this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
1485 points (99.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
11840 readers
1732 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unpopular opinion here: this is true for some jobs but the more responsibility you develop in your career the more unplanned absences will be noticed.
Yes, you "deserve" sick days as well as all the other supports employees are entitled to in a modern well managed organisation, but quite obviously if you do important stuff then on some days you just won't be around to do those important things.
Like this guy Jason Call for example, I presume that if he's elected is supposed to show up to congress and debate or vote on new legislation. How would you feel if he just didn't do that because he was... you know... off sick? What if he was genuinely unwell a few times when important legislation was passed and then another occasion comes around and he feels like he's coming down with something? He should just be able to take the day because his manager should have just hired more people right? No. Sometimes you've just got to grind it out.
There will be times in most professional jobs when taking a day off because you're unwell is going to let the team down. In my experience, you tell the team what's going on and see what can be done to reduce what's required of you. For example if you're meeting with an important client or whatever then maybe others can help with the prep and you show up late and leave early.
Congress is one of the worst possible examples. They could easily delegate their vote on days off if that were allowed.
If your absence would break the company, then they need to be compensating you accordingly and have a backup plan.
I've worked heavily in the upper eschelons of BOH for nearly two decades now. I set very very clear boundaries. There are emergency protocols should shit break while i'm on leave.
Scheduled leave is a different proposition entirely.
I didn't say someone's absence would "break" a company, I'm really pointing out that if you have a lot of responsibility in your work then there will be days when your unplanned absence will effect team.
Scheduled or unscheduled leave (annual vs personal in Australian parlance) is utterly irrelevant
There are emergency protocols should shit break while i'm on leave.
Sure, and you should be compensated appropriately for that responsibility.
And you should be able to take sick leave if you're sick.
You seem to have completely missed my point.
Of course people are compensated for the roles they perform, and yes people are able to take sick leave.
My point is, most professionals will encounter situations where they don't want to take a day off because there's a big deadline or a meeting or something.
It's not bad management it's just the nature of having responsibilities and wanting to be good at what you do.
No ones missing the point. You're ascribing a value we don't hold.
If i'm too sick to work it doesn't matter if there's a big meeting or project. I'm too sick to work. End of.
I pretty much just don't believe you.
Anyone with significant responsibility will consider the consequences of their not being present when they take leave. As I said in another comment, if this Jason Call guy got elected and just didn't show up for an important vote in congress because he had the sniffles, would that be appropriate?
If there are protocols for others to follow that describe what you would do if you were present, then with the greatest respect I don't think you have very much responsibility.
Oh wow, you're in deep.
Good luck.
Mmm. That sounds like a you problem.
For someone with an .au account you seem remarkably ill informed as to workers rights in a functioning country, or the concept of boundaries.
Btw, last time i took annual leave it was a grand total of four hours before my phone started blowing up. I referred my employer to the protocols I'd written and left them.
LOL. I guess I'm talking about jobs where people do things in their work that requires skill and judgement, and have responsibilities.
If you can take sick leave at any time and people can just follow the procedures in your absence then you don't have that kind of job.
Incorrect.
Insufferable.
He did not, in fact, get elected. He is a Green Party candidate and he typically comes in 3rd right behind the Republican in the primaries, or has his last few losses.
There's also a real limit to how many staff a given schedule can support. You don't hire people that don't have any work that they're needed to perform.
Put yourself in the shoes of that example person. You were hired but as long as everyone else is healthy and functional, you're always superfluous. Your hours will be cut repeatedly to avoid wasting labor costs, but you'll still be expected to be available. If you're instead on call, you will be expected to be available for all days you agreed to be on call for - you can't work a different job or get wrapped up in personal things that you can't set down or pause.
There's a difference between a full staff and a skeleton crew staff. But in both cases, a sudden unplanned absence like illness or injury will require someone to work extra hours or the business will have to do without that person. A fully staffed property, like a hotel for example, might have two desk agents that typically work together for the same shift to ensure customers never have to wait too long for service. The job can be done with just one person, at cost of customer experience, and that's what you'll see from places running a skeleton crew.
What you won't see, however, is there being a third staff member who is there purely to cover for one of the other two. That's already handled by the supervisor (if one exists) or manager.
In those cases they're supposed to hire the full staff and schedule them all. Scheduling only the bare minimum of people every day is a recent phenomenon.
Please read what I wrote.
Please elaborate
I literally explained it to you in the post you originally replied to.
A fully staffed property doesn't mean that they can cover unplanned absences without either someone else taking on extra hours or less work being done.
You don't hire people that you don't need, and I provided real world examples of why few people would ever want to be hired as a "just in case" staff member.
I didn't think it was that complicated. What needs to be further explained?
In the 1990s and 2000s, employers would just have more people show up than needed most days. We used to have "easy" days sometimes when there was more employees than work.
The whole calling people on their day off thing used to be rare, and it's absurd that saying no is now counted against you. What we consider fully staffed today has shifted considerably.
Yeah. Being stuck at work, nothing to do, just waiting for the time to clock out and go home.
It's fucking miserable. Those days suck. You get to think of all the shit you'd rather be doing than staring at walls or lazily scrubbing floors you already scrubbed twice already just to look busy. It's shitty for staff morale and it's even worse for budget efficiency. No one likes feeling unimportant or unneeded.
And besides, how the fuck you think a company is gonna survive if it's wasting money on unnecessary staff? Even with a redistribution of wealth from the worthless c-suite back down to people who work for a living, the company still has to be profitable in order to be able to pay those wages and salaries, in order to be able to increase those wages and salaries for cost of living and inflation and merit based raises.
You don't become profitable by wasting money.
They would have you do cleaning and stuff, and just do less cleaning on the busy days. Or they'd have you watch the mandatory annual safety videos.
It was their problem, not your problem.
I'm still bored at work occasionally to this day, but I'd rather that than have today's poor boundaries on my "days off". Your whole day can be shot de facto on call with no compensation.
Yeah I'm not saying that's better. I never defended that stupid shit. I'm pointing out there's a lot of Reddit bullshit flying around this post by people that have more than likely either never been in a proper management position or who were absolutely godawful at it when given the opportunity.
You think people are happy doing busywork? They're not. People fucking despise it.
Not necessarily busy work, it's just flexible when it needs to get done. I did read your post twice, and it is kinda normalizing godawful management practices.
I don't need to be fully engaged every moment I'm at work. I need to be paid for the time I'm asked to reserve for it.
You don't need to be fully engaged, but you also don't need to be staring at the clock bored out of your skull and thinking about how much better you could be using your time. Adding some redundant mopping or polishing to that boredom doesn't make it any better.
Like imagine we pay labor what it's actually worth rather than pennies on the dollar. Would you still want to sit on your ass to get your full 40 each week? Or would you rather only come in when there's actual work to be done?
Fuck's sake dude. You want to talk about promoting toxic management ideologies? The 40 hour work week is a fairly recent fabrication and there's oodles of evidence indicating that working more hours doesn't even necessarily lead to more production.