ProTeacher Community - View Single Post - Had a talk with an administrator today.....
View Single Post
dietcoke99 dietcoke99 is offline
 
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 162
Full Member

dietcoke99
 
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 162
Full Member
subs vs. salaried employees
Old 12-02-2018, 11:39 AM
 
Clip to ScrapBook #16

Thought some might be interested in this...

https://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSE/Publicat..._(11_2014).pdf

It is the poster that is SUPPOSED to be posted in a CONSPICUOUS PLACE for all employees to see, in every "business" in California.

It is pretty much what everybody has been saying, here, though, with more emphasis on the "90 days."

The poster says that the employee has to have been employed for 90 days before being eligible for the sick leave pay (which is 1 hr/30 hrs worked).

As stated by someone else here, their district conveniently defined this as 90 days of actual subbing days, which I wonder how many subs even get to that point? That's a pretty steep hill to climb, I think.

My finding and reading this to my husband caused a discussion between us:

He said that since subs can, if sick, simply take that day off like they would any other day off, they shouldn't get sick leave b/c they aren't actually losing any pay when they are sick (? - but that's what he said).

I said that it was actually the other way around - if people, like him (my husband), are already getting a salary and take a day off because they are sick - THEY aren't losing any pay for being sick!

I said that subs actually lose money when sick, regular salaried employees don't - so subs should get sick leave, and not salaried employees.

He said "Well, I guess it's all in how you look at it," and I said, "yea, we should look at it as subs needing it more than others, but not getting any."
dietcoke99 is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Copyright © ProTeacher®
For individual use only. Do not copy, reproduce or transmit.
source: www.proteacher.net