Originally Posted by
neville_nobody
Problem with your argument is that you can take annual leave and then replace it with sick leave if you get sick. So the fact that you don't have any work on is irrelevant.
It's just that lowering the annual leave balance has a benefit to the company while sick leave does not, which I would suggest is why QF are doing it.
That's
exactly why they're doing it - under the guise of being beneficial to the employee group.
"You can take your AL/LSL now and not lose $$ during the stand down......"
The KRviatrix is an accountant and everything to them is an "Asset" or "Liability". Employees are Liabilities because they (eventually) cost money. Accrued leave is a liability because it has to be paid eventually, and budgeted for accordingly. AL/LSL goes up at the %-age of your EBA increases and thus, becomes more valuable (to us) and more expensive (to them) if you don't take it year onyear. Let's say you have 1000 hrs AL owing, at $100/hr for round figures. Your AL liability to the company is, $100,000. But if you don't take that this year, then next year, that liability becomes $102,500 (or whatever %-age your EBA increase is), so of course the company - any company - wants you to use your AL/LSL as soon as you can.
But, if you
don't take your AL/LSL, you're eligible for the $1,500/FN payment, which is enough to live on for most people if you can suspend your mortgage as well as keeping your accrued leave balances. I know what I'd rather do.