Is it okay to reduce your schedule without taking FMLA?

Just because you follow the rules doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. 

A conversation in an HR Slack group went something like this:

Original Poster: Is it okay for an hourly employee to work 30 hrs/week (instead of 40) for 3 weeks due to illness without taking intermittent FMLA? Their manager is cool with it and the employee doesn't want to take PTO.

The responses went something like this:

“Yes, you should mark it as FMLA because... 

...otherwise they might take too much time when it should have been used up."

...it protects their job in case the manager changes their mind."

...not all managers will be cool with such an arrangement, so you don’t want to set a precedent." 

All very good points. 

But also... 

People forget that just because someone uses up their protected time doesn’t mean that they’re automatically fired. 

The employer still has discretion to cut someone some slack when they’re going through a hard time. Especially if they’re not being paid for the time they're not working. 

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the letter of the law that we forget that some limitations aren’t the ceiling, they’re the floor. There’s nothing that says you can’t be more generous than required. 

As long as you treat everyone the same.

Chill.

This message brought to you by your conscience.

---

If you want to follow the rules but be chill about it, we can help. We can tell you which rules you must follow, which ones have some wiggle room, and why they're there in the first place.

Got a "situation" on your hands? Book a one-off session here:

Sanity checks here