By: ss_observing on 10/29/09
If an employee is entitled to the time off due to having earned it, it's in a written contract, it's company policy, etc. They should NEVER have to explain, in detail, why they need the time off. It is not up to an "individual" to determine if one person's request is more valid than another's. It has NOTHING to do with compassion or if the REASON is vague. It's none of your (Wellen's) business. IF, and only if, it is then discovered that someone took advantage of the "system" then, and only then, should the time off be denied and necessary action taken. Stop treating your employee's like children and they'll stop acting like them.

The example I like to use is regarding vacation time-off. If you've earned it, and it's company policy to pay you when you use it, it shouldn't matter if you ask off for it for a week of deer hunting or a week of shopping. It's nobody's business WHY you want/need it off, it's whether you qualify for it.

The Board and Wellen are wrong if the Union contract says that FMLA leaves are paid, and if they've paid medical emergency leaves in the past, whether written, or not, it could be construed as descrimination to not continue to do so until they ammend the Union contract. And, no, I'm not pro-union. I'm just saying that there already are laws to address this issue, and company handbooks that should address this issue, and, in this case, a contract that should addres this issue. Not a schoold board and certainly not an individual.

Ok, stepping down from the soap-box now.....

By: secretsquirrel on 10/29/09
In concept I agree with you ss_observing. In practice, I would diagree.
If an employee does not wish to share sufficient details about a loved one's illness, they are not providing sufficient information upon which the approving authority can render a decision. Thus, a choice has been made by the aggrieved placing privacy over pay.
On the other hand, if they do not feel they can trust the that their confidentiality is going to be respected and supported, that is another issue: The person handling such sensitive information must be beyond question capable of handling that information in a confidential and professional manner.
It is not discrimination unless there is a history of arbitrary approval and that would have to be broken down into a lot of sub-categories: gender, affiliation, race, religion yadda yadda yadda...

The board needs to establish a criterion upon what level of information is REQUIRED for all parties and stick with it. Consistency in all we do eliminates the confusion and ambiguities associated with these things.

Stay ON your soap box ss-observing. You make excellent points and the discourse is productive, informative and logical rather than partisan. Goos post!

By: ss_observing on 10/29/09
Oh, yeah, and according to the FMLA laws - 2 words were sufficient to qualify this individual' request: illness, mother. It's all the information required (and this information was provided).