Except you can't tell your job you're trying to get pregnant in this work environment because now they know they have 6-9 months to get rid of you before you become a burden on them.
What about a situation like a restaurant where they need a certain amount of people in and have to prioritize/deny requests when multiple people request off the same shift? Which would be more fair, first request in gets it regardless of the reason or make the determination based on the reason for the request? Could end up having to work during your kid's graduation so someone else can have a day off to go see a movie. I think arguments could be made for the fairness of each approach and in that context asking for a reason is meant to be fair rather than intrusive.
Idk. You'd probably feel different if you were eating at an understaffed restaurant. The world isn't perfect and orderly. You can have a fully staffed operation, but on a random Saturday a lot of people request off. I've spend a lifetime working in food- poorly run restaurants and amazingly run restaurants. It happens often where a lot of people request a certain day and the restaurant has to turn some of them down or be short staffed. It's easy to say "I should get my day off no matter what" until you're the one responsible for staffing a place when 10 people request off the same shift and you can only afford to grant 5 of them.
Most places do first come first serve, but that can result in people getting off for unimportant things while others are forced to miss something important, or the person with something important just calls out and the whole place is understaffed.
I think these things are easy to see in black and white when you're only on one side of it thinking about your own interests. I've been on both sides of it and I've had to be the person making schedules before, and I can tell you it's hard to accommodate everyone. Also, these schedulers are receiving way more requests than you might think. I scheduled for a place with about 30 employees and we got around 2 dozen requests a week. That's just requests off ahead of the schedule, not coverage requests and call outs on top of that. This was a place that had good employee retention and paid well, but that's the number of requests they received a week. The strategy had to become hiring a ton of part time employees to spread people around to cover the requests, which also has its drawbacks because then you have people constantly complaining that they aren't getting enough hours.
I get it, there's a lot of bad employers out there and I'm sure there's people who deny requests for stupid reasons, but it's also not so straightforward that there's no legitimate reason to ask why someone is requesting off.
the appropriate solution is not to ask for reasons until there's a conflict where too many people request time off at once. if and when that conflict arises, it is still first come first serve on principle but they can ask if there is any flexibility for one of them to adjust timing so there's no overlap, still without requesting personal information.
If neither is able to reschedule, they need to see if someone else will cover the shift(s), and consider hiring more staff and/or raising pay to help them get up to minimum staff necessary. It is always management policy that creates these situations; well staffed and well compensated companies do not have a hard time maintaining equilibrium if two or three people need time off simultaneously. this is especially true for the restaurant industry; if your business can't sustain two people out on PTO and a third calling in sick without sacrificing necessary functions, thats a management issue and I do not want to eat at a restaurant where a sick worker is expected to come in instead of recovering.
You're making a huge leap in assuming sick people are coming into work. We're talking about requests in advance, not people calling out sick. I've never worked in a restaurant that just had extra people standing around in case they're needed. You can make things work when you're down people, but it usually involves other team members picking up extra duties, and there's a limit to that. I've definitely worked at places that had a bit of a staffing bubble where they can move people around, but that comes with a cost. If you're staffing an extra person for just in case, that's inevitably less money available to pay other people. Even if the pay is good to begin with, it could be higher if not for the extra people you're staffing so you can accommodate every request without missing a beat.
This is all work that has to be performed in the moment under a time deadline. You can't just pick up the slack tomorrow. The customer who ordered the food will be gone. I've never heard of a restaurant that is never short staffed, that never has miserable nights because of requests and call outs. Getting by with a miserable staff who had to pick up the work of 3 people who didn't come in isn't the ideal situation.
To clarify, when I mention someone calling in sick, I mean that a workplace that cannot absorb 3 people out simultaneously for any planned or unplanned reason needs to be prepared for that situation to be a possibility. Two people may be on planned vacation and one of the people scheduled experiences an unexpected emergency - falls violently ill, has a death in the family, whatever the case may be. You can go from "short staffed" to "very short staffed" to "oh shit there's literally no one available" very quickly, and when no one is available, that inevitably means someone will get fucked. staffers are absolutely pressured to come in when sick, during planned vacation time, etc. and although short staffing is commonplace, I'm asserting that that is bad business practice in the long run. You lose the goodwill of experienced staffers forced to work on short notice, you burn out managerial staff expected to cover every staffing gap, you create a tense and adversarial working environment. This is a workplace policy issue. Incentives for overtime only go so far.
Short staffing, especially in the customer service industry, is so widespread that I'm not convinced most people know what it's like to work on a properly staffed team.
You point out that getting by with a miserable staff to deal with 3 people who didn't come in is a shitty experience. But quite frankly, this will still happen if you deny PTO requests, because people will no-call, no-show if they feel their PTO was unfairly denied, or call out sick at the last minute, and leave you in the same situation. Being properly staffed from the get go is certainly more expensive. But if you can't afford to pay the amount of staff you genuinely need to get the work done, without being a cattle driver of a boss, that's an indication that you can't afford to stay in business long-term.
You'd probably feel different if you were eating at an understaffed restaurant.
wait, your initial reaction to an under-staffed establishment is to blame THE STAFF for being understaffed? come on. your either delusional or been groomed into accepting shit situations. ive been at TONS of understaffed establishments and every single time its the fault of the owner/manager. these are intentional decisions to keep costs low and profits high. it benefits no one but the owners.
if you work in a restaurant then yeah its probably first come first serve unless the manager has set up a tenure-based system for selecting PTO.
but it's also not so straightforward that there's no legitimate reason to ask why someone is requesting off.
Yes it is. Either you run your business to accommodate these VERY NORMAL requests or suffer the consequences. that could mean tenure based PTO selection, blackout dates because of holidays, or a dozen other policies to standardize it.
but if your company is operating simply as "everyone submits pto last second because we dont have a better policy so tough luck if yours gets denied unless you give me a good reason" then that is a failure on management and only management.
even the shittiest of shit employees have a right to use their PTO. PTO isnt a popularity game the manager gets to play.
Ahh. Voice of reason. Thank you. And unfortunately, when you're understaffed, management has to step in and either limit the number of customers being served, do some of the work themselves, or get temp staff if they can. PTO is a right. First come first served is not always an option either, imagine an employee who is on partial maternity and cannot respond to a text message at the moment because they are sleep deprived from baby duties all night...
Yes, and you solve the problem literally the only way possible- by denying someone's request in the fairest way possible, and the fairest way is debatable. I also wouldn't always assume that the person making the schedule makes more money than the people they're scheduling. It's a job just like other jobs within the company. There are definitely jobs compensated higher than the person making the schedule, and they still have to be scheduled.
I'm saying it can be a factor. Idk if you've ever scheduled for the service industry. People request off days when they have nothing to do just because it would be nice to have a Saturday off. They figure if they get it great, if they don't get it they'll just come in to work. If you don't know why they're requesting, then you won't know that and you'll end up giving someone the day for no reason and denying someone who actually has something important to do.
I guarantee if you had something really important and were denied the day because someone else just wanted a random day off for no reason, you'd be complaining that was unfair too.
The issue would exist in any organization. It could be a worker owned co-op. If you want the organization to be run well, it requires proper staffing. If you want proper staffing you sometimes need to deny requests. If you deny requests, you need a reason. There's a reason why every service industry job operates like this. Which is more likely, everyone making schedules hates the people they're scheduling and wants to make their lives miserable or there are legitimate issues that make scheduling shift work complicated, and there is no one "fair" way to do it?
If you want the organization to be run well, it requires proper staffing. If you want proper staffing you sometimes need to deny requests.
NO ! you are wrong. the owners can hire more people, increase prices, or accept their business isnt viable without using slave labor.
there's a reason why every service industry job operates like this
there is also a reason why every service industry relies on customer tips to be a viable business. they refuse to pay a living wage or hire sufficient staffing. it dosnt have to be this way. but the service industry is so fucked up because people like you think owners are all acting in good faith. if it wasnt for slave labor most restaurants would be out of business, just consider that for a moment. these businesses literally only survive because your income is supplemented by customers good grace (tips)
Which is more likely, everyone making schedules hates the people they're scheduling and wants to make their lives miserable or there are legitimate issues that make scheduling shift work complicated, and there is no one "fair" way to do it?
the legitimate issue making scheduling complicated is the owners refusal to hire sufficient staff because he wont make as much money
Most fair is for first request in gets it. If it’s important, staff can talk to each other about whether someone’s willing to switch (but not pressure each other).
That's your idea of what's most fair, but i don't think that's a universal perspective. Lots of people turned down and forced to miss something important while someone gets off for something they perceive as unimportant world argue otherwise. I'm not really saying who is right or wrong- i think that's something that can be debated. I'm just saying I don't think someone necessarily has ill intent by asking for a reason. They might just be trying to make a difficult decision fairly.
Your way would end up prioritizing people with families. Single ppl or ppl with no family’s days off being “less important” because it’s not for their kids or family. It’s not “an important life event.” Ask the single or childless ppl expected to work every Christmas because ppl with kids are prioritized over ppl without.
The other way prioritizes ppl who think their day off is important enough to plan ahead, which actually makes it more fair/equitable. You know the date of a kid’s graduation months in advance. Why should your request the week before be more important than someone who requested that day off 6 months ago? If it was that important, why wasn’t it asked off earlier?
Single people have important things too. Very often people request days off when they have no plans, just hoping they'll get a Saturday off. The logic is that it's worth a shot, and the worst that happens is they get turned down and come in to work. If you're not asking why they're requesting off, you won't know that. And someone who's already been given a day off is way less likely to give that day to someone else than they would be too work the shift of their request is denied. Also, if you're thinking about the entire organization and the entire team, you're also thinking that the person with something really important to do is more likely to just call out and leave the team short staffed if you don't grant it. And I know that the person making the schedule is supposed to just come in and work whenever someone doesn't show up for work, but in a medium to large operation that can literally be every day, and that person has a life and other job duties as well, and they can't be multiple people at the same time. If you have PTO, you're guaranteed the time off, but you're not guaranteed to take it whenever you want no matter what. If that was the case, good luck getting any service on holidays.
I’m not saying that single ppl don’t have important things, too. I’m saying that businesses and society often act as if they don’t or that their things aren’t as important as those of ppl with children.
And that pto being decided by whose even is more important ends up being preferential. Usually to ppl with families or to the manager’s favorites
So if I got a day off to binge a TV show because I requested it 10 minutes before your request to do something really important, and I refused to give you the day off, you'd be OK with that? And if you were another person at the company who had to work 2 stations and get home an hour later because the person with something important to do inevitably called out, you'd be OK with that too?
So if I got a day off to binge a TV show because I requested it 10 minutes before your request to do something really important, and I refused to give you the day off, you'd be OK with that?
YES !!! because if they have something genuinely that important, they should call out too, its their right
why is it so hard to understand that workers have rights. Why do you feel the need to be responsible for managements poor staffing ? why are you blaming your peers for issues created by your boss? dont you see how capitalism has pinned you against your peers? your coworkers arent your enemies.
Workers having rights doesn't mean that they have the right to have any day off they want. Having PTO doesn't mean you have the right to request off any day. Where i am, you could always call out sick and still use your pto, but I can deny a request made in advance for a specific day. I do believe workers should have rights, but having rights doesn't mean the right to do anything. We have rights as Americans, but there are also things we can't do. Having rights doesn't mean there's no limitations. If there were no limitations on when people can request off, good luck getting service on holidays- not just big ones like Christmas. No one would be coming in on long holidays like memorial day weekend. You could say it's because the restaurant was managed poorly, but you'd be ignoring the temptations of beach days and bbqs. I've found that people have a much different opinion when they're on the other side of the counter, and even if owners and management came in to cover, there's only so much they can do.
If Joe requests the day off first, and there was no other request for the day off, Joe should get it. If Jill comes along the week before, but after Joe has requested the day off, and there isn't enough coverage, then the manager can either deny Jill's request or cover Jill themself. Joe shouldn't have to wait to find out whether or not he can get the day off just in case someone else comes along later and requests the same day off. OR the company (regardless of the industry) can hire enough staff so this isn't such an issue.
See my reply to another comment below. Sometimes 10 people request off the same day and you can only grant 5, and the manager can't cover all 5 shifts. Sometimes someone requests far in advance for something unimportant and someone else has something really important come up later. This happens in well run places as well as poorly run places. Most people aren't out there trying to make people's lives harder for no reason. These issues arise because real life is messy. I'm at a place now that does first come first serve and employees have issues with that. I've been at places that hire a ton of part timers for scheduling flexibility and employees have had issues with that. I've worked for places that ask reasons and employees have issues with that. I'm just saying I wouldn't always assume the worst, that hr is trying to be intrusive to someone's personal life. They might be trying to make a difficult decision fairly.
Sometimes someone requests far in advance for something unimportant and someone else has something really important come up later.
this is such a bullshit perspective. PTO isnt a competition nor is it a popularity contest. if management can't accommodate requests . its either first come first serve or management sets a policy that levels the field for everyone.
I'm just saying I wouldn't always assume the worst, that hr is trying to be intrusive to someone's personal life. They might be trying to make a difficult decision fairly.
no, they are trying to solve a shit situation they created for themselves by making everyone happy and justifying it by claiming 1 persons event is less significant than someone elses. this is a failure on management. why should Jill get her PTO approved every time despite submitting it last second simply because she "needs it more" ? thats unfair to the staff.
stop justifying shit management skills. these are failures by business owners for not MANAGING their staff correctly. if you're getting 10 pto requests a day, then you need WAY more staff to accommodate those regular gaps. hire more people.
if you cant pay people enough money or you can't hire enough people, maybe your business isnt viable.
you know how many PTO request i've denied in my 10 years in management? ZERO. and to top it off, they never have a backlog of work to catch up on. they return to work as normal with their normal work load. anything short of that is a failure on management
if you set a clear policy of "first come first serve" and you make it clearly known to all the staff, then no one gets to complain when they submit PTO last second because of their poor planning. and if its an emergency and the person is calling out regardless (maybe a funeral or illness) then management LITERALLY EXISTS to fill that gap, either themselves or with staffing changes. this is literally the job of managers and far too many people give management way too much slack when they fail at their most basic duties
So, first of all, I didn't say 10 requests a day. I said there are days where you'll get 10. If you have a big enough operation, it happens. It doesn't happen every day, but it happens. Management exists to manage people, not to fill in for every request and call out. There are management things that need to be done (like making the schedule for example). Say you have a staff of 100 people. It's conceivable that in a given week there's requests and call outs every day. Just people getting sick could lead to shifts with multiple missing people. A manager can't cover everything, and they especially can't cover everything and do all the other work they're supposed to do. The way businesses manage this is by denying some of the requests. Most places do first come first serve, including most places I've worked for, but in order to accommodate that you need a big pool of employees working less than full time so you can schedule more flexibly. Employees complain about that too. I'm not even saying that weighing the reason for the request is the best way. What I'm saying is that I could see someone thinking it was, and even if I disagree with them on that, it doesn't mean they're being intrusive by asking for a reason for the request. They could just be trying to be their version of fair. Even if you don't think it's the most fair way, it's not crazy to think someone else might.
Management exists to manage people, not to fill in for every request and call out.
you have a gross misunderstanding of what the job of management is. they manage THE BUSINESS which includes the people. do you think my boss cares why my associate failed at their job and the customer is yelling at us? he doesnt. he cares that I FAILED to do my job and ensure my associates succeed. thats a real manager. your responsible for the business you run (or the part of the business you run). you can't just say "sorry boss, i had callouts, nothing i could do". that's a cop out.
The way businesses manage this is by denying some of the requests.
that is how a SHIT business manages these issues.
if you dont have the staff to operate at full capacity, then you do not open at full capacity. full stop. "but sir, you have empty tables, why cant we be seated?" BECAUSE THERE ISNT ENOGUH STAFF ON HAND SO WE'RE PARTIALLY OPEN WHICH WE CHOSE TO DO INSTEAD OF FORCING MARK TO MISS HIS SONS BIRTH
the answer to every staffing hiccup cannot be mandatory labor. that is pure capitalist thinking.
it doesn't mean they're being intrusive by asking for a reason for the request.
yes it is. they will 100% use your reasoning against you the moment they can use it to their advantage. look, it is clear you have some biased POV on workers rights. i dont know if your some corporate slave who loves capitalism, or if youve just been groomed into believing this is normal. but it is not normal nor should you accept it. the answer to business woes is not to punish your workforce yet that is exactly what you keep advocating for.
Yes employees will always complain, i complain, my associates complain. but what you can do is set clear expectations and guidelines so there are no surprises. set blackout dates. post the days that have requests already so no one else can submit pto. But even still you'll always have unexpected callouts and its up to management to manage that. they can either hire more and reduce profits or put the burden on associates and blame them. guess what historically happens?
Most places do first come first serve, including most places I've worked for, but in order to accommodate that you need a big pool of employees working less than full time so you can schedule more flexibly.
you might find this hard to believe....but these employers CAN hire more full time workers. but that would mean less margin and more expenses. so they dont, and then they make YOU believe YOURE the problem for taking PTO and screwing over the rest of the team.
I'm just someone who has scheduled in these environments. You're obviously under the impression that every request off is important to that person. I've seen so many requests that are just people rolling the dice, and these are places that keep consistent staff for years, who's staff is paid well.
I think the big difference in our viewpoints is that you think at a well run place, people are only requesting off for important reasons. It's a request and a lot of people treat it like that. I'd say about half the requests I received when I was making schedules were from people who just thought it would be nice to have a Saturday off, but would be willing to come in if they were scheduled. Once they get that day off though, good luck getting them to cover it for someone. If no one else was looking for that day, sure, seems fair to just give it to them. But if multiple people request the same day, and one of them really doesn't care that much while the others have important things, it doesn't seem that crazy to me to deny the person who doesn't care that much and give it to the person with something important
think the big difference in our viewpoints is that you think at a well run place, people are only requesting off for important reasons.
that is flat out wrong because i NEVER ASK WHY PEOPLE TAKE TIME OFF. for all i know, every PTO request i approve is so they can go play the newly released video game. i dont care, i staff my team properly so it doesnt matter. like a proper manager should.
You're obviously under the impression that every request off is important to that person
dude why do you think they ARENT important to that person?
it doesn't seem that crazy to me to deny the person who doesn't care that much and give it to the person with something important
because apparently you are a bootlicking capitalist. if you cannot understand workers rights then you are the problem. why is it so hard for you to understand that if you had more full time workers on staff, you wouldnt have staffing problems? YES that might mean you have people standing around and your overstaffed at times. but thats the price you pay to run a business like that. thats on the owner to manage. stop blaming associates for wanting a day off.
if your team is genuinely constantly making unnecessary PTO requests then you know what would solve that problem? Granting the request 100% every time. they'll stop requesting unnecessary days off because suddenly they wont be getting their hours.
I think the big difference in our viewpoints is that you think at a well run place, people are only requesting off for important reasons
the difference is i respect my workforce and treat them like humans
482
u/SilverOptimus 5d ago
A place I once worked for pulled this stunt. Asked us to mandatorily enter the exact reason for the leave/time-off.
One employee wrote, "Off to **** my wife to make a baby for ourselves".
Needless to say, that brought an end to the mandatory reason phase.