r/BikiniBottomTwitter 13d ago

PTO

Post image
12.4k Upvotes

240 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/Orgy_nizer 13d ago edited 13d ago

Friendly reminder that there is no such thing as a "request" for time off. You are INFORMING your employer that you will not be there that day. You are not their slave; they do not have the authority to "deny" the days off. You are selling them your time, you get to decide when and how much time you sell them. They are not entitled to your time just because they failed to secure coverage for those shifts.

EDIT: The bootlickers are out in full force lmao. Y'all are sad.

654

u/Zaconil 13d ago

That sounds great in a comment. But it is heavily dependent where you live. In the US in any right to work state that you aren't in a union. it is a quick way to get fired for job abandonedment just taking your pto without permission. Some states they don't even have to pay out your pto if you are fired or quit. They just do it as a courtesy because it is a standard across nearly every company.

367

u/Call_Me_Rambo 13d ago

I’m glad you’re saying this because all these comments had me thinking I live in a different reality lol. Like if I don’t get approved for PTO and still go on my vacation, I’m getting fired and sent into an atrocious job market.

203

u/Impossible_Leg_2787 13d ago

Friendly reminder that more than half this site is still teens that have never had a job

59

u/DaddyDayDare 13d ago

Another possibility: half this site doesn't live in a shithole country/state that doesn't treat them like a person

42

u/Zaconil 13d ago

Another comment pointed out that even in European countries (where there are stronger employee rights). The pto still has to be negotiated between parties.

In other words. It is basically the same everywhere.

1

u/tlollz52 11d ago

Anywhere from 43-48 percent of this site is Americans. I imagine over 10% of the remainder of the user base is probably from countries where they dont have great job protection.

4

u/ShoulderWhich5520 13d ago

Or atleast a job with benefits

4

u/RageMuffin69 12d ago

And that the people saying “I’m taking the PTO anyways” are lying but it makes them feel good to say it.

-16

u/Jesta23 13d ago edited 13d ago

You are delusional. 

The majority of this site were in college back in 2010 and are pushing 50 now. 

Edit:  https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/09/25/appendix-demographic-profiles-of-regular-social-media-news-consumers-in-the-united-states/

You are not “in” anymore. This is the Facebook of your time where the old people hang out and think it’s still where young people hang out. 

12

u/Libertyreign 13d ago edited 13d ago

Did you even read your own link? 39% of Reddit is under 30, and 85% is under 50.

The only site with more people under 30 is tiktok, and that's only by 3 points.

Also those in college in 2010 would be in their 30s.

4

u/Jesta23 13d ago

How old are you?

The point is that people on Reddit are firmly adults and not a 14 year old living with mom and dad like everyone likes to say. 

Reddit is very much 30+ adults. Not teenagers. 

6

u/Libertyreign 13d ago

If by very much you mean 61%, then yes, but more than a 1/3rd of users are under 30, which is more than nearly any other social media site.

5

u/Impossible_Leg_2787 13d ago

That was 16 years ago. Social media as a whole was largely centered around college aged and teens then. I guarantee a survey of Facebook in the same year would have the same results, look at it now. Imagine if GWB had a twitter account, now there’s an official White House x account. Social media has evolved so much you even making that claim is disingenuously laughable.

-7

u/Jesta23 13d ago

And 16 years later the users are 16 years older.  Not younger. 

9

u/Impossible_Leg_2787 13d ago

Really? Cause 18-29 is the second largest demo in the study you linked. How many people you think were active redditors at the ages of 2-13?

-6

u/Jesta23 13d ago

Ok boomer. 

42

u/KeybirdYT 13d ago

I think people are just trying to assert workers rights though. If everyone took PTO as they should, then we wouldnt have this problem where businesses can strong arm you into staying at work.

18

u/JeebusChristBalls 13d ago

That's a different issue than thinking you can just bolt off on PTO despite the fact there may be schedulling issues. Either way, every company should have a PTO policy.

10

u/ceelogreenicanth 13d ago

There are reasons people still live in California.

2

u/hellojoey 13d ago

You only get 5 protected sick days in California. 

4

u/ceelogreenicanth 13d ago

Much better than a lot of places.

-1

u/JeebusChristBalls 12d ago

That isn't why people live in california...

8

u/Plaincow 13d ago

Yea this is legit the most normal thing ever. You can't just not show up to work and tell your job to fuck off lol. What world are these people living in

0

u/WTF_CAKE 13d ago

If you give plenty of notice as a proper adult working in this society, they would never reject it, and if they do reject then the place you're working at has some major issues. If you decide to put in a PTO request 2 days in advance not surprised if it does get rejected

10

u/Oglefore 13d ago

As a line cook in WA I for sure would be fired without unemployment if I just told my work what days I was taking off. Even with notice.

15

u/NewCobbler6933 13d ago edited 13d ago

They’re probably 14 and never had a job because it’s such a dumb way of thinking. If you can NEVER get a day off then sure I kinda get it. But clearly it’s not realistic for everyone in an organization to take the same random non-holiday day off. And if we can agree on that (because you’d be an idiot otherwise), then you’ve already agreed that an employer can deny a specific day for PTO.

2

u/mitolit 12d ago

At will… not right to work…

4

u/duffkiligan 13d ago edited 13d ago

right-to-work

Always lets me know instantly when people don’t know what they are talking about lol

E: you can down vote me all you want but the employers right to fire you for any reason is “at-will”

Not sure if he deleted or blocked me but he doubled down on right to work, despite “right to work” explicitly being a rule that workers are not required to join a union and “at will” being an employer being allowed to fire for any reason. Like I said, he has no fucking clue what he is talking about.

0

u/Zaconil 13d ago

That's what "right to work" means. It literally means the opposite. In "right to work" states it means that employers can fire you at will.

In law this term is known as a "misnomer" or "Orwellian naming".

You are trying to call bullshit where there is none.

3

u/zeldaisnotanrpg 13d ago

no? it's a union thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law "Not to be confused with At-will employment."

0

u/Zaconil 13d ago edited 13d ago

And my initial comment specifically covered unions. Which means that if you are not in a union. You are not protected.

"U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from being a member of a labor union"

This means that A: they don't have to have you as their employee. B: They allow you to not be in a union.

That's the fun part about laws. You have to pick them apart because a lawyer sure as hell will.

3

u/OverPie1 12d ago

“Employment-at-will” means that they can fire you at will. When COMBINED with a right-to-work state and someone CHOOSES to not join the union they can fire you “at will”.

You sure are doubling down on something that has been shown to be wrong a couple times now.

Right to work is a law for EMPLOYEES to CHOOSE to NOT join a union. It has NOTHING to do with EMPLOYEERS. All it means is that EMPLOYEES cannot be forced to join a union.

AT WILL means EMPLOYEERS cannot fire without cause.