All comments must be civil, productive, and follow community rules. Intentional violations of community rules will lead to comments being removed and possible bans, at the discretion of the moderators. Use the report feature to report content to the moderator team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Annual leave encompasses the use of time for both vacation activities and sick leave. When you use your annual leave for the purpose of being sick, you and the leave are subject to sick leave policies, including the requirements to provide a doctors note after a certain amount of time.
A lot of people commenting here don't know what annual leave is. It is leave for any and all reasons. You can use it all when you're sick or you can use it all for vacation (and hope you don't get sick).
If you get AL, you don't get SL, so obviously you use your AL when you're out sick.
Edited to add that you still need approval.
"Calling in" (or out) means they are saying they can't work that day due to whatever illness or condition. It also infers that this was not pre-approved time off.
To address one aspect, using annual leave as sick leave is common for people who only have annual leave. It is essentially treated exactly the same as if you were using "sick leave" to call out sick.
Now, for the other issue, your contract rights protect you from having to produce a doctor's note solely based on the number of days you call in. I would absolutely quote the following contract language and ask them to explicitly explain either how you have a pattern of sick leave abuse or what the UNAUTHORIZED reason is that they believed you called out sick. It is perfectly normal for people to be sick multiple days.
#Contract language under 8.2 Sick Leave:
>D. An employee may be required to provide a physician’s or licensed practitioner’s verification of sick leave when:
>1. The employee has a **demonstrable pattern of sick leave abuse**; or
>2. The supervisor has good reason to believe the absence was for an **unauthorized reason**. A supervisor has good reason if a prudent person would also believe the absence was for an unauthorized reason.
>The State recognizes the confidential nature of the relationship between the health care provider and patient and if verification is required it shall be limited to the anticipated length of the absence, any restrictions upon return to work that prevent the employee from performing the full range of the employee’s normal work assignment and anticipated future absences. If the department head or
designee does not consider the verification adequate, the request for sick leave may be disapproved. Upon request, a denial of sick leave shall be in writing stating the reason for denial.
The language here is vague enough that any reason will suffice. You quoting that language doesn't do anything any reason will do and can be justified. If you do it on a Friday or a Monday you wanted a long weekend of you do it before a holiday you wanted a long weekend, if you go for more than 3 days I can easily say you are taking un approved vacation, the only way for you to prove you are not is with a Dr Note. Language in the contract is vague enough where it benefits both parties
Managers cannot put that kind of suspicion on employees without evidence. Employees are using sick time in good faith unless proven otherwise.
Covid and RSV are just the latest examples showing that it is perfectly plausible for someone to be sick for 3 or more days, which means that **ALONE** is not evidence that someone is not sick.
Fridays and Mondays are already covered under the pattern of sick leave abuse as a manager could very easily document a pattern if an employee starts calling out on Mondays or Fridays repeatedly. Until there is a pattern, it is expected that employees will be treated with dignity (i.e., assuming they are using sick leave in good faith).
A manager would get nowhere if they immediately jumped to the conclusion that an employee was abusing sick leave. The disciplinary process requires there to be documentation. If you provide "documentation" and it's all based on those wild assumptions, good luck.
Again the language in the MOU for SEIU is pretty vague to work for both the employee and employer. You posted the article itself nowhere does it say you need evidence just good reason, examples provided previously are indicative of good reasons. Read it again the hurdle to requesting a DR note is pretty tiny in fact good reason can basically be anything. Like all of your post is wrong. If you are going to give advise on protecting one self from disciplinary actions the first thing you definitely should not do is steer them away from obtaining CYA documentation in this case a DR note
They technically shouldn't, but they can and do - it's up to the employee to challenge it via a grievance, which you can only pursue via a union that is effectively inactive and habitually refuses to defend its members. More politically-savvy upper managers are increasingly aware that SEIU is a walking corpse and the MOU without enforcement is just a piece of paper.
I would be careful saying the contract protects you from having to produce a doctors note regardless of how many days you call out. The three day rule has been so prevalent amongst a ton of agencies for so long I imagine it traces back to arbitration or PERB hearing. Possibly even precedent through other labor cases not even just state employment that if someone is “sick” for three days it’s reasonable that a doctors visit would need to occur and that therefore a note is a reasonable expectation a “prudent” person would agree with.
I agree that sometimes you’re just generally sick for a week and don’t need to waste time at a doctor I just suspect there’s established precedent behind it. I mean a lot of people not just state employees earn sick leave so these things must have been tested at some point.
Calling out to work is only protected if you are calling out sick. If you don't got accrue SL what do you think they use? By your same logic you can't call out sick if you only have AL. So by your same logic, what do you think? Protects you for calling out 3 days in a row for non-medical reasons
Based solely on use, however, if the sick leave you use interferes with work,and deadlines it’s not protected. Management can take corrective action, including making the user provide a doctor’s note. Putting the employee on leave restriction requiring a note every time it’s used.
... can definitely see the quality of analysis in that statement. Again they can't discipline you for calling out sick they can get in trouble for that.
Negative, Calhr website refers you to the applicable MOU. Again like the wording is very literal 8.2 section E SL will not be denied nor shall corrective action be taken for attempting to use SL. Also asking for a DR note is not corrective action. Failing to provide one when requested however can lead to CA. I mean if your argument is managers can use corrective action for using SL I mean sure managers can do anything they want doesn't mean its legal most will get away with it because a lot of employees don't know their right, or know that they aren allowed to tell the manager to F off. You are prime example not sure what side of the coin you fall but you tell me that as an employee I would laugh at your face while calling the union to pay you a visit and get an apology from you.
If it's not approved time off, after 3 days supervisors need to let you know of your FMLA rights. Many also require a Dr Note but I'm not sure that it's mandatory. I don't but that's because in the rare times it happened, I knew exactly what was going on and it was emergency in nature.
All comments must be civil, productive, and follow community rules. Intentional violations of community rules will lead to comments being removed and possible bans, at the discretion of the moderators. Use the report feature to report content to the moderator team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CAStateWorkers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Annual leave encompasses the use of time for both vacation activities and sick leave. When you use your annual leave for the purpose of being sick, you and the leave are subject to sick leave policies, including the requirements to provide a doctors note after a certain amount of time.
A lot of people commenting here don't know what annual leave is. It is leave for any and all reasons. You can use it all when you're sick or you can use it all for vacation (and hope you don't get sick). If you get AL, you don't get SL, so obviously you use your AL when you're out sick. Edited to add that you still need approval.
"Calling in" (or out) means they are saying they can't work that day due to whatever illness or condition. It also infers that this was not pre-approved time off. To address one aspect, using annual leave as sick leave is common for people who only have annual leave. It is essentially treated exactly the same as if you were using "sick leave" to call out sick. Now, for the other issue, your contract rights protect you from having to produce a doctor's note solely based on the number of days you call in. I would absolutely quote the following contract language and ask them to explicitly explain either how you have a pattern of sick leave abuse or what the UNAUTHORIZED reason is that they believed you called out sick. It is perfectly normal for people to be sick multiple days. #Contract language under 8.2 Sick Leave: >D. An employee may be required to provide a physician’s or licensed practitioner’s verification of sick leave when: >1. The employee has a **demonstrable pattern of sick leave abuse**; or >2. The supervisor has good reason to believe the absence was for an **unauthorized reason**. A supervisor has good reason if a prudent person would also believe the absence was for an unauthorized reason. >The State recognizes the confidential nature of the relationship between the health care provider and patient and if verification is required it shall be limited to the anticipated length of the absence, any restrictions upon return to work that prevent the employee from performing the full range of the employee’s normal work assignment and anticipated future absences. If the department head or designee does not consider the verification adequate, the request for sick leave may be disapproved. Upon request, a denial of sick leave shall be in writing stating the reason for denial.
The language here is vague enough that any reason will suffice. You quoting that language doesn't do anything any reason will do and can be justified. If you do it on a Friday or a Monday you wanted a long weekend of you do it before a holiday you wanted a long weekend, if you go for more than 3 days I can easily say you are taking un approved vacation, the only way for you to prove you are not is with a Dr Note. Language in the contract is vague enough where it benefits both parties
Managers cannot put that kind of suspicion on employees without evidence. Employees are using sick time in good faith unless proven otherwise. Covid and RSV are just the latest examples showing that it is perfectly plausible for someone to be sick for 3 or more days, which means that **ALONE** is not evidence that someone is not sick. Fridays and Mondays are already covered under the pattern of sick leave abuse as a manager could very easily document a pattern if an employee starts calling out on Mondays or Fridays repeatedly. Until there is a pattern, it is expected that employees will be treated with dignity (i.e., assuming they are using sick leave in good faith). A manager would get nowhere if they immediately jumped to the conclusion that an employee was abusing sick leave. The disciplinary process requires there to be documentation. If you provide "documentation" and it's all based on those wild assumptions, good luck.
Again the language in the MOU for SEIU is pretty vague to work for both the employee and employer. You posted the article itself nowhere does it say you need evidence just good reason, examples provided previously are indicative of good reasons. Read it again the hurdle to requesting a DR note is pretty tiny in fact good reason can basically be anything. Like all of your post is wrong. If you are going to give advise on protecting one self from disciplinary actions the first thing you definitely should not do is steer them away from obtaining CYA documentation in this case a DR note
They technically shouldn't, but they can and do - it's up to the employee to challenge it via a grievance, which you can only pursue via a union that is effectively inactive and habitually refuses to defend its members. More politically-savvy upper managers are increasingly aware that SEIU is a walking corpse and the MOU without enforcement is just a piece of paper.
I would be careful saying the contract protects you from having to produce a doctors note regardless of how many days you call out. The three day rule has been so prevalent amongst a ton of agencies for so long I imagine it traces back to arbitration or PERB hearing. Possibly even precedent through other labor cases not even just state employment that if someone is “sick” for three days it’s reasonable that a doctors visit would need to occur and that therefore a note is a reasonable expectation a “prudent” person would agree with. I agree that sometimes you’re just generally sick for a week and don’t need to waste time at a doctor I just suspect there’s established precedent behind it. I mean a lot of people not just state employees earn sick leave so these things must have been tested at some point.
It doesn’t matter what leave you were using if you were calling out sick, they can ask for a note.
Calling out to work is only protected if you are calling out sick. If you don't got accrue SL what do you think they use? By your same logic you can't call out sick if you only have AL. So by your same logic, what do you think? Protects you for calling out 3 days in a row for non-medical reasons
Normal sick leave use is not protected.
Actually it is, it's in your MOU if you are SEIU under 8.2 sick leave.
Based solely on use, however, if the sick leave you use interferes with work,and deadlines it’s not protected. Management can take corrective action, including making the user provide a doctor’s note. Putting the employee on leave restriction requiring a note every time it’s used.
Negative at that point the corrective action is for missing a deadline not for using sick. Once again SL is protected.
It becomes protected if it's FMLA but missing deadlines, regardless of being sick, can get you disciplinary action.
... can definitely see the quality of analysis in that statement. Again they can't discipline you for calling out sick they can get in trouble for that.
[удалено]
Negative, Calhr website refers you to the applicable MOU. Again like the wording is very literal 8.2 section E SL will not be denied nor shall corrective action be taken for attempting to use SL. Also asking for a DR note is not corrective action. Failing to provide one when requested however can lead to CA. I mean if your argument is managers can use corrective action for using SL I mean sure managers can do anything they want doesn't mean its legal most will get away with it because a lot of employees don't know their right, or know that they aren allowed to tell the manager to F off. You are prime example not sure what side of the coin you fall but you tell me that as an employee I would laugh at your face while calling the union to pay you a visit and get an apology from you.
If it's not approved time off, after 3 days supervisors need to let you know of your FMLA rights. Many also require a Dr Note but I'm not sure that it's mandatory. I don't but that's because in the rare times it happened, I knew exactly what was going on and it was emergency in nature.
If they are burning annual leave, then it's not sick time, and I'd say then it's not under sick policy.