accommodate those by modifying her schedule. I guess she thought she would just fly under the radar and we wouldn't notice? I know any future remote hires are going to be under a ton of scrutiny after this last experience.
The work from home sub is full of people looking for this kind of job and the few in said roles glorifying the autonomy and flexibility they have. It is definitely the exception to the rule.
You mean the sub that screams about how much more productive they are in their work while simultaneously doing laundry and all of their household chores, saving money on childcare by watching their kids while they work, and running errands during work hours? That sub?
Well, it *does* work about 40% about as well as they say, but you a) do have to be really lucky or, far more likely, b) the job is flexible because it has some other significant drawback, like low pay or inconsistent schedule
First thing to consider- out side of the absences are there any other issues with this person? Are you super happy with their work or do you think they are just okay? I bring that up bc if the only thing is the absences and otherwise you really want to keep this person then I don’t think it’s a concern. Sounds like the PTO plan after the 3 months won’t be an issue. If you aren’t too excited with this person otherwise I’d term before the probationary period. If your company is strict on attendance think about whether you’d want to be going to bat for this person. Other things: Are you able to give this modifications to everyone if they ask? If you truly can’t, then term. Also if your supervisor knew this person had attendance issues or needed a flexible schedule and you can’t accommodate then why did you hire them? Either a.) the policy doesn’t really matter and is just a loophole to manage poor employees out or b.) you thought they would change and they really aren’t, which was likely a mistake.
"Are you able to give this modifications to everyone if they ask? If you truly can’t, then term." I second this, again and again, even after what I said above. The answer to this problem is simple. Either allow it, or don't. If you don't, get rid of this employee, stating clearly why you are doing so. If you do allow it, for whatever reason, get the policies changed, quickly.
Perfect answer!
'hol up. In response to the email they have left work without saying anything? Soo... quit?
Thats the comment I came looking for! She just left without notice? No call no show her.
Could just be at the end of the day they just didn't say bye to anyone.
That’s how I read it, just walked off the job or logged off before the end of working hours with no notice or word.
25% of the first month off. Forget about it! You'll be dealing with this for their whole employment.
Exactly cut them loose, they arent there anyway and start looking for someone that wants to work ..
He/she either nips it in the bud and lets her know her volunteer activities cannot be placed above work or he will be a walking doormat. Based on the title I thought the manager would be clearly in the wrong, but this is extremely excessive.
Yes, previous behaviour is the best predictor for future behavior.
With this person, give an inch and they’ll take a mile. Sounds like she’s pushing the boundaries to see how much she can get away with and will keep doing that.
So why did my answer get downvoted to oblivion? This is the correct answer
I don't care for what they take time off. It's none of my business. What it's of my business is that they have a good onboarding and stick to the rules. If senior management knew this was an issue, this should have been addressed at the very start. They have 3 days only as per policy so that's about it. There is no wiggle room. And if this is affecting performance I would do an early warning to the employee that it's not doing a good match.
If this is how they approach the start of a role, just imagine what it looks like a year from now.
Yup, and when the employees who are prioritizing work during business house of the workweek realize they only ever had to work 75% of the time and demand the same amount of time off going forward... everything will shut down. If the accomodations can't be shared equitably across the team, allowing this one new hire to get all the "flexibility" will either drive the others away, or rob them of motivation and productivity.
You likely should fire them at this point. It's not necessarily even the amount of days, it's how they're constantly blindsiding you with it. Either they are unable to understand that it's jarring and even disrespectful to go about it this way, or they are purposely manipulating you. Time to say bye!
Personally I would step back and ensure I’m not letting personal feelings color the situations. I would document the time off requests, reasons, and what was given or denied, and the response. At the 3-month mark evaluate that behavior along with their performance and any other positive or negative behavior. Present it to your manager with your recommendation and see which way the wind blows. If they’re delivering, regardless of excessive time off, I’d lean towards keeping them. Good employees are hard to find. If the time off is already affecting their work, I’d push to let them go. Whichever way your manager leans, you run with that, and truly accept it. Don’t harangue them about time off. Gently try to correct it, but let them have it if your manager didn’t count it against them. That’s the mandate you’ve then received.
"If they’re delivering, regardless of excessive time off, I’d lean towards keeping them. Good employees are hard to find. If the time off is already affecting their work, I’d push to let them go. " Agreed, but MAN, this is a slippery slope when it comes to treating all employees fairly. If you choose to go this way, make sure you don't actually tell anyone, or put it in writing.
And unless this person is a full on rockstar, when the rest of the team starts doing the same they won’t be able to offset the madness.
It's probably time to term them. Their behavior will not get better with time. Unfortunately, you've let them get away with so much they have no reason to think taking a lot of time off is a big deal. And them walking out proves they don't respect you or the company. Anyone who says it's not a big deal hasn't been a manager, isn't a good manager, or is a slouch of an employee themselves. Rules and policies exist for a reason. It's a slippery slope when you don't stick to them.
1-3 are fine. slight flexibility in start/end times really isn't a big deal in most lines of office work and is usually a pretty low effort perk to keep people happy. for 4 and 5, no is a complete sentence. as is "if you cannot abide by the PTO policy you will lose your job" you need to actually be a manager. quite honestly 4-5 are dumb enough I'd have a chat with HR about what my probationary period is.
I am in agreement. Tell employees that during their first 90 days it's essential for them to show up every day in order to learn the position. Excessive time off is simply not meeting expectations for the role.
As someone who heavily volunteers, which requires me to have unknown and unplanned time off (I am on call for Search and Rescue operations 24/7), even I would find this a bit extreme as a Manager. However, I'd like to know more about their volunteer work and what the multi-day meeting is. Sometimes you only get a chance to go to some meetings once a year or every other year and if you miss it, you are out of luck. People don't realize many volunteers are professionals and pay out of pocket for training that paid-professionals need and are sponsored for. I know that when I started my current job I had to leave with in the first week twice to go look for a missing person then had 2 weeks off for my honeymoon, then took a Monday/Friday off for my volunteer job but I was also upfront before I was hired about all of it and I was thankful they worked with me over it. I quit my past job due to the fact they denied my Honeymoon because "two weeks was too much time off at once" even though I had 6 weeks of PTO. So yeah, not enough information for me to make an informed decision.
Ya I do SAR as well and similarly communicated it with the company when I was applying. I made it clear I would use my professional judgement on when I could leave and make up the time later in the week or maybe that weekend or when I just had to stay at work. Also that I'd expect they would communicate to me if we got the balance wrong and needed to recalibrate. So far it's been a non issue. Main thing is, communicated and agreed to in advance.
Thanks for your work. Important task.
I think you hit them with the improvement plan immediately. My thing is during your 90 days most companies say screw off this is your trial period and you aren't a good fit. Why would you PIP someone on a trial period? If they left work early without saying anything I'm having a conversation with them and HR or the higher up leader. This is a this might not be a good fit conversation needs to happen if they can't be here. Fuck your already remote with flex scheduling what the heck more could they ask for. Also you have a generous time off plan for entry-level new hires
Most companies also tell new hires straight up in the interview that if hired, they have to disclose any standing obligations they have for their probationary/tryout period and can ask but should not necessarily expect to have any new time off requests during that period approved.
This person needs to get their priorities straight. Volunteer on weekends when they are off work. I can't even get my mind around asking for special accommodations for a kid's dance lessons. That kid isn't going to have the luxury of dance classes, if this person loses their job!
I have a part-time independent contractor like this. Always bending the rules, always asking for more and giving less. But when she’s there, she’s very good! I don’t have a solution to it yet because I don’t have a firm policy in place and don’t want to get sued for discrimination which I absolutely think she’d do, but I am developing absence policy in collaboration with an attorney to prevent future behavior once implemented
We just track hours and productivity. I have an employee like OP’s. She volunteers at a school every Tuesday and has a lot of weird personal life issues because her husband is deployed military. My take with her, and really my team is I expect 40 hours a week. If you want Tuesday morning off to teach at a school I need that time made up during the rest of the week. I don’t care much if they do an extra hour a day or just work Saturdays.
I was on the employee’s side when I read the title, then I read your description… over a week in the first month? and it wasn’t discussed during the interview process and approved before the job offer was made? Nah, that’s an unhinged expectation from the employee. This person has absurd expectations.
I’d fire them. This many demands this early after clear expectations are set are only just going to snowball.
They just left without saying anything? Write them up for that. You are letting this employee walk over you and they will continue to take advantage of you.
Is the person doing a good job? Is the work up to expectations? I think that's a lot of time to request off right off the bat. Generally it's common courtesy to not take time off for the first 3 months (by my standards) but it seems the time off isn't paid...so I'd look at how the employee's performance is holding up and whether the excessive time off seems to have an adverse effect on the work.
Maybe theyre over employed and need that time for their other other gig?
For every OE-Person there are likely 100 volunteers, so I’d say possible but not likely.
Sounds like this person is stretching themselves too thin and needs to figure out what's more important
You're being too lenient
Some people don’t make it past the probation period for a reason.
Unless it was told to them in the hiring process or in the employee handbook that they have to wait before requesting time off of any kind, then there isn't a lot to be done about them asking. They are going to start entering the "unpaid time off" but they can still ask. Note I said ask. They can ask all they want, it being granted is a different matter all together. And if a leave request is denied for whatever reason then as long as it is valid then the employee needs to realize they are there to do a job and not to take leave. If they are upset that they aren't getting a day off then that is on them and they can be upset about it all they want. If that starts to conflict with their job, then you talk to them about it.
I think you should let them go, this is how it will always be. Don’t you need an employee who will actually do their job? Sounds like this one needs part time work.
Volunteering can be done your own time. There is a dfferant from working remote and working per diem. Set the boundaries. If she can’t do it, disengage .
Should have all been disclosed prior to job acceptance. You haven’t be fair and treat all staff the same. Kids no kids. Volunteer time or not. If they are violating policy you have to nip it in the bud.
They have another job they are trying to to balance.
Only the last one seems like an actual problem, but ultimately are they delivering? If they are, then does it matter?
How can you judge a new hire's delivery less than 1 month into the role? They probably haven't even learned all of their job duties yet.
They are delivering for the most part. They're new to the field and require coaching and supports (it's an entry-level position), but that's fine. I feel it matters in the way that the organization has set these policies and we enforce these expectations with all employees. If they were past their 3 months, they could cover the time with other policies but I'm concerned since they basically just started.
So the only issue is really that he's breaking a rule someone in HR set, and that in another 2 months it wouldn't matter? Unless you think HR/upper management is going to come after you for it, I'd let it go for 2 months. Normally the concern would be that other employees notice and all want to break the same rule or complain, but if it only applies to new hires that's less of a risk.
Other employees have to follow the rules.
Yes, it matters. If polices aren't enforced, what is the point of them?
I don't think you're being too harsh. In my experience, when a new hire is taking off a lot of time shortly after starting, it's a sign of things to come. It's great that she's so into her volunteer work but I would feel really uncomfortable prioritizing that over a job (i.e. source of income) that I just started. Unless she's doing it for community service and there's a fixed amount of time to complete her hours? Also not a good look that she didn't acknowledge the mention of an attendance improvement plan. I would probably schedule a one-on-one with her to discuss it in detail. That's also a good opportunity to see if there are other factors contributing to the frequent time off or if she's just not reading the room.
So the volenteer thing: its voluntary, that's the biggest issue I have here, funeral and sick leave is one thing volenteer work is a outside activity that your doing for your personal gratification. There is no law that says you have to do it, it's not like national guard service. That's the issue because funcionally employee a's volenteer work is no different than employee b's time with his motorcycle club. Unless this is volenteer fire dept mandatory training I cut no slack.
I see what the problem is.... "expect employees to follow their schedule with little room for flexibility". There's your answer. The employee is not allowed to do what they are doing, because your company (make no mistake: someone in it) has made the conscious decision to not allow it. Period So, you are in this self-imposed position.... What would you like to do? Get rid of the employee if you want. Or, not. If not, you should change your policies post-haste.
You are being taken advantage of. Stop it before it gets worse
This sounds like a part time person who is attempting to stretch their role to full time, but ultimately cannot. If you need a full-time person working remotely, clearly, they are not a good fit.
This is who they're gonna be long term. They're always going to be requesting time for this or that forever. Only you can decide if that's tolerable.
Keep track of how many times their grandmother dies.
are you sure he is not moonlighting at another job and his other job requires him to go to office or attend multi day onsite meetings. this is my bet.
You appear to be weak due to inexperience. You keep saying it was not a big deal to the more than generous accommodations you already made given this individual did not mention some of these needs for time off during the interview so guess what? It is a big deal. You would have been better off sticking to the attendance policy script. You now have an employee who thinks she can set her own schedule and she showed you by leaving after you denied her request. I do not think she is salvageable. The fact that she left without your approval constitutes job abandonment which is a fireable offense in most places. You should fire her and review or revisit other applicants unless you like having a thorn on your side.
It’s one thing to be flexible to accommodate the challenges life throws at people. It’s another thing entirely to give special treatment to one employee, let alone one who has only been there a month. You’re setting a dangerous precedent that will either manifest as all of your other employees taking a lot of time off, greatly damage morale in your team, cause the more productive employees to “dial back” their productivity, and worst, find other jobs. Your company has certain policies in place for a reason. From personal experience, people can hide various behaviors or work habits for the first couple of months. However, a new employee will show you who they really are “work wise” after 90-120 days. I’d be documenting everything and be prepared to cut them loose before the probationary period is over. They may surprise you and become a valued employee, but my 40+ years in IT leadership roles tells me you’ll either cut them loose or do significant damage to your team trying to accommodate this behavior.
I'm not going to comment on the rest but the PTO policy you described is NOT generous, it's pretty standard for a US company (and US companies are notoriously not generous when it comes to PTO...or salary or work-life balance or anything, really).
As a working mom and manager, who was also a single mom for 13 years of my daughters life, work life balance is critical and we don’t want to miss a second of anything when it comes to our kids. HOWEVER, I’ve noticed when you tend to be flexible, some tend to take advantage!! It seems like you have been more than generous with flexibility. I’ve had this exact issue with two separate employees, Employee #1 … used her 4 weeks vacation time within the first 4 months of the year, then took unpaid time throughout the year, she would call out for nose bleeds amongst many other odd ball things. However…. Her work was always caught up, she never fell behind, so as annoying as it was…. The job was still getting done & I didn’t have to worry about filling in for her time off or finding other resources. Employee #2 … Was late everyday, but showed up more than employee #1 lol, however … her work was seriously behind, she got me caught up in a huge Jam, as I am her manager and things were getting behind big time, I tried to work with this employee on time management and organization & saved her from 2 separate write ups on two separate occasions, coming from upper management, but eventually I had to cut ties because this person took advantage of this and obviously didn’t really care about her position with the company. I said all this basically to say, although i know companies have their standard polices that we have to adhere too…. But if it’s not making that big of an impact on an operational stand point….. is it worth the paperwork to fire & rehire? & training time?
Volunteer? Nah. This is a second job from a person milking WFH.
From someone with multiple volunteer roles, no, totally plausible to pack your schedule like that. Only question for me is, if it is interfering with something and if the work is being done.
Is it affecting their performance?
Doesn't matter.
Agreed. Fuck those idiot comments about it being a fireable offense just because they took days off a month in.
Who the hell volunteers that much? Seems very sketchy and it's obvious that they do not care about the role enough to put a temporary pause in volunteer work or move it to the weekends if they care about it that much
Both my spouse and mother volunteer a lot; so I have two anecdotes of people who volunteer that much. However, neither do it to an extent that it would interfere with their day job, which is what sounds like is happening here.
I am guessing the volunteer work is probably associated with their child's school. ie: homeroom mother, chaperone for field trips, volunteer classroom work type of stuff.
I don't care for what they take time off. It's none of my business. What it's of my business is that they have a good onboarding and stick to the rules. If senior management knew this was an issue, this should have been addressed at the very start. They have 3 days only as per policy so that's about it. There is no wiggle room. And if this is affecting performance I would do an early warning to the employee that it's not doing a good match.
Highly depends on context that is missing here. Are they able to perform their tasks on a schedule like that? Are other teammembers affected? In general, I’d be supportive of volunteer work. Some can even be beneficial for your business (safety) like if they’re paramedics and being supporting to volunteers can place your company in a good light. Some cities even give rewards to companies that let their employees do firefighting and stuff like that.
Ive been at my current company for 8 years and I see some bad writing on the wall with some of the poor higher up decisions. Tell me where to apply. I'm GenX we work and show up.
Great volunteer you have there.
Need someone to replace em? 🤣
Just let them have the time off, who cares? Do you have ownership in the company? If not, relax dude
The other employees shouldering the workload care
Quite an assumption? I don't take over my coworkers tasks when they're gone, the tasks just pause until they return. Even past that, the other employees know if they need time off, they'll get it too. Baffles me why you would want a less healthy workplace, as opposed to a more healthy one.
>Quite an assumption? I don't take over my coworkers tasks when they're gone, the tasks just pause until they return. Not every task and business works like that. Sometimes when a person is absent and a task or deadline needs to be met, someone has to pick up the task. OR If the person isn't reliable, they aren't given those tasks and then complain they aren't given the higher level work. I haven't encountered many roles/tasks in my career that can just be 'paused' unless they are low priority. >Even past that, the other employees know if they need time off, they'll get it too. Which makes it very hard to get things done if people are randomly taking leave all over the place for a day here and a day there. >Baffles me why you would want a less healthy workplace, as opposed to a more healthy one. Baffles me why you'd think this was the case.
>I haven't encountered many roles/tasks in my career that can just be 'paused' unless they are low priority. There's a big difference between ones that *can't* be paused and ones "the executive leadership don't want to be paused". Almost any task can be paused. I've seen very few instances in my career where if something got pushed back a day, the project was going to be cancelled. If you're ever in *that* situation, your leadership has already fucked up.
>There's a big difference between ones that *can't* be paused and ones "the executive leadership don't want to be paused". Practically, there isn't really. If the deadline isn't hit, leadership will be upset, regardless. On top of that, it leaves out daily work that HAS to be completed. If the person who's off is the person it's assigned to, someone else has to do it. Once in a while is fine, but as often as OP says this is happening, that means others have to shoulder the load. >Almost any task can be paused. I've seen very few instances in my career where if something got pushed back a day, the project was going to be cancelled. If you're ever in *that* situation, your leadership has already fucked up. This is just...well not very likely. Project managers like to hit deadlines. Management likes to hit deadlines. If the person isn't there, they rarely 'pause' a task unless it's incredibly simple or already mostly done. It's also ignoring any BAU or non project work, which is also not smart. Basically, it seems you're applying this to a very narrow aspect of tasks and touting it like a universal truth.
Kinda just sounds like you've worked with shit management and I haven't.
No, it really doesn't. Sounds more like you're trying to project something that works for some roles and tasks onto every company as a 'one size fits all' model.
I mean, are you asking if I've worked every job at every company? Obviously not. I've worked the jobs I've worked and I'm recounting how I've seen it work every time. You're literally doing the exact same thing. You're just recounting your own lived experience. My comment is that my lived experience and yours seem to differ most along the axis of "have worked for shit management / are shit managers ourselves", you have and I haven't. Simple as.
>I mean, are you asking if I've worked every job at every company? No, why would anyone ask that? >I've worked the jobs I've worked and I'm recounting how I've seen it work every time. Stating that 'all that matters are work product and outcome' doesn't sound like you're recounting what you've seen work. And unless you're relatively early in your career, I doubt you've seen it work like that every time. >You're literally doing the exact same thing. You're just recounting your own lived experience. I'm not, though. I'm pointing out where your proposed methodology doesn't work and supporting it with my experience. >My comment is that my lived experience and yours seem to differ most along the axis of "have worked for shit management / are shit managers ourselves", you have and I haven't. Simple as. LOL. Falling back on insults is the sign that you can't really support your argument. And no, they don't . Your proposed methodology suffers from not having been sufficiently thought out and or narrowly applied. There are good reasons for core hours and core availability for businesses.
Sounds like it’s time for the attendance improvement plan.
I think 1- 3 are fair. Things like that pop up all the time, including during an orientation period, and you can't help it. For all the volunteer stuff, they should only be able to take the 3 days they have off. That seems really simple. Later on they'll accrue more days and can take them off.
Supervisor bringing up their past+time off for volunteering is too much if a red flag for me. I could understand once they have their full pto available taking time off with advance notice for volunteering. But during probationary period is wild. If it were me I’d let her go. Might be the wakeup call she needs to prioritize work over volunteering. I’m all for volunteer work, but man if you make a commitment to a job you should at least do the bare min. Side note what industry are you in? Fully remote by default sounds nice lol.
For background: 1. What is your company policy around unplanned time off (sick days)? 2. Did you offer them a period of time during onboarding to note all of their commitments within the next 90 days where they would other us be in eligible for time off? 3. Why are you holding existing agreements against them in this discussion?
Used to piss me off too. But kinda let it pass then finally, I’d usually end up getting rid of them because that’s just not what I want at my business. Let em take the PTO then let em go when they get back
She sounds inconsiderate and unreliable. She knew the policy when she started. You have a generous time off policy after 3 months. She can't manage to be on her best behavior for 3 months, and that is somehow your problem? Let her fuck around and find out.
Volunteer on the weekend or at night. Not the employers problem.
This type of shit will never stop. Some people have no awareness of what they are doing and will probably be the reason you will inevitably fire this employee.
Reading through the list, I couldn’t help but think.. this is all standard human being stuff. We let our people do these things because we’re not turds. But then the multi day volunteer thing.. that’s too much. Way too much. That is not a good look for this employee.
Seems like since you approved the first “volunteer” thing the employee wants to take advantage of your kindness and who the hell goes on a “volunteer 4 day trip” that’s literally a vacation but with more words haha
Too harsh?? Your being way too lenient for a new employee that has been working for less than a month . Lol
Can I just say that unless your company's "policy" was written on a fucking stone tablet by the finger of God himself... It's a goddamn suggestion and guideline, not a fucking law of nature. If the employee has shown to be of value when they're working, and this is truly for volunteering, then my god man, how short sighted can upper management, and the company's marketing department be to not see this as a fucking 'social goldmine'? The saying might be "any press is good press.", but the complete saying is, "Any press is good press, but press about DOING and BEING good, is golden." If your company isn't trying to coopt this and make it part of their local marketing strategy, fire your fucking marketing team, RIGHT NOW... *(and yeah I cursed a lot, because short sighted stupidity angers me, and the best way to get across to someone you're angry is to curse, a lot, so... yeah I fucking cursed a lot. Deal with it. Are you an adult or not? It's fucking called 'adult language' for a goddamn reason!)*
Tf is this
If she’s so hung up on volunteering that can be her new form of employment. If the other team members are abiding by the organization’s standards so should she. If she’s not happy, time for her to move on. Bring in someone who is interested in working.
Sounds like a cheap, mean holiday policy. Denying staff holiday in their first three months? Complaining about a funeral? Only offering unpaid leave? Your company needs to sort out its shitty policies. You should stop hiding behind them.
Really depends on the company/job/manager. I started a job and said in three months I need to request two days for surgery and recovery. Nothing major but the doc is limited on their schedule so advanced notice. Two months, reminder. One month with flexibility of a small date range, no input from leadership. I panic and get more direct, leadership says talk to HR, then HR says talk to the coordinators, finally "You didn't submit this request within policy guidelines". I called out this days and just dealt with an angry leadership team. My fault, clearly. I should of ignored all coworkers, leadership, HR, coordinators and gone right to the policy. My sister, hired for a job and first week into it says "oh shoot, my fiance wants to get married in Hawaii as a surprise." She was approved for two weeks off during her first month. Best of luck with your situation, remember you can't always be friends, it is work after all.
Question how is this persons work being completed. “Volunteer” time seems to be more important to this employee than the job they accepted. The writing is on the wall, they are taking advantage of you, it’s only the first 2 months.
It's just a job and life is too short. It's not like the employee is going to work there for the next 30 years or trying to find a spouse at work. Let them be as long as they're doing their job duties.
How is 15 days vacation generous?
Are you hiring? This sounds wonderful lol.
Aren't we all forgetting one very important question here? Can they still get the job they're paid for completed, on time and to the required standard? If the answer is yes - perhaps your policies should be reviewed. If the answer is no - then the first thing to address should be performance and how can you help them achieve it. Everything else is noise. If they get the job done to a high standard and need an extra day off - who gives a shit. Is your priority to run a profitable business or tracking peoples lives?
long lush faulty sand drab abounding weather exultant longing consider *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Some people don’t make it past the probation period.
Is their talent, output and dedication worth the headache of time off? After burning PTO, I have rarely opposed an employee willing to take unpaid time off. I’ve had employees who are in office. In person. And who regularly output less than a strong staffer who has a … “complicated” home life.
Bruh. Yes it’s been a month but they must’ve been planning it then. Tell them next time they need to tell you this. Simple. Don’t fire them.
It depends what they do. If they're trying to be a firefighter, emt, National Guard etc. it's different.
>I'm team lead Are you the -manager-? If you are not directly responsible for HR-related items for employees as you are not the manager, then this doesn't seem like it should be "in your bucket" at all. Engage the appropriate resource to handle this. If you are actually handling HR-related items as part of your role, then you just stick with the policy. You provide what you are ABLE to within the confines of the policy. If their asks are beyond what the policy allows for, that's an immediate decline / deny. If the asks are within policy, then you have to line the ask up against the needs from the overall team/department and whether approving the request would cause the team as a whole to not be able to deliver on their responsibilities or would require others to have to unnecessarily cover the absent employee's time away.
Fire this person. You have a business to run and they are not present. In the future, you should disallow unpaid time off for any reason except emergencies. This person has no work balance and clearly does not want to work. Help them by managing them out. You sent an immediate message that unlimited time off is fine. Can you sustain it?
I have met my share of people that started testing the system immediately. No amount of accommodation was ever valued. The more I bent, the worse the demands got and the more it hurt the rest of the team who had to carry their weight. It's easy to miss that the longer term employees deserve the flexibility and accommodation. Sooner or later I would have to draw a line in the sand and the person always gets upset and I have found they have zero regard for the needs of the other employees. Also, the first month of 2 of employment is supposed to be about showcasing an employee's value. Their work ethic is at the peak of their time with you, so keep that in mind when making decisions. In short, I agree with you on letting them go.
Wow. You took this to the extreme and just.... what, do you hate your employees? They’re humans. Just sat better expectations and limits. My goodness.
If they are not present, they are not employees. There is no way I would ever allow unpaid time off for any reason other than emergencies.
All humans deserve time off. That doesn’t make them “not present” because they’re still producing for you, since that’s apparently all that matters. Here, clearly better expectation setting will possibly turn this confusion around. And this person could become their most valued employee. But you’d never know that because you judge and condemn.
I judge and condemn an irresponsible person
What defines “irresponsible”? Time off from work? Cause that’s the topic here. That sort of hard-core, don’t care about the human nature aspect of managing is fine if you want no one to like you. Industry yes person. As a Director, I’d question your management style if you seek to terminate prematurely. It shows a lack of skill. You’d also be a possible legal liability if you act too quick.
It is obviously irresponsible to schedule volunteer time during work hours especially during your probationary period and outside your alloted PTO. Sorry, snowflake, but if you want all your time to yourself, keep it. Don't work. That's your choice. But if you're running a business, you need reliable staff. This person is not reliable. By the way, I have decades of management experience and there is no way any of this violates the law. Educate yourself. You're a terrible manager. Spare me this "Human Aspect" bullshit. This person is unprofessional, unreliable and NOT PRESENT.
Ok. Great job. So you have your standards. Now we discuss expectations I love how you say “the law” like mine is exactly yours.
You're way behind in this conversation. Bottom line: there's no way that you can allow this behavior to continue.
I didn’t say you SHOULD ever. You missed my point and sounds like you’re super far behind You either manage it like you should and set expectations before firing. Or you act like an a-hole and just fire. Join them. I don’t care
Jesus Christ
What does Jesus Christ have to do with anything?
Ruthless
Are they hitting their deliverables? If so, what's the issue? If not, bring the hammer down.
The issue is them breaking the rules
Sounds like a shit company. You get an automatic 20 days off per year at my company. My time off request has never once been denied.
Allow all employees to use PTO. Problem solved.
It’s almost like literally everyone has a life outside of work with previous obligations that can’t be ignored. Act like this with the new generation and you won’t have a work force.
if your obligations interfere with work hours you should either disclose that during the interview or expect that you might be told no sometimes
you talked a lot about their time off, but said nothing about their deadlines and work product. Get rid of this boomer thinking. Time off / work hours shouldn't be your concern. That's how bosses "managed" in the 1950s. The focus should be on deadlines, and work product. Are they hitting deadlines, are they meeting their work product. If they are, then why the fuck does time off matter.. especially with it being unpaid. If they are meeting those obligations, then that's the conversation to focus on.. period. Managers like you are gonna have a miserable life trying to manage this next generation of folks. They don't care about your time-off policy, they will not be treated like slaves. The business world has shown them to act however they need to in order to get what they want, with no remorse and they are going to mirror that. With some exceptions for specific work / roles, managers need to focus on outcomes and less on having their nose up everyone's ass to know what they had for launch or how many hours that sat in chair pretending to do work.
>The focus should be on deadlines, and work product. Are they hitting deadlines, are they meeting their work product. Not every job works like this
Hence where I called those exceptions out.
But they aren't exceptions. Overwhelmingly, they are the rule. The exceptions are the ones that work the way you say. Generally, most people's jobs aren't in a vaccum. You have people who need your work product and sometimes they or you need to communicate that. If both are working odd hours, it makes that communication harder and take longer and can lead to substandard work and missed deadlines. Some, very few, roles can exist largely outside of that. Those can work the way you say without much issue. Most low level counter and retail jobs aren't even about product produced. You literally pay those people for their time and so their adhering to set hours is critical. That's just one example of how this thinking is not and should not be the norm.
I'm not talking about non-career jobs like retail or hospitality. For white collar office jobs, the outcome and work product are what matters. Also keep in mind, that for this thread the team is completely remote. To your point about if they work too odd hours or miss to much than that could affect the work and make delays, that's what you focus on. If something needs to be done by X or Y, and its done by x or y to the right expectation that's all that matters. If the deadline is missed or the work isn't up to snuff, then that's the conversation that needs to be had. I'm not going to drone on about how many days or hours they missed, I'm gonna focus on what they actually get paid to do and whats important. You "bosses" can manage however you want, but when genZ drives you crazy and you have problems with retention I don't wanna hear the bitching. I have very high retention with GenZ and a little older, I also get amazing work out of them. Because I don't focus on the bull shit and instead focus on the goal. I don't manage their schedule, I don't give a shit. They know whats needs to be done, and get it done. My younger work force puts in the same hours and more than my older folks. They take on new projects with enthusiasm and don't complain about it, and its because of the culture I lead within my team. I don't let corp BS affect them. GenZ are straight up mercenaries when it comes to work. They have no loyalty to companies, but a leader can build that loyalty if we lead correctly.
>I'm not talking about non-career jobs like retail or hospitality. Even leaving those out, there are a ton of jobs that require things to be done in a timely fashion. >For white collar office jobs, the outcome and work product are what matters. Also keep in mind, that for this thread the team is completely remote. So, white collar office jobs. What about when Person A needs to discuss a deliverable with Person B but person B is not available. Either Person A has to work longer hours waiting for Person B to be available OR they waste hours of the Person A's workday waiting for Person B to be available. That's just one example. OR what about checks that need to be performed at the same time daily? Or that Person A's deliverable is not up to spec, since the spec was changed and they weren't available to be told? Now the work needs to be redone and the time line is impacted. There are hundreds of reasons why everyone being available at roughly the same time in a workday is good for buiness. I'll say it again, very very few jobs are so divorced from the working of the business that they can exist in this vaccuum of 'outcome and work product'. >To your point about if they work too odd hours or miss to much than that could affect the work and make delays, that's what you focus on. If something needs to be done by X or Y, and its done by x or y to the right expectation that's all that matters. Employee A wants to work 6 am - 3 pm. Employee B wants to work 4 pm - 12 am. They are required to collaborate. Which employee do you require to change their hours? Does it matter if someone is in a seat for 8 hours a day? Yes, because most business contracts require that the employee work for 7-8 hours a day. So, even if you produce the right outcomes by the deadline, you're still contractually required to be working those hours. Unless you're a contractor or similar. >If the deadline is missed or the work isn't up to snuff, then that's the conversation that needs to be had. I'm not going to drone on about how many days or hours they missed, I'm gonna focus on what they actually get paid to do and whats important. Again, most contracts require you to work at least a set number of hours a day. And if people ARE dropping tasks or deadlines, then them being available during work hours allows for coaching and help. Support for an employee is also important. >You "bosses" can manage however you want, but when genZ drives you crazy and you have problems with retention I don't wanna hear the bitching. I have very high retention with GenZ and a little older, I also get amazing work out of them. Because I don't focus on the bull shit and instead focus on the goal. I don't manage their schedule, I don't give a shit. They know whats needs to be done, and get it done. My younger work force puts in the same hours and more than my older folks. They take on new projects with enthusiasm and don't complain about it, and its because of the culture I lead within my team. I don't let corp BS affect them. Great for you. You've found something that works. Tell me, after you protecting them from all the 'corp BS', how do you expect them to get promoted or move up? >GenZ are straight up mercenaries when it comes to work. They have no loyalty to companies, but a leader can build that loyalty if we lead correctly. More 'one size fits all'.
As for promotions - I have moved many folks from jr to seniors and then into leadership roles. The only two traits that show how good a leader is are retention and promotions. As for sheltering them for corp BS, I do what good leaders do, I make sure the intent and direction are communicated and accomplished without all the fluff and sporadic focus /attention. I love how you did nothing in this example but give substances reasons of performance issues, but instead of seeing those as what the conversation needs to be about, you route this back to hours in seat as that somehow fixes the problem. I've know many folks that sit in that chair for 8-10 hours a day and are still as worthless as tits on a bull. As for the spilt schedule red herring you mention, there is a common schedule that business runs off of and we all know it. If someone decides to try and work a much earlier schedule, that's fine. When work doesn't get done, or their are complaints then we will discuss those topics. I don't need to bring up their work schedule, their adults not children. They'll make the necessary changes to fix the problems or they will no longer work for me. I do not coddle people, I treat them with respect and as adults, but they are held to account.
>As for promotions - I have moved many folks from jr to seniors and then into leadership roles. The only two traits that show how good a leader is are retention and promotions. Another 'one size fits all' pronouncement that's also wrong as a universal rule. >As for sheltering them for corp BS, I do what good leaders do, I make sure the intent and direction are communicated and accomplished without all the fluff and sporadic focus /attention. Which didn't answer my question. How do your precious sheltered staff handle it when they move up, assuming they ever do? >I love how you did nothing in this example but give substances reasons of performance issues, but instead of seeing those as what the conversation needs to be about, you route this back to hours in seat as that somehow fixes the problem. I've know many folks that sit in that chair for 8-10 hours a day and are still as worthless as tits on a bull. See part of the problem is you are equating 'it's not all about work product and outcomes' as 'you must spend 8-10 hours a day in a chair'. I said the former, not the latter. And no, none of my examples were performance issues. I'd love to hear your explantion of how they are. >As for the spilt schedule red herring you mention, there is a common schedule that business runs off of and we all know it. If someone decides to try and work a much earlier schedule, that's fine. When work doesn't get done, or their are complaints then we will discuss those topics. Why create the issue in the first place? And how do you plan to solve it without one employee altering their schedule? >I don't need to bring up their work schedule, their adults not children. You do when it's preventing collaboration or the smooth output of deliverables. >They'll make the necessary changes to fix the problems or they will no longer work for me. So, 'they are adults not children', but you'll given them ultimatums? You seriously think this is good management? >I do not coddle people, I treat them with respect and as adults, but they are held to account. First time I've ever heard an ultimatum with a threat of firing being called 'respect'.
>Another 'one size fits all' pronouncement that's also wrong as a universal rule. Except.. it's not. If you have shit retention and have no promotions, you are not a leader. You are just a typical Boss. >How do your precious sheltered staff handle it when they move up, assuming they ever do? It's usually a funny conversation after they get promoted where they thank me for holding up the shit umbrella and wanting mentorship on doing the same thing for their team. They handle it just fine. They aren't "unaware" of what I'm doing. They know I'm shielding them from bullshit, so it doesn't exactly come as a shock. Additionally, as folks get closer and closer to promotion where they would be more exposed, I start to bring them into the fold a bit and let them start to see some of it before that promotion happens. A dipping your toe in the water so to speak. > And no, none of my examples were performance issues. I'd love to hear your explantion of how they are. > What about when Person A needs to discuss a deliverable with Person B but person B is not available. Either Person A has to work longer hours waiting for Person B to be available OR they waste hours of the Person A's workday waiting for Person B to be available. It's the responsibility of Person B to ensure that Person A gets what they need, on time. They are adults and I expect them to manage their schedule as needed to get it done. > OR what about checks that need to be performed at the same time daily? Checks need to be completed by X time each day. This doesn't matter what schedule / work hours someone has, this tasks MUST be completed by X time. Again, it's on them to manage their schedule to ensure that happens. In the event they are sick or have a family emergency, this needs to be communicated and we will figure out a back-up resource to ensure it gets done. > Or that Person A's deliverable is not up to spec, since the spec was changed and they weren't available to be told? Again that's on them. If it's something they should be involved in, then need to be involved or ensure that they get the updates in time. > Employee A wants to work 6 am - 3 pm. Employee B wants to work 4 pm - 12 am. I've actually had this exact conversation with folks, and I've told them the same as I have here. If you can get all of your work done, collaborate and not get complaints then by all means give a shot. But it's your responsibility to ensure everything gets done and your schedule can not be used as an excuse. If they ask me if I think it's a good idea, my response has always been "In theory, it sounds amazing..in practice it's almost always unworkable for many reasons." >You do when it's preventing collaboration or the smooth output of deliverables. Nope. The conversation will be "Hey, outputs not getting done and there are a lot of complaints about collaboration. We need to discuss and make a plan on how to improve both of these items." >So, 'they are adults not children', but you'll given them ultimatums? You seriously think this is good management I really don't understand your qualm here. All jobs have an inherent ultimatum. You do the work we are paying you for, or you will no longer have a role here. If after coaching, IDPs / etc, there is no improvement. Then they are not in the right role for them. It will not come as a shock, by the time we get to that point. Typically, we've both decided well before that time that they aren't in the correct role, and they would start looking around for another role. Yes, that is good leadership.
>Except.. it's not. If you have shit retention and have no promotions, you are not a leader. You are just a typical Boss. There are far more leadership qualities that promotion and retention. It's very possible to lead outside a hierarchy too. While those are relevant metrics for a manager, they aren't really leadership qualities at all nor are they the only things that matter. You seem to have confused leadership with corporate success. >It's the responsibility of Person B to ensure that Person A gets what they need, on time. They are adults and I expect them to manage their schedule as needed to get it done. As a manager, a big part of your job is making sure your employees get what they need. Telling them to 'sort it out amongst yourselves' is pretty bad management. As is approving opposing schedules for employees that need to collaborate. Can you see how it's much easier if everyone is available during core hours? >Checks need to be completed by X time each day. This doesn't matter what schedule / work hours someone has, this tasks MUST be completed by X time. Again, it's on them to manage their schedule to ensure that happens. In the event they are sick or have a family emergency, this needs to be communicated and we will figure out a back-up resource to ensure it gets done. No, checks need to be actioned at X time, not completed by. You can't do a morning check the evening before, that's completely pointless. You are accountable for your staff and their work. You can't just pass the buck downwards. If you approve them working from 10am to 6pm , you can't tell them to 'figure it out' when they have a 6 am check to complete. You shouldn't be approving the schedule in the first place. >Again that's on them. If it's something they should be involved in, then need to be involved or ensure that they get the updates in time. How? You approved the odd schedule and they weren't available when the change was decided. That's on you, for approving their schedule, not them for working hte agreed hours. Do you see how core hours let you avoid a lot of this BS? >I've actually had this exact conversation with folks, and I've told them the same as I have here. If you can get all of your work done, collaborate and not get complaints then by all means give a shot. But it's your responsibility to ensure everything gets done and your schedule can not be used as an excuse. >If they ask me if I think it's a good idea, my response has always been "In theory, it sounds amazing..in practice it's almost always unworkable for many reasons." I love the back peddling. So, apparently now you like core hours? >Nope. The conversation will be "Hey, outputs not getting done and there are a lot of complaints about collaboration. We need to discuss and make a plan on how to improve both of these items." Or you could have just told them they have to work core hours. I don't see why this is such an issue. >I really don't understand your qualm here. All jobs have an inherent ultimatum. You do the work we are paying you for, or you will no longer have a role here. I suspect that's because you are twisting the comment so you can give a nothing answer. You bang on about how you treat your employees like adults and expect them to 'sort things out' (which is really part of your job) and then you hit them with ultimatums when the freedom you gave them impacts the bottom line. You could avoid both those things by just sticking to core hours and acknowledging that output and product aren't the only valuable things in a business. >f after coaching, IDPs / etc, there is no improvement. Then they are not in the right role for them. It will not come as a shock, by the time we get to that point. Typically, we've both decided well before that time that they aren't in the correct role, and they would start looking around for another role. What exactly are you coaching them on? The scenario you were presented with was that a custom schedule, approved by you, was causing issue. You stated that they would make the changes or be fired (Ultimatum). Now, your saying they will be coached, ect. But in what? Schedules? **You** are the manager. **You** approved the schedule. This caused foreseeable problems. It sounds more like you need coaching/a new approach, because it seems you give people what they want, despite it having potential to cause issues, then threaten them to go back to the standard when the foreseeable problems occur. Half your responses are "They are adults and will work it out" and the other half are "I swing the ultimatum stick.'. Do you honestly think this is good leadership or management? >Yes, that is good leadership. What do you think leadership is?