etiquette of sick leave

[kenmoremmm]

i've been working seriously long hours lately. 12-16 hours/day for months on end. we get comp time that we can use to cover time off.

however, i'm at the point where i'm so exhausted that i plan to take at least a few days off to recover. is this sick time or comp time in your book? i think it will look weird to have my timesheet read 100+ hours this week, then suddenly 8 hours of sick time. they'll pay it. i'm their senior engineer. but, not sure i want to put kindling under any bridges.

[fuzzy math]

No one will ask you anything about whether sick time is legit during a pandemic. I'd say you're safe. Having worked that many hours its reasonable to think you would have gotten yourself ill. Your comfort level might be lower though - a week long sick break might indicate you are super sick, as opposed to a "mental health day" or two. I would not put sick time and comp time together though, that might raise eyebrows.

[lhamo]

Why would you not use the comp time, since you have plenty "banked"?  Personally I would try to get that off the books first, since if you or someone in your immediate family did get sick during this period I would want to have the sick time available to draw on.

Regardless, I would just send a message to whoever reviews your time sheets/your schedule saying something like "Hey, I have been working 80-100 hour weeks for x weeks and need a break.  I'll be taking comp time/sick leave on [dates].  I will be available by [phone or email, whatever you prefer] for true emergencies."

[kenmoremmm]

because, in my view, there's no real difference when you're sick whether you use sick or comp time. however, at the end of the year, comp time is paid out, whereas sick time isn't. i cannot roll forward sick time, so it's like lost wages. if i keep my comp time super high, then i get a bigger payout at the end of the year.

[DoubleDown]

I vote for the honorable choice: Use comp time, which is precisely for the situation described here. There are more important things and values in life (or afterlife, if you believe that) than cashing out 8 hours of comp time at the end of the year. Your employer has provided you with just compensation for your time (allowing you to reimburse yourself for your overtime), why take advantage of it?

[kenmoremmm]

I vote for the honorable choice: Use comp time, which is precisely for the situation described here. There are more important things and values in life (or afterlife, if you believe that) than cashing out 8 hours of comp time at the end of the year. Your employer has provided you with just compensation for your time (allowing you to reimburse yourself for your overtime), why take advantage of it?

i hear you. that's why i'm torn on this. my company (15 people) has been very good to me. i've busted ass for a long time. in the past year, i have some minor health conditions that have come from (my belief) severe lack of sleep as a result of work. that's the reason i feel this is more sick leave territory - i need to recover.

[mm1970]

because, in my view, there's no real difference when you're sick whether you use sick or comp time. however, at the end of the year, comp time is paid out, whereas sick time isn't. i cannot roll forward sick time, so it's like lost wages. if i keep my comp time super high, then i get a bigger payout at the end of the year.

Oh, see that's backwards from what I thought it would be, or what it was in one of my previous engineering jobs.  Sick time accrued but comp time went away.

Take sick time.

[erutio]

Dude, get over your (misplaced) guilt and use your sick time.  Especially with the above information that it doesn't carry over. It's for your mental health and that's as appropriate of a reason to use sick time as any other.
The poster above who mentioned doing the honorable thing is just trying to guilt you into not using your sick time like the rest of American work culture. That's kind of BS.

[PKFFW]

Dude, get over your (misplaced) guilt and use your sick time.  Especially with the above information that it doesn't carry over. It's for your mental health and that's as appropriate of a reason to use sick time as any other.
The poster above who mentioned doing the honorable thing is just trying to guilt you into not using your sick time like the rest of American work culture. That's kind of BS.

I'm going to take the opposite view.

Personally I think if the OP is questioning whether the use of sick leave is appropriate then they already know it isn't and are trying to find a way to rationalise their desire to use it instead of comp time.

[kenmoremmm]

Dude, get over your (misplaced) guilt and use your sick time.  Especially with the above information that it doesn't carry over. It's for your mental health and that's as appropriate of a reason to use sick time as any other.
The poster above who mentioned doing the honorable thing is just trying to guilt you into not using your sick time like the rest of American work culture. That's kind of BS.

I'm going to take the opposite view.

Personally I think if the OP is questioning whether the use of sick leave is appropriate then they already know it isn't and are trying to find a way to rationalise their desire to use it instead of comp time.

quite possibly. otherwise, why post an opinion question on a forum? confirmation bias.

plus, it doesn't help that the definition of sick leave, and when to use, has a lot of grey area and stigma.

[Rural]

If you're working 80-100 hours weeks for them, they owe you more than just a comp time payout.

[charis]

I vote for the honorable choice: Use comp time, which is precisely for the situation described here. There are more important things and values in life (or afterlife, if you believe that) than cashing out 8 hours of comp time at the end of the year. Your employer has provided you with just compensation for your time (allowing you to reimburse yourself for your overtime), why take advantage of it?

There's nothing dishonorable about using sick time when you are exhausted and sleep deprived, with possible mental health concerns, due to being overworked. To suggest that this is an inappropriate use of sick leave is part problem and contributes to the stigma that causes us all to pretend that we are fine, all of the time. It's utter bs.

[LWYRUP]

Dude, get over your (misplaced) guilt and use your sick time.  Especially with the above information that it doesn't carry over. It's for your mental health and that's as appropriate of a reason to use sick time as any other.
The poster above who mentioned doing the honorable thing is just trying to guilt you into not using your sick time like the rest of American work culture. That's kind of BS.

I'm going to take the opposite view.

Personally I think if the OP is questioning whether the use of sick leave is appropriate then they already know it isn't and are trying to find a way to rationalise their desire to use it instead of comp time.

Disagree strongly.  OP has damaged health due to ridiculous work demands.  OP needs to recover to maintain health.  Sick. 

I know people who have literally died because of health complications due to shitty lifestyle due to overwork.  This is nuts.  12-16 hours a day is NOT healthy. 

[Bloop Bloop]

Use all the sick leave you can get away with. Fuck your employer - they don't care about you at the end of the day, so as long as your performance is meeting expectations, just see sick leave as a side perk of the job. Which it is.

[PKFFW]

Disagree strongly.  OP has damaged health due to ridiculous work demands.  OP needs to recover to maintain health.  Sick.

Agree.

However, if the OP is asking for opinions about whether it would be appropriate to take sick leave for whatever health concerns they have, then it's my opinion they already know the answer.

I know people who have literally died because of health complications due to shitty lifestyle due to overwork.  This is nuts.  12-16 hours a day is NOT healthy.

And were those people asking for opinions on whether they should take some sick leave?  I'm betting if they thought they needed sick leave they would have simply taken it.

Of course it's up to each person to decide if sick leave is appropriate but if someone needs confirming opinions from random strangers on the internet then I don't think they really believe the use of sick leave is actually appropriate in that case and are merely looking for rationalisations.  Particularly when the conditions of employment which, I assume, were agreed to prior to employment, give comp time for just such situations.

[Villanelle]

This is the nebulous concept of a "mental health day".

The other concern might be that right now, the moment you say "sick" people get concerned and it seems there is some possibility of them telling you that you need to stay away for 2 weeks for everyone's health. 

So I'd be prepared with a follow up lie, if pressed, that I was have "stomach issues".

[LWYRUP]

Disagree strongly.  OP has damaged health due to ridiculous work demands.  OP needs to recover to maintain health.  Sick.

Agree.

However, if the OP is asking for opinions about whether it would be appropriate to take sick leave for whatever health concerns they have, then it's my opinion they already know the answer.

I know people who have literally died because of health complications due to shitty lifestyle due to overwork.  This is nuts.  12-16 hours a day is NOT healthy.

And were those people asking for opinions on whether they should take some sick leave?  I'm betting if they thought they needed sick leave they would have simply taken it.

Of course it's up to each person to decide if sick leave is appropriate but if someone needs confirming opinions from random strangers on the internet then I don't think they really believe the use of sick leave is actually appropriate in that case and are merely looking for rationalisations.  Particularly when the conditions of employment which, I assume, were agreed to prior to employment, give comp time for just such situations.

Or OP is in an abusive work situation and culture and is feeling us out to get a sense of what's normal and not normal and us calling it out will give him / her the confidence to take his own side. 

Bigger picture -- fundamentally in an economy as rich as ours there's no need for employees to be asked to work this hard for anything other than an extremely rare (like once every couple years) emergency.  And what most people do with this extra money is consume a bunch of unccessary crap and wreck the environment.  This is the system we're trying to fix and FIRE is one of the methods to do it, because it gives us freedom.  In the meantime, if you work yourself until you are sick, you take sick leave. 

I know personally what it's like to work 12+ hour days for months on end.  I remember getting out of work once and being home by 9pm and thrilled that I had TWO WHOLE FREE HOURS before 11pm bedtime!!  It's ridiculous, and I damaged my health so some people with $100 million could make $200 million.  Anyways, that's why I'm passionate about this.  If you haven't worked that type of job, you just might not understand.

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/11/12/big-law-killed-my-husband-an-open-letter-from-a-sidley-partners-widow/?slreturn=20200328010142

Read the line about how he worried that going to the emergency room would end his career.  That's what some of these jobs are like.  I've been to the emergency room due to my job.  That was years ago and I work 9-5:30 now in a different job and I take my sick leave.  No corporate transaction is worth damaging my health and shortening my lifespan.

[kenmoremmm]

my work isn't abusive. husband/wife owners. small firm. have been very good to me and my salary has nearly doubled in 8 years, while giving me two 60 day periods off of work for honeymoon and climbing trips. they're good people. boss works very very hard and does 80hrs/week for years on end. hence the hesitation.

they've never questioned my sick time before, but normally i use it when i have 'only' 40 hours on the timesheet for that week. it would seem weird to have 100 hrs and then sick leave.

[kei te pai]

If they are good people, just tell them you are exhausted and need a few days rest. Ask them if they want you to make it sick leave or compensation. But both you and your boss need to look at work place safety. Dont you have Health and Safety legislation?

[former player]

If they are good people, just tell them you are exhausted and need a few days rest. Ask them if they want you to make it sick leave or compensation. But both you and your boss need to look at work place safety. Dont you have Health and Safety legislation?

I agree with this.  You say your employers are good people, it's also pretty clear that you are a very valuable employee to them.  I suggest you tell your employer "as you know I've been working long hours for a long time and put in 100 hours this week.  I'm exhausted and don't feel able to carry on this week: would you rather I took the time as sick leave or comp hours?".

Frankly, if that doesn't get you a reply along the lines of "take all the time you need and when you come back we'll discuss what you need in order to go back to regular hours" then these are not the nice people you think they are and you should be looking either for a very big pay raise (I bet they are making plenty of money off you even at your current salary) or a new job.

[LWYRUP]

Boss should be working hard.  His income is variable and he gets all the upside.  Your salary is fixed.  Think incentives. 

If you like working this much, you should start your own shop.  But that's a discussion for another thread.

[Fishindude]

Pretty simple ..... You use sick time when you are sick, not when you just want a couple days off to relax.

[RetiredAt63]

Pretty simple ..... You use sick time when you are sick, not when you just want a couple days off to relax.

Sounds like OP is way past "wants needs a couple days off to relax". 

[Samuel]

My personal rule of thumb: if you're planning it days in advance (and it's not for surgery or something medical) it's not a sick day.

[DoubleDown]

It's sad, but not surprising, that some people have a mentality of "fuck your employer, they're out for themselves, not you" or "get away with whatever you can get away with" or "fudge the rules to your benefit, you've earned it."

The Golden Rule applies: Treat others the way you want to be treated. If you'd be cool with being an employer and having your employees try to bend the rules or even outright cheat you under the presumption that you'd screw them first, well, that's a sad way to go through life.

I don't think one or two days of sick leave vs. comp time is a big deal either way, but the larger issue of how we treat each other is.

[LWYRUP]

Sorry just LOL that working yourself sick and then taking sick leave is fucking over your employer.  Honestly, I don't even care what you do in your personal life but the problem is these sort of terrible attitudes permeate into corporate culture and cause real problems for real people.  Your attitude given the working hours OP described is actually worse than the senior partners in biglaw that I worked for, which says a lot. 

It's sad, but not surprising, that some people see their employees as soulless pieces of meat that can be driven into obesity, diabetes, carpal tunnel, workplace injuries, etc. due to long-term exposure to unsustainable and unsafe business practices and ultimately get sick and die early.  And if people try to protect themselves to maintain their health by resting for a day after pouring their heart and soul into their job for months they are "getting away" with something. 

I am thankful today that the CEO of my company doesn't think like you. 

[Villanelle]

my work isn't abusive. husband/wife owners. small firm. have been very good to me and my salary has nearly doubled in 8 years, while giving me two 60 day periods off of work for honeymoon and climbing trips. they're good people. boss works very very hard and does 80hrs/week for years on end. hence the hesitation.

they've never questioned my sick time before, but normally i use it when i have 'only' 40 hours on the timesheet for that week. it would seem weird to have 100 hrs and then sick leave.

In this context, I would tell them that I'm feeling run down and stressed and need a couple days.  Would they prefer I take Monday and Tuesday or Thursday and Friday?  And is this something for which it is acceptable to use sick time, I should I use comp time? 

It sounds like they treat you fairly and with respect and dignity, so I'd give that back to them. 

[Fishindude]

It's sad, but not surprising, that some people have a mentality of "fuck your employer, they're out for themselves, not you" or "get away with whatever you can get away with" or "fudge the rules to your benefit, you've earned it."

The Golden Rule applies: Treat others the way you want to be treated. If you'd be cool with being an employer and having your employees try to bend the rules or even outright cheat you under the presumption that you'd screw them first, well, that's a sad way to go through life.

I don't think one or two days of sick leave vs. comp time is a big deal either way, but the larger issue of how we treat each other is.

This is spot on !   Treat your employer as you would wish to be treated.

Anybody that has held a job with much level of responsibility for a long period of time has been through the same stuff, hectic works schedule and long days.
Many people work 10-12 hour days every week and don't think much of it.   It's part of the deal and what you get paid for.   

If you can't handle the work, take a regular 40 hour job and be happy with the pay that comes along with it.

[mbl]

my work isn't abusive. husband/wife owners. small firm. have been very good to me and my salary has nearly doubled in 8 years, while giving me two 60 day periods off of work for honeymoon and climbing trips. they're good people. boss works very very hard and does 80hrs/week for years on end. hence the hesitation.

they've never questioned my sick time before, but normally i use it when i have 'only' 40 hours on the timesheet for that week. it would seem weird to have 100 hrs and then sick leave.

Sounds like you work for good people.  Be honest and just tell them what you need.    Consistently working long hours as you've described isn't healthy.  You don't want to squander money but you need to consider that you're squandering your health.

It's not feasible or reasonable to believe that you need to work as many hours in a week as the owner week after week after week.  It's his company, not yours.  If he wants to kill himself doing that and have no life but his business, that's his thing and his choice.

Well done that they've doubled your salary.  Hey, guess what, you earned it.   They're not doing you a favor, they're paying a professional what they're worth.  It's in their best interest.   But do they really expect you to work so many hours every week?

[erutio]

No one is advocating or cheating their employer.  Again, mental health breaks and exhaustion are completely legitimate reasons to use sick time.  That is the answer to OP's question.

[PKFFW]

Or OP is in an abusive work situation and culture and is feeling us out to get a sense of what's normal and not normal and us calling it out will give him / her the confidence to take his own side. 

Bigger picture -- fundamentally in an economy as rich as ours there's no need for employees to be asked to work this hard for anything other than an extremely rare (like once every couple years) emergency.  And what most people do with this extra money is consume a bunch of unccessary crap and wreck the environment.  This is the system we're trying to fix and FIRE is one of the methods to do it, because it gives us freedom.  In the meantime, if you work yourself until you are sick, you take sick leave.

I know personally what it's like to work 12+ hour days for months on end.  I remember getting out of work once and being home by 9pm and thrilled that I had TWO WHOLE FREE HOURS before 11pm bedtime!!  It's ridiculous, and I damaged my health so some people with $100 million could make $200 million.  Anyways, that's why I'm passionate about this.  If you haven't worked that type of job, you just might not understand.

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/11/12/big-law-killed-my-husband-an-open-letter-from-a-sidley-partners-widow/?slreturn=20200328010142

Read the line about how he worried that going to the emergency room would end his career.  That's what some of these jobs are like.  I've been to the emergency room due to my job.  That was years ago and I work 9-5:30 now in a different job and I take my sick leave.  No corporate transaction is worth damaging my health and shortening my lifespan.

The original question in the OP was "i'm at the point where i'm so exhausted that i plan to take at least a few days off to recover. is this sick time or comp time in your book?"

If you are sick, take sick leave.  If you are not sick, don't take sick leave.

If you are actually sick, you don't generally plan in advance when you are going to take time off to recover.  You take sick leave immediately so that you can begin recovering.

Or are you suggesting the OP so put their employer ahead of themselves and continue to work excessive hours while being so exhausted they are sick?

Whether taking sick leave might look bad to their employer is another matter entirely.  Maybe it will.  Maybe it will look particularly bad if they choose to use sick leave specifically so that their comp leave, which is for just this type of situation, can be paid out at the end of the year and thus they get the double benefit.

As for someone working themselves until they are sick and then taking sick leave.........They should not agree to comp time for excess hours or don't work so many excess hours they get sick from it.

[Paul der Krake]

Nobody will ever ask their senior engineer you why they're taking sick leave. If they do, it's a sign there is no trust.

If you feel under the weather, take the sick leave. Doesn't matter whether it's because you contracted a deadly virus, or you just had too much tequila the night before.

[LWYRUP]

Or are you suggesting the OP so put their employer ahead of themselves and continue to work excessive hours while being so exhausted they are sick?

Yes, it is a common practice at large law firms / investment banks for people to work so hard that persistent sleep defecits and elevated cortisol levels, etc. cause real physical illness, which they are then expected to simply work through, particularly for those working on large corporate transactions (e.g., mergers and acquisitions).  Maybe if it's the literal flu you can get 24-36 hours before people start hassling you about deadlines again, but in the meantime you got assigned new things while you were out sick and now you have to catch up on the stuff you weren't doing and the new stuff that just came in even though you are at reduced capacity because you are actually still sick. 

I know we are all bringing our own lived experiences to this thread and I just assumed from the OPs working hours that that's the type of environment he was in.  But I have so many ridiculous stories about this culture (like the time the Boston marathon bomb went off next to our building (a holiday for the rest of the city, btw) and we just continued the conference call as people were running around in pandemonium with limbs torn off on the streets below).  If you haven't lived it you just need to take my word for it and appreciate that someone can both be hard-working and conscientious and absolutely flip their shit about getting nickled and dimed for taking a sick day.   

Anyways, sorry to derail the thread. 

[Apple_Tango]

I would call it a mental health day in my mind and take the sick leave. But out loud I would definitely go with either headache or stomach ache if anyone asks.

[Bloop Bloop]

It's sad, but not surprising, that some people have a mentality of "fuck your employer, they're out for themselves, not you" or "get away with whatever you can get away with" or "fudge the rules to your benefit, you've earned it."

The Golden Rule applies: Treat others the way you want to be treated. If you'd be cool with being an employer and having your employees try to bend the rules or even outright cheat you under the presumption that you'd screw them first, well, that's a sad way to go through life.

I don't think one or two days of sick leave vs. comp time is a big deal either way, but the larger issue of how we treat each other is.

My employer paid me my agreed bonus for me making my billables target, then wanted me to "stretch" to bill another $300k for the year to make up for people elsewhere in the firm who weren't pulling their weight. To be fair, I clearly was able to bill the extra $300k, but only because I'm very good at what I do. That skill needs to be remunerated.

I said sure, pay me 10c for every extra $1 I bill and I'll do it.

They said no, you should bill it just because. Even though it was never part of my agreed targets.

So I said fuck ya, leaned on a chronic health condition, took several weeks off work thus depleting all my sick leave (still got my bonus cause I'd made all my KPIs very quickly), gained sympathy points, fucked off to work for a competitor, then eventually opened my own practice.

Moral of the story: fuck employers. Start your own firm and keep all the profits to yourself.

Is my lived experience universal? Nope. But if OP is being worked as hard as he claims, he's earned some faux sick leave.

[Eowyn_MI]

I wouldn't work 100+ hours in one week no matter how much you paid me.  Health is worth more than money.

Take sick leave, take comp time, take whatever time you need to feel better.  Now is certainly not the time to be running down your immune system through lack of sleep.

Only an extremely short sighted employer would fault you for taking some time off to rest.

[DoubleDown]

An MMM forum member hires a contractor to do some needed repairs on their home. Both parties agree the homeowner will pay the contractor $2,000 for labor, they will pay up to $1,000 for expected required materials, and they will pay up to $1,000 to reimburse the contractor for meals eaten while on the job and other expenses, as incurred (receipts not required, they'll take his word for it). The work is done satisfactorily, and the homeowner treats the contractor well throughout the job. Upon completion, the contractor figures he's done a good job and worked hard, so he bills the homeowner for $1,000 of meals and gas, even though he actually only spent $600. He also doesn't inform the homeowner he got a $200 discount on materials, so he bills them the full $1,000 and pockets the excess.

A sizable portion of the forum members here applaud, saying, "Good for the contractor, he worked hard on the job. Fuck that homeowner!"

[former player]

An MMM forum member hires a contractor to do some needed repairs on their home. Both parties agree the homeowner will pay the contractor $2,000 for labor, they will pay up to $1,000 for expected required materials, and they will pay up to $1,000 to reimburse the contractor for meals eaten while on the job and other expenses, as incurred (receipts not required, they'll take his word for it). The work is done satisfactorily, and the homeowner treats the contractor well throughout the job. Upon completion, the contractor figures he's done a good job and worked hard, so he bills the homeowner for $1,000 of meals and gas, even though he actually only spent $600. He also doesn't inform the homeowner he got a $200 discount on materials, so he bills them the full $1,000 and pockets the excess.

A sizable portion of the forum members here applaud, saying, "Good for the contractor, he worked hard on the job. Fuck that homeowner!"

Based on the agreement as you state it that would be fraud on the part of the contractor as regards the meals (and possibly the materials too depending on the agreement and local practice).  Do please explain how OP here is proposing to commit fraud?

[Bloop Bloop]

An MMM forum member hires a contractor to do some needed repairs on their home. Both parties agree the homeowner will pay the contractor $2,000 for labor, they will pay up to $1,000 for expected required materials, and they will pay up to $1,000 to reimburse the contractor for meals eaten while on the job and other expenses, as incurred (receipts not required, they'll take his word for it). The work is done satisfactorily, and the homeowner treats the contractor well throughout the job. Upon completion, the contractor figures he's done a good job and worked hard, so he bills the homeowner for $1,000 of meals and gas, even though he actually only spent $600. He also doesn't inform the homeowner he got a $200 discount on materials, so he bills them the full $1,000 and pockets the excess.

A sizable portion of the forum members here applaud, saying, "Good for the contractor, he worked hard on the job. Fuck that homeowner!"

There are a lot of differences.

Firstly, a contractor is usually paid X amount per job, or per hour. It's piece work. Therefore much easier to define parameters. Whereas an employee is paid a salary for, usually, a set amount of work, often stated as, say, 38 hours per week plus reasonable overtime.

OP is doing a lot more than that, and therefore the good faith bargain has been thrown out the window. Unless his employment contract says "you will do 80 hours of work per week" in which case I guess he doesn't have a strong case for sick leave for mental health days.

Same as my employer tried to fuck me by wanting me to hit a "stretch target" without extra remuneration. No, fuck you. You want me to bill in excess of my basic bonus KPI, you have to pay me another bonus. Or give me some sort of benefit, like a promotion. No extra work for free asshole.

It would be like the home-owner asking the contractor to do a bit of extra work that wasn't envisioned at the time of making the original contract.

[DoubleDown]

An MMM forum member hires a contractor to do some needed repairs on their home. Both parties agree the homeowner will pay the contractor $2,000 for labor, they will pay up to $1,000 for expected required materials, and they will pay up to $1,000 to reimburse the contractor for meals eaten while on the job and other expenses, as incurred (receipts not required, they'll take his word for it). The work is done satisfactorily, and the homeowner treats the contractor well throughout the job. Upon completion, the contractor figures he's done a good job and worked hard, so he bills the homeowner for $1,000 of meals and gas, even though he actually only spent $600. He also doesn't inform the homeowner he got a $200 discount on materials, so he bills them the full $1,000 and pockets the excess.

A sizable portion of the forum members here applaud, saying, "Good for the contractor, he worked hard on the job. Fuck that homeowner!"

Based on the agreement as you state it that would be fraud on the part of the contractor as regards the meals (and possibly the materials too depending on the agreement and local practice).  Do please explain how OP here is proposing to commit fraud?

In no way do I think the OP is committing fraud, nor do I think it's a big deal for the OP or anyone else to take sick leave even when one isn't really sick. I certainly took "mental health" sick days when I was working. Some of those days I was just tired. And of course, the problem with metaphors or allegories is that they will never 100% reflect the issue being represented.

The situation posed by the OP was straightforward: They're provided sick leave and comp time, each for the stated purpose. Taking sick leave instead of comp time for the situation described is certainly outside the bounds of the agreement with the employer. For that employer sick leave is for being sick, comp time is for compensating overtime. To use up one so they can be paid out the max on the other is dishonest. But fundamentally so is taking home a pen or pencil from work. It's not fraud or arson or homicide.

So while it's not that big of a deal, attempts to characterize it any other way are themselves dishonest and silly, and it's a sad state of affairs when the prevailing attitude is "Fuck the employer, they're not it in it for you," particularly when this employer has been described as a decent person.

[DoubleDown]

An MMM forum member hires a contractor to do some needed repairs on their home. Both parties agree the homeowner will pay the contractor $2,000 for labor, they will pay up to $1,000 for expected required materials, and they will pay up to $1,000 to reimburse the contractor for meals eaten while on the job and other expenses, as incurred (receipts not required, they'll take his word for it). The work is done satisfactorily, and the homeowner treats the contractor well throughout the job. Upon completion, the contractor figures he's done a good job and worked hard, so he bills the homeowner for $1,000 of meals and gas, even though he actually only spent $600. He also doesn't inform the homeowner he got a $200 discount on materials, so he bills them the full $1,000 and pockets the excess.

A sizable portion of the forum members here applaud, saying, "Good for the contractor, he worked hard on the job. Fuck that homeowner!"

There are a lot of differences.

Firstly, a contractor is usually paid X amount per job, or per hour. It's piece work. Therefore much easier to define parameters. Whereas an employee is paid a salary for, usually, a set amount of work, often stated as, say, 38 hours per week plus reasonable overtime.

OP is doing a lot more than that, and therefore the good faith bargain has been thrown out the window. Unless his employment contract says "you will do 80 hours of work per week" in which case I guess he doesn't have a strong case for sick leave for mental health days.

Same as my employer tried to fuck me by wanting me to hit a "stretch target" without extra remuneration. No, fuck you. You want me to bill in excess of my basic bonus KPI, you have to pay me another bonus. Or give me some sort of benefit, like a promotion. No extra work for free asshole.

It would be like the home-owner asking the contractor to do a bit of extra work that wasn't envisioned at the time of making the original contract.

I don't understand what part of "comp time" you're not getting. The employer is compensating the employee for their extra time, that's the whole point and literally the name of "compensatory time."

[js82]

my work isn't abusive. husband/wife owners. small firm. have been very good to me and my salary has nearly doubled in 8 years, while giving me two 60 day periods off of work for honeymoon and climbing trips. they're good people. boss works very very hard and does 80hrs/week for years on end. hence the hesitation.

they've never questioned my sick time before, but normally i use it when i have 'only' 40 hours on the timesheet for that week. it would seem weird to have 100 hrs and then sick leave.

Sounds like you work for good people.  Be honest and just tell them what you need.    Consistently working long hours as you've described isn't healthy.  You don't want to squander money but you need to consider that you're squandering your health.

I'll echo this - if you feel like your employer is receptive, why not have a conversation about it?  It seems like they're the type that might even be open to some form of comp time, as opposed to taking sick leave?

If you had an unreceptive boss/employer I'd approach things differently (i.e. justification that mental health is also qualifies as a health/medical issue).  But it sounds like they may be willing to work with you here.

[Bloop Bloop]

An MMM forum member hires a contractor to do some needed repairs on their home. Both parties agree the homeowner will pay the contractor $2,000 for labor, they will pay up to $1,000 for expected required materials, and they will pay up to $1,000 to reimburse the contractor for meals eaten while on the job and other expenses, as incurred (receipts not required, they'll take his word for it). The work is done satisfactorily, and the homeowner treats the contractor well throughout the job. Upon completion, the contractor figures he's done a good job and worked hard, so he bills the homeowner for $1,000 of meals and gas, even though he actually only spent $600. He also doesn't inform the homeowner he got a $200 discount on materials, so he bills them the full $1,000 and pockets the excess.

A sizable portion of the forum members here applaud, saying, "Good for the contractor, he worked hard on the job. Fuck that homeowner!"

There are a lot of differences.

Firstly, a contractor is usually paid X amount per job, or per hour. It's piece work. Therefore much easier to define parameters. Whereas an employee is paid a salary for, usually, a set amount of work, often stated as, say, 38 hours per week plus reasonable overtime.

OP is doing a lot more than that, and therefore the good faith bargain has been thrown out the window. Unless his employment contract says "you will do 80 hours of work per week" in which case I guess he doesn't have a strong case for sick leave for mental health days.

Same as my employer tried to fuck me by wanting me to hit a "stretch target" without extra remuneration. No, fuck you. You want me to bill in excess of my basic bonus KPI, you have to pay me another bonus. Or give me some sort of benefit, like a promotion. No extra work for free asshole.

It would be like the home-owner asking the contractor to do a bit of extra work that wasn't envisioned at the time of making the original contract.

I don't understand what part of "comp time" you're not getting. The employer is compensating the employee for their extra time, that's the whole point and literally the name of "compensatory time."

If he's getting 1 hour of comp time for every hour of overtime worked (e.g., work 80 hours per week = 40 hours of comp time) then I agree, he should be taking the comp time. My assumption is that the comp time does not fully represent the overtime performed.

[LWYRUP]

I think we all have different employment systems so there is a lot of confusion on this thread.  I don't and have never gotten additional compensation or comp time or even explicit bonus promise for working overtime and have always held jobs where overtime is assumed.  It's assumed to just be baked into the high pay.  Then I get certain amount of vacation and sick time, which are never fully used because the implicit assumption is you are working too hard to use it all and the deadlines are set accordingly.  The only difference is that one type of compensation may accrue a balance and one type may not, or that you might get capped out on vacation and then be unable to use sick.  So in a situation where the employee has been worked to exhaustion, it is preferable to use sick leave to recover to save vacation for some time where you are doing something more fun that recovering from being worked to exhaustion.  I have never had an employer who has expressed any concerns about that whatsoever, even the biggest baddest hardass New York real estate finance senior partners, so the fact that some people are describing this as fraud leads me to believe there is just some sort of cultural or legal disconnect here. 

There also seems to be the assumption that people can just work 12-16 hours a day for months on end and be totally perfectly healthy with no ill effects.  I have never seen that happen, although maybe you all are some sort of supermen and all the high finance workaholics I used to hang with just have weak constitutions or something.  Maybe these are different sort of jobs, where the hours are less intense and involve a lot of sitting and waiting or pointless meetings or where people really aren't doing much work and are just sort of wildly exaggerating.  If your 80 hour week involves constantly tracking your time, constantly under a deadline, working through breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc., pushing through exhaustion and illness, it is literally hellish and most people break, mentally or physically, at some point along the way and the question is just how long you last (2 years, 4 years, 8 years). 

I think we all brought different assumptions to this thread.  But here's some advice from the "sick leave" side of the argument -- if someone works 80 hours a week to make you money, you better be really careful before accusing them of fraud over what may actually be different cultural expectations.  That would be a "fuck you take this job and shove it" moment for me.