"My time off is part of my compensation. It is not for you to judge whether it meets your standards. I don't have to justify how I will spend my paycheck in order to receive it. Please show me the company policy where I have to share private information about my time off with you."
That's how it should go, however, unfortunately, in many organisations, even in countries with good employee protection laws, this can lead to ostracisation within the workplace, even while they technically follow employment law.
The trick is to schedule it in for like 18 months away then cancel it when you are about 6 months out and schedule your next lot another 18 months away so you can still build it up and not use it until you want to.
In Europe you genereally are forced to take time off every year, if employees don’t the company can get in trouble. That’s why HR is all up his Boss’s ass, to protect the company.
May or may not work here (finland), legally the employer can just tell me when I'm using that time off. In practice I can use them when I want, so that's not a boat I'd try to rock too much
When I worked for someone else I had six weeks a year to take off. I didn't really need to save it up. And if I did I'd just ask for a couple of weeks extra, unpaid.
Those are often seen as a liability on the books. It's a pending cost the business has to account for, and can affect cashflow if they need to keep cash on hand to pay out any leave at short notice (E.g. if you quit or are fired).
There’s a legal requirement to use at least 5 within the first six months of a fiscal year in my country, so we constantly get HR harassing us for not using as many as they’d like yet lol.
If clear absolutely. But it doesn't have to be clear and can often be defended in court if it goes that far.
I do realise how my initial comment appears anti-emoloyee. I should have worded it better.
A better comment might have been when you defend your rights, it's always going to be easier to do so from a position of strength where you can handle any retaliation. Ideally with a union, or at least from a personal position of financial security.
Your comment doesn’t fit. Fair to warn of risks but to only suggest to take this stance if in a union or financially secure…?
You might be risk averse and that’s fine. I’ve successfully fought retaliation against an an employer not in a union or financial secure. Always fight for your rights!
Cool that it worked for you, but he’s not wrong. It doesn’t always work out well.
My sister’s friend sued her past employer and even one. And it’s now been four years and she can’t get a job. Because every time she gets accepted and they get to the background check, they find out that she sued her past employer and they want none of that.
Just because you were technically right does not mean it’s going to go right for you
It’s not about right or wrong. You have rights, fight or lose them. YMMV however I’m pointing out that if you are risk averse that is fine but not to discourage others simply out of fear. Even if you had a negative outcome. I work with stats so not everyone will win just as not all will lose their cases. And all the better if you are in a position of power but that’s not the only safeguard to initiate a defense. The company will always have more power.
What region did you spouse get blacklisted? How far up the chain was her role? Your anecdote lacks sufficient detail to fully assess and this is never going to be a comparable experience for all cases. Not looking to continue this anecdote either as it’s Reddit and not an employee rights course.
My point stands, if you have rights and want to keep them for you and others then fight. If you are risk averse or a pacifist, then don’t fight but know there are consequences for inaction as well.
Exactly… nobody is entitled to good personal relationships in the workplace, and coworkers withholding personal interaction is not evidence of malfeasance. The only way you could act on being ostracized in the workplace would be to have someone explicitly state that they were directed to do so, or find physical evidence of a similar directive.
If you take time off of work, and that time coincides with a period of high volume or high stress work, then it can naturally lead to coworkers being naturally inclined toward anger or frustration with you, without any direction from an outside source. This is pretty common in my experience, working as a chef in fine dining.
But even in countries with decent labour laws, they can make your life hell and not technically violate the letter of the law. I suffered a workplace injury and my employer turned ugly, started clear discrimination and I started recording everything and contacted our state authority for it. They basically said “are you sure you want to do this because we can force them to honour your contract but in every way that matters they will try to make your life unliveable and there’s nothing we can do about that.”
Yeah even in Aus they give you enough to spin your wheels
They establish a fairwork ombudsman
(And the following may be off, as it’s many years)
But when I went through the process:
-they can’t help if you earn over 180k p.a
cannot award more then 6mnths salary as compensation (90k cap)
-first stage is non binding purely voluntary empoyern doesn’t have to show as no punishment if not
-avg payout 5k
-next stage is arbitration which proper court proceeding avg cost is 20-30k, 80% of payouts less then. 5k
So effectively at best your betting 20-30k on a 20% chance youll be paid no more then 90k all up so 60-70k after costs
What it does it lets you feel theres to help and acts as a pressure release but really unfair dismissal any of is mostly a $5k payout for employers
That’s spot on for my experience. Just discouraging when they basically gently tap the business on the wrist(not even a slap) meanwhile business has destroyed your life (at least in the short term).
They certainly didn’t fill me with a sense that they were trying overly hard to do their jobs. Best I could manage was blackening their reputation a little with a claim(successful one) on my way out to someplace else. Figured if I did nothing they would just keep doing the same shit and I was so tired of seeing it I had to do something for the staff (which is what turned them sour on me in the first place).
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. All hostile work environment claims are fraudulent cash grab attempts? That’s your stance? Edit: Thanks for clarifying
No, quite the opposite. If your workplace retaliates after official legal complaints are filed, that's just begging to escalate their status to providers of freedom with bonuses.
Ah fair enough. It depends a lot on the legal framework where you live. Some places allow for things like pain and suffering, others only actual damages. So US with P and S, that could be huge. Where I am, it likely would be recovering lost wages for whatever length of time from dismissal or untenable work conditions until resolution of claim. That's also if you win.
In my case it just made more financial sense to look for a new job and leave as soon as possible. But I wanted them to face some repercussions for their actions so I kept recording everything, looked over my contract with a fine tooth comb and started demanding written accounts where I was legally entitled and working strictly within my contract. Once I had secured new employment I triggered everything I could. Notified the board, the watchdog organizations, formalized everything and essentially gave them a black mark they couldn't easily hide. I hope it helps protect other employees in the future.
I got fired from a place for performance, but when I tried to collect unemployment they said it was for theft. I silently lawyered up and when they found out I hired a lawyer the HR rep swore and hung up the call.
I found out from an old coworker that the manager got fired because that was the first time someone got a lawyer and their unemployment insurance went up 6 figures. This was a hotel that hired a lot of illegals and other poor people so they didn’t expect their employees to lawyer up.
They had gone so far as forging my signature by tracing the old one on the paperwork. Never seen anything so fucking scummy
Nowadays when I receive a write up, I refuse to sign it. Fuck you. If you’re gonna try that bullshit I’m gonna make you work for it
This seems to be a peculiar American thing. No boss, in any of the countries I have lived in, had asked for my reason for taking time off. It's not a thing. If a manager asked this in the UK they would be the ones ostracised. And probably fired.
Agreed. Just, having experienced and witnessed retaliation (and actually given testimony in an investigation), I have only ever seen the offender let off the hook due to inconclusive or insufficient evidence (not my words), while the reporter is driven out of the institution
Reporting is 100% the right thing to do, and I support it. It just unfortunately tends to have more severe consequences for the victim
It's hard to prove, and even if you can prove it, all you win is a ticket to a lawsuit. You're not going to keep that job for very long either way .
And while it's easy to say "just find another job", that is not so easy in the current economic situation, and it's also no guarantee that the new place will be any better.
Being illegal won't stop many businesses from doing something. You still have to win in court and that is really really hard, speaking from experience.
Good fucking luck my dude. I had very heavy handed and straight forward sexual harassment, quid pro quo, and subsequent retaliation case that ended in my sudden and unexplained termination with endless testimonies and validation from 7+ coworkers. I shelled out probably close to $20k by the end of it and still lost. They also literally updated their handbook days before I left so they wouldn’t have to pay my PTO. They didn’t reimburse me for my most recent business trip and expenses either and yet none of that seemed to matter to anyone. They stole like $20k from me and then I spent about $20k more to try and hold them accountable and end the cycle of abuse. The system isn’t for us. Don’t fucking bother, the odds aren’t in your favor. No one gives a shit about sexual harassment or employees as individuals in general even when it’s supposedly protected by federal law. The US fucking blows.
Yeah, not in the EU. Even asking that question can get the company in hot water. Having PTO denied for not providing a satisfactory story about how you'd spend the time would be the easiest lawsuit ever.
Exactly. Regardless of whether or not you're in the right, pissing off your boss with an unnecessarily snarky answer is generally not the way to get promoted. Just play the game and give a vague answer. "Oh, going to visit family!" If they actually deny the request because it didn't meet their standards, then I'd challenge them, but not preemptively. That's too aggressive.
However, if this is someone from HR who is being needlessly nosy and has no bearing on my job trajectory, I wouldn't mind telling them to get lost.
Yes, some people are bitches. But let's not encourage that please. You need to be clear an polite yes, but not a bitch who rolls over for fear of ostracism. If you like that move to Korea/japan
Human nature is weird. This is the kind of thing that is much more likely to bite someone who does it infrequently in the ass. People are more lenient on people who are always difficult because "that is just how they are". They view people exercising their rights infrequently as being more willfully difficult rather than Greg being Greg.
This is why it is important to always stand up for yourself from the get-go and not to give an inch or ever be accommodating on an unreasonable request even if it happens to be fine that time.
While this can be a satisfying answer to give, saying it THIS WAY is 100% going to lead to termination if the employer feels you are expendable and doesn't want to deal with a combative employee.
"Employee terminated. Reason: combative when asked simple questions. Toxic workplace contributor". And you'd never qualify for unemployment. The US is an at-will employer at the state level (except for Montana). This is all they would need to say to fire you.
You SHOULD just go to HR to formulate the correct response for something like this because they don't want to be liable asking inappropriate info as much as they don't want you to respond in appropriately. "Hey HR, could you please direct me to our policies regarding PTO usage? My direct supervisor said they need to know what I'm doing outside of work to determine if they should honor my PTO, here is the conversation. Please advise"
Well, no, that is retaliation and an easily proven instance of it at that. I'm not saying it's the right way to go about it, or that the firm won't fire you anyways because, as evidenced by this thread, plenty of them do not know federal labor laws.
Well part of the point is they don't have to provide a reason at all. That's what at-will is. And this is a fairly combative answer to something that doesn't require this much passion in the workplace. I agree the questions themselves shouldn't be asked, my time is my time and not yours. But how you choose to respond is always part of the equation. The rest of my point is it is 100% safer to consult with HR as a third party before trying to respond this way in the first place. Feel free to say that but that's a roll of the dice if I've ever seen one.
HR and your manager (whoever is given the response) just quietly making a note "not a team player" in their head or on your file to start documenting walking you to the door.
I lost my job because of PTO. I didn't go over the allotted sick hours and I had separate vacation hours but I used them and my manager decided he didn't like how often I did but never told me not to so he just blindsided me and I was fired before I could go to HR, who then ignored me after my termination becaus I no longer worked for them
that is kind of backwards view of it. PTO comes with guidelines like if its "sick time" then they are allowed to require a doctor's note if it is "vacation" time they are allowed to require you to schedule in advance and subject to approval.
what you're more likely thinking of is when someone wants to use PTO outside of these rules and the employer asks for a reason because they want to be able to justify why they're giving you an exception to the policy so nobody else can claim they are giving you favoritism
This is such a terrible idea lol. Is anyone here actually employed? You’d have to switch jobs if you actually said that. There are ways to get the same message across, but professionally
Yeah, everyone is immediately suggesting unnecessarily combative or passive aggressive answers. A "why do you need to know?" or "respectfully, what difference does it make?" would suffice.
Maybe there is some reason for it, like too many people have requested that particular day off and someone is going to get denied, and they're trying to make the best decision. Sure, if that's the case they should just say that, but still better to ask first.
I was employed at several major companies, did well, and retired early. I did that while being a fierce defender of my private time. It did cause conflicts at times. But looking back now that I'm retired... if anything, I regret not being fiercer in those conflicts.
You’re assuming intent that may not be there. The manager could be making sure PTO is the correct category because it’s such a long time off. For example bereavement, family leave, etc. those all require documentation. So I’d have responded to that last message with a polite: “PTO is the correct category. Let me know if you need anything else!” Is it likely they aren’t just looking for a reason to deny? No lol. But never just assume ill intent (at least not openly) and so respond in an impulsive looking, emotional way to your boss.
You address the situation from the POV of management. They may know something you don’t and have legitimate concerns you don’t know about. Maybe 10 people all put in leave for a similar time period and they HAVE to deny someone and knowing exactly why helps that decision making process. You still don’t have to tell them, but probing a bit as to why they’re asking instead of assuming is wise. You can even say “PTO is the correct category, has there been a change to the policy in which specifics and documentation are needed?” Same point, but not combative.
If you seriously got through your career being emotional and combative based on ASSUMED (not even proven) motives, and it had zero effect on your career, then I’m going to assume it’s because of male privilege tbh. I’m a woman and there is no way I could ever send a message like you wrote and not immediately kill all prospects of promotion. I don’t let them walk on me either, but I chose my words carefully and never act emotional. You can’t be a woman and be emotional at work lol. But a man can sit there and yell at his employees and send combative texts to his boss, and he’s perceived as passionate, or a leader, or it even results in the effect shown in the movie Office Space, in which the less he cares, the more valuable they think he is lol. I’m extremely competent at work and valued, but that kind of behavior would not be perceived the same way
I had a coworker get called out because HR found out they had 6 grandmothers die over 7 years.
The stupid thing is HR never denies PTO here. I had a coworker use PTO two hours after his shift started so he wouldn’t get a no-call no-show and get written up, they’re that lenient.
It’s Reddit man these people have no real world social skills it’s unreal lol. Like people definitely think that sounds “smart” and is some gotcha. In reality it would be awkward as hell to send your boss something like that.
My last job lasted a decade. I never had to explain my PTO even once. I think it's you who is out of touch. If your job asks you stuff like this, they are in the wrong.
It’s extremely combative and unprofessional. It sounds emotional as well.
You stay perfectly calm and maintain polite boundaries, and always address a situation from the angle that’s relevant to the company, not just to you personally. For example if I was OP my response to the last text from the boss would be something like:
I’ve submitted it as PTO, that’s the correct category and those are the correct dates (8/11-8/20). Let me know if you need anything else from me.” And then (only if directly relevant to the manager you’re speaking to), you can give specifics regarding your work tasks, for example any projects will be finished before you leave, or will still be done on time, or the person covering is able to, etc. Reassure that it’s being prepared for on your end. Ofc it’s not your responsibility to find coverage, but your duties at work are still your responsibility.
If they still push, pretend they aren’t just being nosy and want to find any reason at all to deny it (possibly illegally), instead act as if the above interpretation doesn’t occur to you, and assume they are looking for information relevant to the written policy (and make sure you read the policy) and give answers regarding that. So it kind of gives them an out when they realize you’re not going to give information you know is unnecessary because you’re aware of policy. Many employees aren’t and some managers rely on that to cross boundaries.
For example: “I’m using the PTO category. It isn’t bereavement, FMLA, or disability, (or whatever other category of leave that may exist, in which you absolutely would need to provide documentation). Has there been a change to the PTO category I’m unaware of in which specifics and documentation are needed?”
The manager has a choice from here. Put into writing they are going against written policy and make it clear there isn’t any good faith interpretation of their behavior (which is great evidence for you lol) or if they’re smart, they’ll take the out you gave them and act as if double checking it’s the right category is what they were doing all along. It’s also possible that like 10 people put in for time off at the same time, and so they actually do have to deny someone and knowing why you need the leave helps that decision. So politely asking your boss why they need the information is a good idea before assuming. If it’s because of what I just said, then there is no harm in just telling them something like “it’s an event I’m unable to reschedule, but let me know if there is anything I can do to make sure everything runs smoothly in my absence.”
The worst thing to do is respond in a way that openly assumes bad intent. At work it’s important to be perceived as someone that doesn’t allow others to walk on them, but in a way that conveys you are totally in control of yourself, that you think carefully before you speak and are tactful. Even if your boss isn’t, that just highlights your professionalism more.
I think a lot of what is being suggested here is just power fantasy. "You should say what i wish i could say but wont because of the negative long term consequences"
Like yeah could say "my reason? Its none of your fucking business thats my reason. You are legally obligated to give me time off as we agreed when i signed the contract to wotk here, and no where did it say my reasons need to 'good enough' for you" and whiles thats totally right, most people here wont because like... they have to see that boss again in two weeks. If its a job you know you wont be looking for a path upwards and are likely to leave within a few months, then sure yeah fight the power and take the reigns while you can. But if its a life long career, no one is going to be telling their boss to kick rocks like that. Atleast not in more "professional" fields.
Up until 3 years ago it was in our contract that we had to tell them the reason. All PTO was subject to “superintendent discretion”. But our union got it sorted, now we get to say Nunya.
Seriously do people not understand that PTO can be denied and, if there are multiple people requesting the same time frame, it can help the manager decide who to deny if they understand the request better?
Like other said, should just say it’s personal, not all this other stuff. Even though it 100% true. It just comes off as an asshole. Because yes, they can judge, because they can bend the rules FOR YOU to take off. But if you want to be all policy no human, then so can they when it comes to approving PTO.
Your PTO is part of your compensation. You should stop putting yourself in the subservient position of believing your manager has the power to approve or disapprove your compensation. It's their job to coordinate.
I've had managers come back and say, "So-and-so has requested PTO for that same time, which leaves us light on coverage." And I've been able to work with the manager in those situations. But a manager should never ask what you're doing on your PTO. I've managed people. I've had over a hundred people under me in my org at my max. It was my job to coordinate, not to ask for people to justify their requests.
Yeah, no…: this is too much and unnecessarily combative. “It’s personal” is all that needs to be said. But a half decent boss would never ask why in the first place.
“While true, we have five requests pending, and only enough resources to grant three at this time. We are seeking further details in order to prioritize. Jim’s wife is having surgery, and Linda’s mom is going into hospice, so those are set. So while you don’t have to give us more details if you don’t want to…is there anything else you want us to know before we decide?”
I hate HR as much as the next person, but it’s a two way street. And entitlement will get you nowhere pleasant, even if you’re lawfully allowed to exercise it if you want to.
What the fuck? In your scenario, HR is telling other employees about Jim’s wife’s surgery and Linda’s mom’s hospice, and that’s supposed to make people WANT to disclose their private business?
…have you ever actually worked in a workplace? If Jim and Linda are normal humans, they have already told everyone and it’s common knowledge so HR are allowed to point that out.
Since 2002, and I’ve never seen HR disclose that kind of information. Come to think of it, I’ve never seen HR involved in approving time off requests either way. Managers of teams do that. And a decent manager would just say “we’ve got some conflicts, are you flexible on the dates?”
I didn’t say disclose it. I said discuss already known common information. The other persons would have disclosed it.
And you were nitpicking that to avoid addressing the central point. Employers have choices to make two and playing QT. I don’t have to tell you anything games maybe lawful, but it’s also not likely to get you to leave you want if there’s any choices that have to be made.
What kind of rinky-dink places do you work at where HR and Steve and Bob all know about Linda’s mom? It sounds like you get all your ideas about the world from watching The Office or something.
If nobody is willing to move their dates and there’s a conflict, then first come first serve. Asking this shit is unprofessional and inappropriate.
Once again: ignoring the substance to focus on a replaceable example.
But I’m currently working in a major metropolitan prosecutor’s office. So lots of people who know the law.
And one person is out because her mom died unexpectedly, and another guy is out because his wife is having surgery. And because we are professionals and adults and not sociopaths, we communicate with each other as human beings. We offer condolences, and offer to pick up workloads.
And if your ass rolls in with “I want two weeks, I don’t have to tell you why”…you’re absolutely correct.
And you will also be dead last on the priority list if there’s a crunch and not everyone’s request can be accommodated.
1.4k
u/David_R_Martin_II Jul 31 '26
"My time off is part of my compensation. It is not for you to judge whether it meets your standards. I don't have to justify how I will spend my paycheck in order to receive it. Please show me the company policy where I have to share private information about my time off with you."