giving extra time off to people who get married, rejected me because I was late for the interview, and more

by Alison Green on September 25, 2024

I’m off today. Here are some past letters that I’m making new again, rather than leaving them to wilt in the archives.

1. Giving extra time off to people who get married

My friend got married this weekend, and she mentioned to me that her office gives her an extra week of PTO to use in the year which she got married. (The idea behind it being that she’ll use it on her honeymoon, although I doubt that that’s enforced.)

I was thinking today about the fairness of this policy. I’m not married and have no prospects (lol). If I worked at her office, I would get a week less of PTO — just because I’m single.

Ultimately, this doesn’t affect me because I don’t work at her office, but, what do you think?

Yeah, it’s lovely that they want to support their employees, but a policy of giving people a full extra week of paid vacation upon marriage is destined to cause resentment among people who aren’t married, or who were married before they were hired and would really like an extra week off to spend with their ill parent, or so forth. It’s prioritizing marriage above all other life events in a way that isn’t fair or equitable (although it reflects our culture’s tendency to do the same). I don’t think anyone would begrudge, like, a congratulatory fruit basket, but an extra week of vacation is a huge thing to only be giving to some.

An alternative would be to offer an extra week of PTO for anyone with a major life event, which they could define loosely (and they could cap it at one-time usage, or only every X years, or only after X years of employment) — or even remove the “major event” requirement and just let people have it after three years of employment or so forth.

– 2019

2. Approaching a manager in public for an impromptu chat about a job

Let’s say I visit a cafe close to my office every day at 3 p.m. for a cup of coffee. I also see a manager whose team has an opening, and it just so happens that I possess the qualifications required to join his team.

Are managers in general open to being approached by potential candidates in a public setting such as a cafe, and having a 5-10 minute chat if they genuinely had time to spare? What if the manager works for a company that is different from the candidate’s? Would they still be willing to talk to the candidate for a few minutes? They may stumble upon a very talented individual for their team.

Don’t do it! There are some managers who are always in recruiting mode and are happy to talk to potential candidates any time, anywhere. But there are far more managers who would be annoyed to be interrupted while they’re trying to have a quick coffee (and who may be doing something else they don’t want to stop).

And it’s not like interrupting someone in public is the only way to reach them and you have no other options. If you’re interested in approaching a hiring manager, you can do it over email or LinkedIn, where they can respond when it’s convenient for them and where you can include a copy of your resume, so they can figure out right from the start if it even makes sense to talk. (And if you’re really just interested in applying for a specific job with them, go ahead and apply, following the application instructions, since otherwise you’ll come across as if you’re trying to circumvent their process.)

The one exception to this is if the person works for your company. In that case, it’s reasonable to talk to them informally — but I still wouldn’t do it when they’re trying to relax.

– 2017

3. Interviewer rejected me because I was late for the interview

I had a job interview that got rescheduled because they had a snow day that closed their office. The rescheduled date was last week on Monday. I was really excited for the position and felt it was a great match for my experience and skills, and I had killer reference letters to attest to this.

It was hard to find parking and was still icy and snowy from the week before. After it was clear I wasn’t going to be as timely as I had hoped, I texted the manager I had been communicating with that I was just parking and would be there in a few minutes. (It was 1:07 pm, with our interview scheduled to start at 1:00 pm.)

I arrived about 1:10 and she and two other staff were waiting for me in a room. I apologized briefly (but didn’t want to focus on that) and what I heard in reply was. “Oh, it’s okay.” The interview went well and was well organized, thorough, and professional. I followed up two days later with a thank-you email.

But I heard back that being late had more or less eliminated me and clouded my other great qualities and that timeliness was very important for the position. I’m surprised and thought it was weird they didn’t bring that up in the interview. What do you think?

I don’t think it’s weird that they didn’t bring it up in the interview because it’s not necessarily something that requires discussion (and a lot of people wouldn’t know how to address it on the spot in a way that didn’t feel uncomfortably confrontational). Plus, they might have wanted time to think about it and decide how much it mattered to them first.

I do think penalizing you for being 10 minutes late if it was very icy and snowy was excessive; even when people plan for bad roads, they can’t always predict the weather impact with perfect precision. But I suspect not texting until you were already seven minutes late was the issue (as opposed to pulling over to contact them before the interview was scheduled to start, so they weren’t sitting there waiting and wondering if you were going to show).

– 2019

4. How do I politely end conversations at networking events?

Your recent post about conversation starters at industry events got me thinking: once you’ve got talking to someone at a networking event, and both people have got what they needed out of the conversation, how do you politely move on?

I’m on the board of the association for a charity that pays for me to attend various networking events. I want to get the most out of the event both for myself and my charity, meeting people who may want to collaborate, engaging industry leaders, and chatting to a good cross-section of the community so that they feel heard. But sometimes I get stuck — it’s not that I don’t want to talk to the person, I just need to circulate!

I know a few people who are networking ninjas. They are so good at extracting themselves from conversations without fuss that I don’t even notice them moving around. While I’m happy to say “I must circulate” to people I know well, it seems rude to just cut off the flow of conversation with someone you’ve only just met (especially if this is their rare chance to give input into our charity). In that situation, I usually say something awkward like, “I must pop to the toilet” which … isn’t that elegant…

I don’t want anyone to think I don’t value their conversation. Do you have any scripts I could use to move on without causing offense (or having to use the bathroom as a hideaway)?

“Well, it was great meeting you!” is an easy way to signal the conversation is coming to a close. You can dress it up by adding things like “I’m going to pass on your advice on X to our board,” “I hope we see each other at next month’s event,” and so forth. But the basic idea is to start saying those wrapping-up phrases.

Another way to do it is to offer your card and ask if they have one, and use that as your closing ceremony. Do the card exchange and then go straight to, “Wonderful! Hopefully we’ll stay in touch. It was great meeting you.”

If it still feels too abrupt to leave after those phrases, it’s fine to add, “I’m going to grab a fresh drink” or “I’m going to go check out that buffet!” or any other phrase that politely announces your intentions.

– 2019

You may also like:
{ 532 comments }

{ 532 comments… read them below }

  1. Whale whale whale*

    In Portugal, where I’m from, you can get 15 days of marriage leave. So you get an extra two weeks off when you get married, by law, if you ask for them. They just have to be consecutive days, starting the day after your wedding. I honestly don’t know how I feel about it now that I’m not leaving there and don’t see it as “of course you get a marriage leave”.

    1. Jen*

      In Romania you get 5 days, also by law.

      Maybe it stings less because everyone gets minimum 20 days of PTO and ‘unlimited’ medical leave? (It’s not truly unlimited, but depending on the condition it can be up to a few months.)

      I don’t feel like I *need* those 5 days so I am not fussed, even though I personally don’t plan to get married.

    2. NforKnowledge*

      It feels much less galling when everyone in the country can (theoretically) get it rather than just people who get married while working for a specific company. It still puts undue weight on marriage as a life event above all others though, and if the country doesn’t have marriage equality that’s another big negative.

      1. Disappointed Australien*

        Or at least same-sex marriage, because marriage equality is like universal suffrage, a slogan rather than a reality.

        It also depends on the culture around, and legal practicalities of marriage. How many times a year can someone get married? Do they really give people extra leave for their sixth marriage? To the same person?

        1. Semi*

          In Taiwan, you get eight days marriage leave, which has to be taken within a certain time period of the wedding. The regulations specify you cannot claim the leave more than once for the same couple, so you can’t get married, divorce, and then remarry for extra vacation.

          1. Carol the happy elf*

            Hmm, I need an extra week- Honey, can we do a quickie divorce, then get married again so I can get those 5 days? (of course, it will screw with retirement, Social Security, health insurance, and danged if I can fit in my wedding dress after 35 years- but 5 DAYS!)

            Nah.

            1. Emmy Noether*

              Fairly sure the administrative tasks necessary for divorce + remarriage will eat up those 5 days and then some. Doesn’t seem worth it.

          2. FYI*

            A couple actually did this in Taiwan in 2021, maybe they changed the law after that issue. This is the headline from the news article I found: “A couple married and divorced 4 times in a span of 37 days so they could take advantage of a honeymoon-leave loophole.”

      2. Chocolate Teapot*

        I have a number of life events for which I would be eligible for addition time off. These include marriage, bereavement, moving house, birth and adoption. For marriage, it depends on who is getting married (e.g. I would get 3 days off for my own marriage, and one day for my offspring).

        1. Dolce Ryvita*

          Same here – it’s a day or two if I remember correctly, the idea being that getting married takes quite a bit of organising even if you don’t have a big wedding – just for registry office stuff, changing the name on your ID etc.

        2. Person from the Resume*

          Moving leave seems especially fraught with unfairness … not that anyone would want to move for vacation because it’s a pain in the butt, but someone could move quite a bit couch surf, unstable housing and moving apartments frequently.

          It’s not even he’s getting something I don’t get, but rather Joe is moving again and we’ve got to cover his time off again.

          1. Pokemon Go To The Polls*

            If you only get two weeks of PTO it really sucks to use 10% or more of it because you have to move – that’s time you don’t get to spend recharging or relaxing

      3. Weird Al Wankovich*

        What is “marriage equality”? If an incel can’t find someone willing to marry him, does he suffer from marriage inequality?

        1. RogueTrainer*

          Marriage equality refers to the legal right to be married and get the benefits associated by law- tax reasons, next of kin, implied POA, etc. For example, in the US, people receiving disability benefits from the government are not allowed to have above a certain amount of income or savings or they lose their benefits. Unfortunately, since getting married gives legal rights to joint assets, this means that many people cannot get married because they will exceed the cap amount and lose not only their income, but their insurance coverage, and the financial burden of acquiring equivalent coverage, especially due to their existing medical conditions, is far greater than their new “income” they gained by getting married. So, due to the very complicated structure around receiving disability benefits, people receiving those benefits do not have marriage equality- marriage is not nearly as beneficial in a legal sense for them as it is for people who are not legally disabled.

          2. Seashell*

            That’s true for a certain kind of disability benefits (SSI) in the US, but not all (Disability Insurance Benefits and Disabled Widow/Widowers Benefits require a certain amount of past work by you or your late spouse for you to qualify, but there is no asset limit). Some states also have disability benefits on a more short term basis. I don’t know about all the states, but mine has no limit on assets.

          3. doreen*

            That only has to do with certain income-based benefits that are specifically meant for low-income people – SSI, not Social Security disability or usually state disability benefits which are not based on current income/assets. I doubt there is any country with income based-benefits that gives benefits based on how a married couple arranges their finances – because not looking at a spouse’s income/assets would mean that for example, my husband would be able to get benefits meant for low-income people if all of our income/assets were in my name, no matter how wealthy we are.

            I’ve never heard “marriage equality” used to refer to this. It has always referred to same sex marriage in my experience.

            1. ecnaseener*

              It’s a pretty common thing to hear in disability justice spaces. It’s off-topic so we shouldn’t get into a debate about it here, but some googling should find you more info if you’re interested in how and why disabled people have unequal access to marriage.

            2. bamcheeks*

              Mariage equality is the most popular and well-known use, but disability rights campaigners have used the same language to point out that marriage still isn’t equal for disabled people. I’ve seen it used by trans people as well in the UK.

              (Also, there are good precedents for assessing people independently and ensuring people have access to benefits or other income of their own even if the joint income is substantial. Child benefit always worked this way in the UK, for example, because it was recognised that a wealthy man could still deny his wife and children access to money.)

              1. bamcheeks*

                That should of course read: “Marriage equality to mean access to marriage for same-sex couples is the most popular use…”

              2. doreen*

                In looking very quickly at the UK child benefit, it seems like there’s a tax adjustment when either partner has an income over £60,000 – which is about $80K so I wouldn’t think that was a program meant for low-income people and it doesn’t really seem to be income-based in terms of who is eligible. (just that high income people might have to pay tax on it) That’s not what I doubt any country has – what I doubt is that any country provides a means-tested benefit like your Universal Credit without looking at the financial status of a spouse and/or live in partner.

                1. Media Monkey*

                  in the UK, if you are the person receiving the child benefit (normally it is the woman – no idea how this works with same sex couples but i would guess either the birthing parent or the one with the lowest income?) it is your income that counts, not household income. once you hit the higher tax bracket you are no longer eligible for child benefit. for universal credit that is a household level benefit i believe and takes account of all income. for single parents it is very much beneficial to not live with a new partner or lose benefits.

            3. Great Frogs of Literature*

              It’s also worth noting that the benefit for a couple is LOWER than for two single people. Per google:

              Effective January 1, 2024 the Federal benefit rate is $943 for an individual and $1,415 for a couple. Some States supplement the Federal SSI benefit with additional payments.

              So if two people on SSI benefits want to get married, they’re looking at a massive income hit.

              1. Strive to Excel*

                That’s because it’s generally assumed in those calculations that they will be able to share on some costs of living. This is less true now than it used to be due to rising cost of housing etc.

                1. Dahlia*

                  Realistically it’s just not true of disabled people in general. Disability is expensive.

                  And a person should not have to rely on a romantic parter to support them.

            4. MigraineMonth*

              No offense, but this is a real issue for some of us. I’ve lived with my partner for 7 years. If we were to get married she would lose *all* her disability benefits unless our *joint* savings were below $4000. She would also no longer qualify for her current health insurance and would have to go on mine, which is not as good and has more out-of-pocket expenses. My partner can’t get significant SSDI payments because she hasn’t been able to work, and my state doesn’t offer any state-level disability benefits.

              Note that Medicaid and SNAP in my state don’t have an assets test for *non*-disabled adults. They signed me up for them when I was between jobs even though I had tens of thousands in savings.

          4. Abigail*

            Please do not spread this. It is completely false.

            Marriage inequality refers to banning same sex marriage. It is NOT a term that refers to social security benefits.

            1. Learn ALL the things*

              It has been used in both cases, and it is not inappropriate to do so. Acknowledging the ways out governmental systems make it impossible for people to marry the person they love is valuable and important.

              1. Abigail*

                I think the beef here is with the structure of social security, not with marriage.

                Disabled people have never been barred from applying for a marriage license in the same way same sex couples were barred from applying for a marriage license.

                There may be benefits consequences of marriage but that is not the same thing as marriage being impossible.

                1. Dahlia*

                  Yes they absolutely have though!

                  It was, for instance, illegal for people with epilepsy to be married in 17 states until 1956, with the last state to repeal those laws happening in 1980.

                  (Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1528-1157.44.s.6.2.x#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20for,grounds%2C%20of%20people%20with%20epilepsy.)

                  People with intellectual disabilities were also banned from getting marriage licences and often still are if they’re under guardianships https://hpod.law.harvard.edu/news/entry/right-to-marry

            2. Kimmy Schmidt*

              This language, discussion, and cultural framing (and counterculture framing) has been around in disabled communities and disability studies for years, if not decades. See:
              In Sickness and In Health: Cripping and Queering Marriage Equality by Sarah Smith Rainey (2017)
              Loneliness and Its Opposite: Sex, Disability, and the Ethics of Engagement by by Don Kulick and Jens Rydström (2015)
              Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability by Robert McRuer (2006)
              Disability and Family Relationship: Marriage Penalties and Support Anomalies by Robert E. Rains (2006)
              Seeking Marriage Equality for People With Disabilities by Tammy LaGorce (2022)

            3. Lenora Rose*

              It is not completely false. I’ve been hearing about unequal access to marriage form disability groups for at least a decade and it is a legitimate issue.

            4. Katara's side braids*

              Queer disabled activists have been saying for years that they still do not have marriage equality. It’s an intersectional issue.

            5. Lana Kane*

              When same sex marriage is banned, then the people in that demographic don’t have access to the legal benefits married couple have. To not include that in marriage inequality is reductive. Marriage is about love of course, but it also has a lot to do with protections for you and your partner.

              1. Elizabeth West*

                Yes yes. Marriage is a contractual agreement subject to laws and penalties. Property rights, estate laws, insurance, etc. We tend not to think of it that way because of the emotional aspect. For those who say a piece of paper doesn’t matter, yeah, it does in certain circumstances.

          5. Despachito*

            This holds true elsewhere as well – I’m in Europe, and although our health insurance is fortunately not tied to our employment and/or worth, I’ve seen people not marrying for purely financial reasons. For example a widow preferring to live with her new partner unmarried because otherwise she would lose her widow’s pension, or a single mother living with her baby daddy in a de facto marriage but not marrying officially because as a single mother she has more benefits.

            I wouldn’t call this inequality though – the benefits are meant for people who are in a bad situation with no one else to help them, and both couples in the above examples are trying to circumvent the system and milk it for advantages. They can of course do that and it’s legal but it comes with a price.

            1. Boof*

              Yea, and this is why I think benefits should be some kind of sliding scale based on ability/need/minimum standard of living not all or nothing huge gaps; and the sliding scale should be designed to encourage people to do as much as they reasonably can (I don’t know what ratio would be optimal to not discourage folks but something like you only go down $0.50 of benefits for every $1 you earn)
              because otherwise people do things to max their benefits even if it wasn’t “intended” because of course it makes financial sense (plus usually benefits are so low that there’s probably not much extra money around)

              1. Evan Þ*

                That’s exactly how the US Earned Income Tax Credit works, for exactly this reason! There’re lots of issues with US benefits, but at least this one avoided this problem.

            2. Michelle Smith*

              Respectfully, as a European, you’re not really understanding the issue of how it works in the US. Here it’s less about “milking” the system and more about trying to survive.

              1. bamcheeks*

                This is more of a political framing than a US/European thing, I think. I am in the UK and IMO both women in this example are doing exactly the right and safest thing by trying to preserve their own financial independence. Systems that force disabled people and women into financial dependence are basically creating the ideal conditions for abuse!

                2. doreen*

                  I’m not going to disagree that the women in these examples are following the rules and presumably doing what’s best for them – I’m sure they are. But I think what Despachito is referring to is the idea that it’s not really “marriage inequality” if people in certain situations benefit by being unmarried. There are lots of things I can’t legally do if I am married – for example, I can’t disinherit my husband. (maybe I could if we had a pre-nup but like most people who get married young, we don’t) I could not choose the higher pension payment that stops when I die without his agreement – I had to take an option that would pay him if he survives me. If we weren’t married, we would probably pay more in income taxes and my employer would not be required to cover him on my health insurance. No one would describe it as “marriage inequality” simply because I have to choose between being married and single and take all the pros and cons of whichever status I choose , rather than getting the benefits of being single and the benefits of being married at the same time.

                3. Despachito*

                  It really is about framing because it can as well be framed as helping those who are most in need and have no other means of supporting themselves, which I don’t see as negative.

                  With the caveat that I am not in the US, disabled people are in a different category than both women from my example. Their support is not means tested, and if you have disability pension it is irrelevant if you are married or not. So the system is not forcing them to anything.

                  However, both women I was speaking about (a widow and a “single mother” living in a de facto marriage but not tying the knot administratively to receive more support) are not victims of the system. They are deceiving the system that is set to help those TRULY in need. It is set to help widows who have no partner to help them, and single mothers with a deadbeat baby daddy who does not care. The women from my example DO live with a partner and share finances with him exactly the same as Jack and Jill who are married, but they receive more money from the state than Jack and Jill because they pretend they don’t have a partner.

                  It may be understandable because a lot of these people are rather low-income and a little extra cash comes in handy, but it still involves lying and deceiving the social system. I would not call it preserving their financial independence, I would call it cheating.

            3. Florence Reece*

              “Although our health insurance is fortunately not tied to our employment” is doing a lot of lifting in this perspective, though. I don’t know if y’all understand how deeply, deeply fucked USians are in terms of insurance. To qualify for state insurance in my state, you have to make less than the cost of rent for a three-person household, and you have to have NO other options for insurance.

              If you’re a married couple making poverty wages (not hard to do — a full-time minimum wage job gets you a gross income that is *also* less than the cost of rent, so two people together can just barely squeak by on affording a place to live) and your job offers you $300/month insurance that you cannot afford… well, sucks to be you, find the money somehow. By the way, your insurance has a deductible for most basic services (so you pay the full cost until that’s met), and a $500/day inpatient charge and a $300 ambulance charge (assuming you don’t accidentally go out of network!) and and and.

              The limits we have for our ‘welfare’ are intended to punish people for being poor. For disability benefits, it’s even worse — your total ASSETS are capped at $2000 for an individual or $3000 for a couple. Your house, your car, your nest egg in case something goes horribly wrong? Nope, can’t have those. $3000 max and we’ll very kindly give you $1415/month for the two of you to survive. How are you supposed to survive when rent is $2800? Sucks to be you, figure it out!

              1. Despachito*

                Thank you for even more insight. And I am sorry to hear that.

                I don’t want to trash other countries, everyone has their pros and cons, but I am utterly shocked by what I read there about the US health insurance system, mainly the part where it is tied to gainful employment, and the loss of a job can result in losing the necessary healthcare.

                A lot of people think OUR insurance/social system sucks and it is not perfect at all but after having read the posts on AAM I am deeply grateful for it.

              2. Orv*

                Insurance in the US also depends a lot on what state you’re in. The federal government expanded who was eligible for Medicaid (the low-income insurance system) but states had the right to opt out, and many conservative states did. People in those states have it much harder than people in states that did not opt out of Medicaid expansion.

          6. PhyllisB*

            Yep. I have a niece this affects. She’s a quadriplegic as result of a car wreck, and not only would marriage affect her benefits, but regular employment. The center where she did her rehab wants to hire her to be a counselor, but if they pay her she will lose all her benefits.

    3. Emmy Noether*

      I got one or two extra days for my wedding, which is the norm here. We also get days for births, bereavements and moving house. I think the idea is to help be able to take care of life stuff without having to take vacation days.

      What was sort of weird is that my MIL got two days for her son’s wedding (so more than the people getting married – different employer).

      1. Jeanine*

        Interesting…I get no leave for marriage (would have been nice when I did get married 3 and 1/2 years ago) and I get no leave for moving house at all. We get bereavement and our slotted pto and that’s it.

        1. Zephy*

          Same here. I had to use my own PTO to actually go get married and then later to go on my honeymoon (and the only reason that particular request was granted was *because* it was my honeymoon; my company requires approval from like four layers of management for leave requests in excess of 40 hours/5 days, and they really start looking askance at you for requests over 16 hours/2 days). I didn’t have a “real” wedding though – tying the knot in 2020 meant we basically got married at the DMV (literally the same room in the courthouse building where you go to pay parking tickets, at the little teller window). So in a way it’s better than if we’d had an actual wedding with all the attendant logistics and preparation, since I would have needed to burn through a lot more PTO to handle all of that.

    4. The Prettiest Curse*

      I find it really fascinating to read how different countries try to incentivise marriage, penalise divorce or both. In the UK, married people don’t file their taxes together – so there are fewer tax advantages to getting married than in the US. It did, however, take us forever to get no-fault divorce, which only became law very recently.

      As a married person, I do think it’s inequitable to be given additional leave for getting married. I do think it’s a good thing to give people the option to take an extra week of leave every so often, though.

      1. Emmy Noether*

        In Germany, there are tax advantages to marriage only if the incomes are very different between the partners – unfortunately. There’s also a year waiting period for divorce, during which the couple has to live apart. Very antiquated and patriarchal.

        Although I do think there is some argument to be made to incentivize marriage. Underneath all the trappings of romance and tradition, marriage is a financial arrangement. It’s a pooling of resources governed by a binding contract. The state is always interested in individuals assuming financial responsibility for each other so it doesn’t fall to the community.

        You just have to be very careful about what, exactly, is incentivized.

        1. JM in England*

          You are quite correct with your latter point. The “For Love” marriage is a relatively recent concept (within the last 150-200 years). Before then, people almost exclusively married to improve their social and/or financial standing.

          1. Emmy Noether*

            I don’t know if I completely agree, because that’s a middle/upper class view on history. Marriage was about asset management for those with assets to protect.

            Interestingly, it serves once again mostly a financial purpose (in the western world at least) in present day, albeit in romantic disguise. One can have all the romance aspects without the “piece of paper”. One cannot have all the finance aspects.

            1. happybat*

              I’m not sure that’s always true! Until about fifty years ago my family were mostly farm servants – farm workers who neither owned nor rented land – and fisher folk (hooray for state subsidised access to HE!). They seem to have married for reasons like:

              – my sister got pregnant and if I am married I can take care of the baby
              – my spouse died and I need childcare and income
              – married farm servants get to live as a couple, and are not expected to live in shared accommodation
              – married men get paid better
              – I want to leave home and need someone to run my household while I am at sea

              A lot of those marriages seemed to end up fairly loving and mutually beneficial, but I don’t think that poverty prevented practical marriages – in fact, it seems to have incentivised them in my culture. And realistically, if I had shared a bed with multiple siblings, winnowing that down to just one husband might have been quite appealling!

      2. Media Monkey*

        a lot of companies in the UK that i have worked for won’t let you take off more than 2 consecutive weeks, and lots will extend this to 3 weeks for a wedding. not heard of extra time off for it!

        1. Learn ALL the things*

          Yeah, I had a coworker once whose first marriage was so terrible she vowed she’d never remarry, but she ended up marrying her boyfriend while we worked together because he got diagnosed with cancer a few days after he was laid off from his job and had no health insurance.

      4. Freida*

        My workplace doesn’t give any of these kinds of benefits but honestly, giving someone a non-consecutive week’s worth of leave when they are getting divorced makes as much sense as giving leave when they get married – you may have to go to court, see your lawyer numerous times, do urgent tasks to ensure your safety like get locks changed, change your name afterwards, etc.

        Not advocating for this, but it has the same “big life event, of course you need some time off to plan” logic as wedding leave.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          Or workplaces could just give everyone enough PTO. My workplace caps out at 240 hours and medical leave is separate (so you’re not using regular PTO for doctors’ visits or sick kids), and I’d get bored and want to come back to work before I’d ever use it all.

        2. ferrina*

          I would love for this to become a thing. I had the PTO I could have taken off, but I don’t think I ended up taking any time off for my divorce. It would have been nice to take time off for the logistical things, but it didn’t feel like the kind of thing I could talk about at work or take a week off for.

      5. Pepper&Goose*

        I recommend reading The Whiteness of Wealth by Dorothy A. Brown. She talks a lot about what the tax laws can and do incentivize and for who.

      6. LL*

        Wow, it’s wild that you only got no-fault divorce recently.

        There’s a group of conservative Christians who want the US to ban n0-fault divorce again. It is absolutely ridiculous.

        1. lucy*

          Some people in the UK think the liberalisation of divorce laws in 1960s England & Wales (still wasn’t no-fault, as noted) was a bad thing for women. They really have no clue, or are wilfully blind to, how important being able to divorce easily is to women’s safety and freedom.

    5. Mameshiba*

      Same, here in Japan it is common to get some amount of leave, and/or maybe a gift from the company/your coworkers. I got 5 days when I got married, I believe they had to be used the same month as the date of marriage.

      There is also usually leaves for condolences, birth of a child (maternity/paternity), some kind of sick leave, maybe a company gift for when your child enters school age. That company also offered 5 days off for milestone years of service (also had a union!).

      Personally I like it and don’t see it as any different than other benefits that I don’t take part in. It sucks that it’s not equitable for LGBT (some companies might allow it, especially if the local city allows same-sex unions). But in a package with similar leaves for life events, I don’t see it as any different from sick leave I don’t use, or a parking permit when I don’t drive.

    6. Kiki*

      Same in Belgium (‘klein verlet’) Getting married or attending a wedding in the family*, divorce, birth of a child, death in the family*, and some other cases. The amount of time depends on the event and how closely related you are to the person (in the case of weddings/funerals), to be taken within a limited timespan around the date of the event.

      * parents, grandparents, siblings, partner, child, grandchild…

      (We also get to take urgent leave if our child falls ill or there are other circumstances that don’t make it possible to go to work – eg. house burning down. Those are limited to 5 or 10 days a year I think)

      1. Pokemon Go To The Polls*

        I like the house burning down example – there are some relatively rare but serious events that come up that would require you to be away from work and, at least in the US, it’s really crappy that a lot of places would make you use all your vacation for it.
        I’m not sure what the best solution is, because a specific list is always going to exclude somebody and allowing for exceptions based on the manager is going to open the door for discrimination.
        Unlimited PTO does solve this issue, but also causes all sorts of others.
        This, like many other workplace issues, comes back to the fact that we’re expected to cosplay not being human at many jobs.

      2. ferrina*

        I love that attending a wedding gets time off! It’s such an inconvenience sometimes, and PTO was a main factor in me missing a family member’s wedding.

    7. Been There*

      In Belgium you get a couple of days when you officially move in together and a couple of days when you get married. Some people play it smart and move in together one year and get married the next to max out their leave. It’s not looked on very well by coworkers when you do that, as it feels you’re taking advantage of the system (and your coworkers by extension).

      1. Emmy Noether*

        It’s very common now to move in together before getting married anyway*, and there are a lot of considerations that go into both of those decisions. Doing it just to get a few days of extra leave would be… a strange way to make life decisions.

        *and I highly recommend it. Better to break up over your inability to mount a Kallax together than to divorce over it.

        1. The Prettiest Curse*

          Ah yes, The IKEA Test. I knew my now-brother-in-law would be a keeper when he was willing to go to IKEA with my sister on a Sunday – with my mother in tow. (Shops in the UK only open for limited hours on Sundays, so any popular big shop is absolutely packed on weekends.)

          1. Keyboard Cowboy*

            The IKEA test is real. My partner and I went to IKEA for our second or third date (not really intentionally, I just needed some stuff and he came along). We’ll have our sixth anniversary this fall :)

            1. Jackalope*

              One test of a relationship is now you can handle putting together a piece of Ikea furniture. (This may also be used for an IKEA visit, but the way I’ve heard it is with putting something together.)

            2. Emmy Noether*

              Putting together a piece of furniture together tests how well you work together as a team to achieve a goal, and how you handle frustration and stress. IKEA works well as a test because it looks like it’s going to be easy and quick, but then inevitably there’s a screw missing (or you think there’s a screw missing but there’s not), or you misinterpreted a step and have to take it apart again, etc. You want to know that your partner can cope with difficulties and be nice to you in the process.

              It’s a jokey way to refer to a stress test of the relationship. Traveling together also often works.

              1. MigraineMonth*

                Ah, vacationing with your romantic partner in exotic locales. My vacation ended with my ex yelling at me that I wasn’t his mother and me yelling back that he should stop acting like a child, then. Somehow he was still surprised when I broke up with him when we got back to the US.

            3. ferrina*

              My ex and I failed the IKEA test. We tried to assemble furniture together, but our thought processes didn’t match and our communication was so bad that we both got really frustrated. Finally we decided that it was easier if I just assembled furniture on my own, but he silently resented that I was more competent at something that he wanted to be good at.

              We pushed past the furniture issue, but it ended up being a template for our relationship- poor communication, him getting resentful when I was better at something he wanted to be good at, and never really being on the same page.

              1. Emmy Noether*

                Interestingly, my husband and I just barely scraped through the IKEA test in a similar way. He despises assembling furniture, but feels obligated to help me. What saved us was our decent communication and low tendency for resentment – I can tell him to take his bad mood elsewhere, I’m fine, I promise, and he won’t take it badly.

                It was definitely a lesson.

              2. Elizabeth West*

                Same. I hate putting furniture together but I’m good at it because I always have to do it alone. Even when I was with my ex. He got a giant entertainment center, and guess who put it together? With him, his brother, and his dad all sitting there watching me, not offering to help because “the game is on.”

        2. Jackalope*

          There are actually studies showing that marriages where the couple lives together first are more likely to end in divorce than marriages where they don’t. I’m not sure why, or what causes that, but apparently it’s a thing.

          1. Emmy Noether*

            That’s a correlation, not causation. People who don’t live together before marriage are more likely to be religious, and hence more likely to view marriage as un-dissolvable.

            1. Jackalope*

              Do you have any evidence to support that? If you do then that’s an interesting and logical explanation. But I haven’t been able to find anything confirming that one way or another.

              1. Emmy Noether*

                So admittedly, that was a bit of a throwaway comment from memory and personal observation. It’s a bit more complex than that with various “selection effects”, this just seems like a really obvious one, at least in western society.

                If I post a link it will go into moderation, but google “Kulu Boyle premarital cohabitation” for an article with a comprehensive explanation.

                1. Jackalope*

                  Very interesting! I have pulled up one of the related studies and will take a look when I’m off.

                  On a note related to factors causing marriages to last, one of the most interesting studies that I read found that the most influential factor (taking into consideration an age-similar cohort studied over 20 years) was whether the woman had a college degree. No college degree meant roughly a 45% likelihood that she’d still be married to her original spouse. Bachelors degrees meant roughly an 85% likelihood. And people who’d gone to college were more likely to get married in the first place, so it was an even stronger correlation. They didn’t know why this was (greater financial security meaning the couple fought less about money? Different ideas about what made a good marriage? More time to get to know each other well because most people were marrying people they met *in* college?), but it was surprisingly strong.

                  (Note that the percentages might be a tiny bit off; the lower one was mid-40s and the higher was mid-80s, but I don’t remember more specifically than that.)

        3. Been There*

          I know, but the coworker I’m thinking of was pretty explicit that she did it for the leave. She’d been together with her partner for a while, but not officially living together yet in the eyes of the law (wettelijk samenwonend in Dutch, a status that offers similar legal protections to getting married).

      2. Lenora Rose*

        I officially moved in with my now husband most of a year before he even proposed in a country where there are no moving benefits and this is the norm for the majority of couples I knew. My opinion is that anyone who thinks people do these things in this way just to milk benefits, even in Belgium, is probably being excessively judgy.

    8. Ontariariario*

      No special leave in Canada, but federal public servants used to get a week of Marriage Leave, and about 15 years ago they changed it to Alison’s suggestion where once in a lifetime there is a One-Time Vacation Entitlement. Still one week, but it’s only once for everyone and it can be taken anytime.

      1. lurkyloo*

        Greetings fellow Canadian Fed! I was just coming here to say this. It was changed to everyone gets it and it’s enshrined in our Collective Agreement!

      2. Formerly Ella Vader*

        Oh that’s fascinating! What I remembered was that circa 1988 they announced they were proposing doing away with the Marriage Leave at the end of that vacation-counting year, so two of my colleagues who had been cohabitating with their partners got married in order not to lose out on the leave. Second marriages for both of them – I don’t remember if they’d been working in the public service the first time around. I left that job the next year, so I never heard about the revised policy or about whether my colleagues regretted their decisions. (I’m sure people at coffee break would have asked them, anyway – it was that kind of office. )

    9. Phony Genius*

      I wonder if countries that mandate marriage leave cap the number of times you are eligible for this leave if you remarry multiple times.

    10. Dido*

      The fact that it’s government-mandated makes it better to me as the government obviously has a reason to incentivize getting married and starting families

  2. Pink Sprite*

    #1: Ouch. That extra week off only for someone getting married would (does!) not only tick me off, but it also makes me quite sad.
    I don’t foresee myself ever getting married, so if I worked at that company, I’d be advocating HARD for Alison’s suggestions.
    Their policy stinks.

    1. SingleChildlessCatSandwichLady*

      I don’t know. I’m an unmarried person, and I really don’t find this offensive. I would be stoked about this perk for my coworkers who were getting married. It sounds like it’s a one time perk created around a cultural norm and not something being done at me. Anthropologically, there’s just no cultural equivalent for single people. The only caveat I would have is if marriage were still restricted to heterosexual couples, but that’s not the case.

      1. sparkle emoji*

        Yeah, it seems nice to me? As long as they aren’t stingy with other types of leave I personally wouldn’t be bothered.

      3. Wonder Woman's Tiara*

        Yeah, also extremely single and not too worried about changing that, but this wouldn’t bug me particularly.

        On the other hand, it DID bug me that colleagues used to get multiple smoke breaks a day whereas I wasn’t allowed even one short tea break. That was a much more overt/in-your-face unfairness, though

        1. Syfy Geek*

          After I quit smoking (24 years ago ago) I realized I was missing out on a lot of business related content. I started going out on “not smoking, just smelling the smoke” breaks to stay on top of things. The company was just dysfunctional enough that they didn’t say anything and it was my VP on the smoke break.

      5. LL*

        Nah, it’s definitely discriminatory. There’s no reason to give extra time off to people who get married while working at that particular company.

        With something like parental leave, there are many benefits to both the parent(s) and the child to granting that leave.
        Giving leave to someone getting married has no real benefits (no one is recovering from childbirth, or losing sleep because they have to feed a baby every two hours, or trying to bond with and care for a child).

    2. Koa*

      How is this any different than parental leave though? Or bereavement leave? There will always be someone complaining about a benefit that only benefits one group. I’m already married but still think an extra week for a marriage would be nice for those who need it.

      1. Dek*

        I feel like on some level because being single already comes with a societal and financial price tag.

        Bereavement leave is the same for everyone and it’s something you hope you don’t have to take. Parental leave is just straight up necessary, whether or not we treat it as such.

        But on some level this seems like a reward for Doing The Adult Life Correctly, or something like that. I dunno.

          1. Wilbur*

            This is such a wild take. They’re not rewarding you for conforming, they are giving you an extra week off for an important life event.

            2. inksmith*

              OK – where’s my week off for completing my PhD? Or buying a house? Or something else that I think is an important life event, but because it’s not marriage, it doesn’t count. You don’t *need* a week off for getting married – it’s a reward for doing this culturally expected thing, when people who get married already get plenty of rewards, both personally and from the state.

              1. Wilbur*

                If we’re going to go by need, then you don’t “need” a week off after you buy a house or get your PhD. If you’re concerned about rewarding the “culturally expected thing”, than I don’t see a difference between buying a house and getting married (assuming you mean the cultural expectations is that you get married, buy a house, and start pumping out kids). Plenty of people have been talking about the “penalty” of being single or the injustice of giving people a week off when they might be going on an expensive honeymoon, but buying a house and getting a PhD are things that are more available to more highly paid employees. You could very well argue that extra time off for those things would be regressive, especially graduate school where the company has likely already made a lot of time concessions or supported through tuition reimbursement. I don’t think those are good reasons to not do those things, because it’s great when a company can be generous. I think this is a good policy-the cost to the company is pretty small, the effect on employee workload is pretty minor, and the impact to individual employees is pretty high.

              2. lucy*

                I agree with you. I didn’t *need* extra time to get married in the same way I undoubtedly needed time to look after my babies. Then again, I’m firmly in the camp of generous annual leave for all. I was able to have a long honeymoon/break after my wedding, but I benefited from some time off when I moved house as well, and may well do if I ever decide to get a dog or something.

      2. Dust Bunny*

        Because you physically can’t come back to work for at least a little while after having a baby and bereavement just seems self-explanatory. You don’t have to go on a honeymoon–it could just as well come out of your regular PTO.

        Or they could just give everybody a week more PTO and let them use it as they wish, married or not.

        1. Saturday*

          Yeah, this is where I land. Nobody really needs time off after their marriage. Sure, it’s nice to have, but that’s what vacation time is for. That’s not usually the case with time off after a baby. And bereavement leave is a separate category because it’s something that usually can’t be planned for.

        2. Cinnamon Stick*

          I suspect if everyone had a enough PTO (especially in the US), there would be less annoyance at people getting that extra week.

          1. amoeba*

            Yup, that’s where I land.

            We have some extra PTO when people get married, not sure how much though. My direct report got it and I literally only thought “oh, nice for her! (I mean, in her case at least, the whole planning for the wedding was so much work that the few extra days certainly don’t make up for it! I know that’s not the case for everybody, but it’s at least pretty common…)

            But then we also have generous PTO, (virtually) unlimited sick leave, and parental leave (although unfortunately the worst in Europe, but oh well), and can flex our time and take any overtime as extra days off. So nobody would really be jealous of an extra 3 or 5 days one time.

            I might still find it a tiny bit unfair if it was literally *only* for weddings, but I think we also do this quite well – we get extra days for:
            – Moving house (I think that might even be the law here?)
            – Bereavement
            – Certain number of years at the company (so, my other direct report got an extra week after 25 years – I think it starts earlier, but still quite long. 10 or so?)
            – Having a political office (quite a lot, I think a day per week or so? That’s also by law though)

            And probably quite a few more. Basically, it’s just generally accepted that sometimes, you get extra PTO for some things, and not all of us get or need all of them, and that’s OK.

      3. sofar*

        To me, getting married is something you choose to do (and you can pick the time it happens), while bereavement is something that happens to you unplanned. Parental leave (while, yes, you generally choose to have a kid), is necessary because of the immediate caregiving and bonding time (and possibly physical recuperation in the case of a birth) required in the weeks/months after a birth/adoption.

      4. Jiminy Cricket*

        To me, this is different from parental or bereavement leaves because those address real needs, while a honeymoon is a nice-to-have.

        (That said, I’m not entirely opposed to this policy, if the company is generous in a variety of ways. I guess I really took it to heart when my parents kept telling me life isn’t fair? Shrugs in GenX.)

      5. M2*

        Exactly. My spouse only got 2 weeks of paid parental leave when we had our child, but maybe a year later they made it 6 months paid for men, women, non binary if you have or adopt a child. Did it stink he didn’t get the 6 months? Yes, and he asked if he could get that time but it must be once you adopt or have a child, can’t be used later on.

    3. Bast*

      I don’t see it any different than other leave days I may not be entitled to. For example, maternity/paternity leave. I do not plan on having any more children. If my company magically decided to give everyone 12 weeks paid (which was NOT an option at any of the companies I’ve worked for — you were entitled to 12 weeks of UNPAID leave) I wouldn’t be upset because I did not get to use this benefit and had to rush back after 6 weeks because I could not afford to be out longer.

      That being said, I like Alison’s suggestion of having qualifying major life events that would also entitle you to the time off. Broaden the horizons and make it not solely marriage.

    4. Leaf Laugh Loaf*

      I kind of assume this policy started as a logistical solution to people not having enough leave to take a honeymoon, and it’s just become codified. I have personally seen people get more leeway for their honeymoon, such as getting an advance on accruing hours or getting more flexibility on consecutive time off. If managers were treating different employees differently (eg, one person got flex time, one person got unpaid leave, etc) when they got married, it makes sense that the company would want to standardize the approach across the board.

      If everyone at the company got sufficient vacation time to do whatever they need to do (vacation, move, pets, whatever) then it likely wouldn’t have been an issue in the first place, but it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out why this happened.

    5. It’s A Butternut Squash*

      Nothing I found so, so odd about getting engaged and married was that basically you have this wonderful thing happen to you that comes down to luck in more ways than not and then everyone keeps giving you gifts! And perks! I just kept thinking “T bought me a diamond and because one person bought me a diamond all these other people are also buying me nice things.”

      I was very appreciative to my friends and family for spoiling me. I didn’t think it was weird that they wanted to celebrate this huge milestone with me. But the degree to which it was being treated as something I should be rewarded for good luck was very odd.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Oooh, that’s a very good point! One of my friends pointed out years ago that it was especially weird that people give wedding presents of household items to couples who are combining households and often already have two of a lot of things. It made a lot of sense back in the day when people getting married would live with their parents until the wedding and then be starting from scratch at their new home, but nowadays when most people live singly for awhile before marriage, it’s a bit silly. Although I guess that’s why a lot of couples nowadays will just ask for contributions towards their honeymoon or something like “buy us an hour of horseback riding in Hawaii” or whatever.

        As a single person, I would have appreciated being able to register for some kitchen items that I wanted when I was younger. Having to buy them on one income instead of two is one of the many penalties one pays by being a single person.

        The other thing us single people miss out on is having that one big bash that you get to have when you get married where you get to hang out with every single important person in your life all at the same time, and your family and friends from all walks of life finally get to meet each other. For this reason I have decided that I’m going to throw myself a 50th birthday party in a few years – I’m not even really a party person, but it’ll be really wonderful to see everyone all in the same place. Maybe I’ll even wear a wedding dress! (Lol, just kidding.)

      2. Jackalope*

        Some of it is because it’s only recently that it was a matter of luck. There are still countries in the world where it’s the parents’ familial responsibility to their children to find them a spouse, and that used to be much more common. Society also used to provide more frequent opportunities to meet and mingle with other single people with the purpose of finding a spouse. These days that’s considered less a thing to do and you’re supposed to just magically find someone on your own, but there’s still some of that expectation that it’s a thing that will just…. happen, to everyone.

    6. Elsewise*

      I’m currently planning a wedding, and I’d rather have an extra bucket of personal days to use whenever. (My workplace started giving two per year when covid first hit, in addition to regular PTO, and kept it going.) I know when I’m getting married, I can’t afford to take a honeymoon right after, but I’ll probably take a few days off just to recover. I can bank vacation days for that! On the other hand, I just got covid, the same year my partner had a major surgery, and I’m dealing with severe post-viral fatigue, so having more PTO I can use as-needed is super important to me right now.

      1. lucy*

        Maternity, or parental, leave is literally medically necessary for several weeks and then after that there’s a tiny baby who hugely benefits from being looked after a primary carer. It’s not the same at all.

  3. Polyhymnia O’Keefe*

    #2 — The weather argument also holds less weight since the snow was a week earlier. I realize that roads can still be bad after a week, but in my experience, that’s out of the realm of urgent. There’s more likelihood that roads have been sanded/plowed, and more importantly, it’s not catching drivers off-guard anymore. I realize that the interview was rescheduled because of a snow day, but I’d bet that being 7 minutes late, even without notice, during an active snow event would not have the same impact.

    1. Pink Sprite*

      Normally, I’d agree with you. However my sister lives in a neighborhood surrounded with houses. But also has an elementary school adjacent to her backyard. And around the corner and over a street is a small hospice home.
      The whole neighborhood usually does not get plowed for (at minimum) five days- usually around a week before it’s all clear. And that’s hoping that there isn’t any more snow.

      1. doreen*

        I think there are two parts to the snow having been a week before. First, it’s more likely to have been plowed etc. although “more likely” doesn’t mean it was and it’s not uncommon for it to take days for certain streets/areas to be plowed ( the dead end street I lived on basically never got plowed) But second, if it snowed a week ago and the roads are still bad , I would expect the person to know that and leave extra time.

        And then of course, there’s the issue of not texting until the LW was already late.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          This. If it’s been a week the LW knew about it and had the chance to plan better, and definitely should have called or texted sooner.

        2. Jeanine*

          and what about all the employers who schedule interviews and can’t be bothered to show up on time, why is that ok? I don’t think that’s acceptable at all.

    2. GammaGirl1908*

      For me, the weather is one thing, but the real issue is that LW didn’t get in touch as soon as she knew she was going to be a few minutes late. She knew at 12:50 that she wasn’t going to be there at 1:00. She should have gotten in touch right then regardless of the reason she was running late.

      1. ecnaseener*

        I don’t see any indication that LW knew at 12:50? If they needed to park a 10-minute walk away, maybe. Regardless, they certainly knew at 12:58 and should’ve texted then.

      2. Jessen*

        I feel like the assumption of this also really depends on what the drive is like for you? I’ve had issues with being asked “why didn’t you call/text when you knew you were going to be late” before (usually by doctor’s offices). And the problem is, 95% of the drive time for me is on the interstate. In order to contact someone safely and legally, I need to find an exit, get off the interstate, find a place to pull over, contact the person, and then get back on the interstate. Which is probably going to add 15-20 minutes minimum to how long it takes to get there when I’m already running late. So I’m not really sure how I’m supposed to get in touch as soon as I know I’m going to be late without either illegally using my cell phone while driving or making myself way later.

          1. Jessen*

            This is generally illegal unless you’re in an emergency situation. It’s also going to cause more problems for everyone around you if there’s an accident or similar. Not a viable option just because you need to make a phone call.

      3. M2*

        This. Pull over and send a quick message. It’s respectful of time. Those interviewers might have been waiting those 10 minutes instead of finishing up work or something. It wasn’t really being respectful of their time.

        I always try and get places extra early just to be on the safe side. Construction, no parking, parking far from the organization can all be factors so if it says it takes 25 minutes to get there I will usually give myself double the amount of time or leave maybe 45 -50 min before. You never know what could happen.

      4. Despachito*

        This, and she seems pretty cavalier about that.

        If this approach transpired during the interview I can see why the interviewers did not want to continue with her.

    3. Hobbit*

      I’ve lived in the northern part of the US and the southern part, including the Deep South. Wjat is one snow day in the north would close schools for a week in the south. Only major roads get plowed. Neighborhoods are not plowed and with temperatures going above freezing during the day and then dropping down below at night everything becomes a sheet of ice. Parking lots may or may not be plowed, completely depends on the owner.
      So I can see snow and ice still being an issue several days later depending on where you live.

      1. Lady Lessa*

        I can especially see the ice being a problem. Snow removed, and starts to melt during the day and then freezes into a slick sheet at night.

        I question the potential employer. Why didn’t they have a visitor’s parking spot that she could have used? That would have been clear and probably ice free.

        1. Elizabeth West*

          It always happened in my old neighborhood. In some municipalities, including that one, they don’t plow side streets, only the main drags. So that ice would stick around for at least a week after a major snow event. You really had to plan ahead. The street also had an incline at my end, and after nearly sliding into a pole, I would sprinkle salt on the end of the road so my neighbors and I could get out.

        2. Filofaxes*

          I mean, not knowing anything about the interview location, there are a lot of reasons why they may not have had a lot (or any) “visitor” parking–especially if it’s in a metropolitan location. So I can’t really point the finger at them. Again, why did the letter writer wait until SEVEN minutes *after* the interview time to notify the interviewer they were “running” late? They were already quite late and they hadn’t actually parked!

      2. Irish Teacher.*

        Yeah, that was my thought too. As far as I know, Ireland does not have snow ploughs. We rarely need them as snow usually melts in a couple of hours, at least in urban areas, but around 2011, we had two really cold winters (they claimed one was the coldest since 1601) and a depth of snow I have never seen anything else even vaguely resemble in my 40+ years on earth and we just…mostly waited for it to melt. Which did take days on end.

        So yeah, I agree, if this was somewhere where this weather is unusual, it is more likely to cause unexpected problems.

    4. Seeking Second Childhood*

      That really depends on the snow event– 2019 had some doozies according to wikipedia, including one in Texas where they’re better set up for heat than ice. There was also one that dropped 20+ inches across the northeast topping out at 36″ (~1 meter) in part of New Hampshire. Snow like that builds up in awkward ways & redrifts, and Google Maps time estimates can be off.

      I’m also thinking of a friend in Buffalo where the Lake effect snow could mean one area gets a few inches the same day another area gets a few feet!

    5. Hazelthyme*

      This. Emergencies happen, and no reasonable employer will fault you for running late or needing to reschedule if there’s an active weather event, a truck overturned on the freeway, etc. But even then, you should call as soon as you know you’re not going to be there on time, and not 7 minutes after the interview was to have started.

      And let’s not forget that you’re expected to put our best foot forward in interviews, and the employer assumes you’re doing so. That means giving yourself enough of a cushion so ordinary annoyances — traffic, parking, seasonal weather — don’t make you late. Better to arrive 5-10 minutes early (or wait in your car or a nearby coffee shop if you’re earlier than that) than be late for the interview and leave the employer wondering if punctuality will be an ongoing issue.

      1. Not Buying It*

        It wasn’t an active weather event. The snow was the week before and the interview was at 1:00pm. That’s plenty of time to leave early in case the roads are not plowed or there’s an accident, or whatever. LW didn’t show any forethought and then didn’t bother to initiate contact until well after they were already late.

  4. Pink Sprite*

    Re: letter 1: Wow. If I worked somewhere with such a vacation policy, I’d be ticked. There just isn’t going to be a wedding/marriage in my future, so I deliberately don’t receive extra vacation time.
    You can be damn sure I’d be raging to TPTB for equality.

    1. Coffee*

      I assume wedding is framed as once in the lifetime event but what happens when longtime employees get divorced and remarried? Do they get the vacation again?

      1. Ellis Bell*

        Nah, you’re supposed to get remarried in the shadows, wearing black, while promising not to have children.

      2. LizardOfOz*

        In Spain you can get marriage leave once in a five year period, so if you get married again more than five years after your first marriage, then yes, you get another marriage leave.

        I think it’s in the whole country, but there’s stuff like province level collective agreements, so I vould be wrong about that.

        1. It’s A Butternut Squash*

          This is so darkly hilarious to me like what is the utility of this? Are they afraid of people abusing the system by continuously getting divorced and remarried so they can get one extra week of vacation each time? If not, do they just want to make sure people know if you get married twice in five years the government officially disapproves, and you have been Very Bad?

    2. Zelda*

      Becoming a parent is another life event that isn’t going to happen to everyone, yet even as a childfree person, I don’t resent generous maternity/paternity leave policies. How does that comparison hold up, and where does it fall down?

      1. korangeen*

        I suppose because we recognize the creation of children as essential to the survival of humanity overall, and parental leave as essential to the survival of that particular helpless infant. And it’s not vacation. I’d be kinda ticked too about people getting married getting an extra week of vacation.

      2. Ellis Bell*

        It’s generally seen as a way to correct the old system which was “men have to get back to work to support the family” and “women only work until they get married so they don’t need parental leave”. If you’re a woman who doesn’t want kids, it’s still nice to not have other women deliberately excluded from the workplace which would make it male dominated. Men also deserve the option to be more involved in their family than being a breadwinner.

      3. Nodramalama*

        People don’t get parental leave as a celebration of having a child. They get parental leave because they have responsibilities of looking after a child. There is no added responsibility for someone who is getting married.

        2. The Kulprit*

          100%! Parental leave is not a vacation or a bonus — it is time away from your job so you can heal, bond and do the very real work of parenting a tiny human. This honeymoon leave is very much being presented as more vacation.

      4. Bronte*

        There’s some inherent justification for maternity leave (and to some extent paternity leave) because it would be very difficult to get used to keeping a whole new human alive without it, and for the mother there’s the physical aspect of course. When it goes into ‘generous’ territory I do think it can cause resentment IF other major life events (bereavement, ill parents, etc) aren’t given consideration.

        Marriage leave? A person can get married without needing extra time off. Getting married isn’t all that special except to the couple. The leave is a nice thing to have, but if a company is going to do that then they should make sure it’s accessible to everyone, like an extra week to use for life events every five years or something.

        1. Zelda*

          It’s been pointed out elsewhere that *marriage* leave isn’t necessarily “honeymoon leave” purely for recreation. Some places require it to be taken after the wedding, but not all, and there are actual tasks and responsibilities that go with getting married– not only arranging the wedding, but rearranging one’s financial, legal, and household matters. In some ways, there’s a strong parallel to bereavement leave in that a) there’s a ton of paperwork and practical matters to attend to, while b) there’s an intense emotional component that tends to leave most people not super focused on their work.

          That said, I am intrigued by Ellis Bell’s analysis above: assuming that people are going to go on having children no matter what, parental leave policies provide a way for the workforce too absorb the impact in the least sexist way. And of course, others below have pointed out that, if we (especially Americans) weren’t so short on PTO overall, we wouldn’t be so tense sniping at each other over the perceived fairness of what little leave we do get. If everybody felt like they had *enough*, we might not be mad at someone else getting a little more.

          1. Dahlia*

            A lot of things require a lot of taks that take time to do, though. If I’m going to Comic Con, can I get an extra week of PTO off so I can work on my cosplay?

      6. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        Parental leave is very much not a vacation. The time I spent on leave taking care of our newborn (I didn’t give birth, so I wasn’t physically recovering from anything) was the most exhausting time of my life.

    3. londonedit*

      Yeah, but I’m also not going to be taking maternity leave and I’m not annoyed about that. I don’t begrudge other people taking maternity leave just because I’m not going to have children. I think it’s nice to give people time off for their honeymoon – often it’s the most expensive and extravagant holiday people will go on in their lives, and it’s a nice gesture for the company to give an extra week’s holiday for it.

      I’ve worked for companies where you got an extra day off if you bought a house (for your moving-in/completion day) and an extra day off if you got married. It’s not as if everyone’s getting married and buying houses all the time – and I don’t begrudge them doing it just because I’m not doing it. It’s a big deal and it’s nice that it’s acknowledged and the company offers a little bit of help.

      1. bamcheeks*

        Hm, getting leave for buying a house and not for having to move house every twelve or six months because you’re renting would annoy me quite a lot more than marriage leave!

          1. Pizza Rat*

            I would love that. It’s common in my city for landlords to prefer you move in on a weekday vs a Saturday or Sunday.

        2. londonedit*

          I suppose so…it was definitely meant to be a nice thing and an acknowledgement of a major life event (and also buying a house is super stressful and it’s nice not to have to take a day’s holiday to deal with the whole sitting outside in a removal van waiting to hear whether it’s all actually completed thing). And because we were in London, no one really used it that often! Agree that it would have been nice to have a day off to move house regardless, but I feel like with renting there’s often a bit more flexibility about what day you’re moving, rather than when you’re buying and it’s X completion day and that’s that. And I suppose you’d have had people resenting it if there were others moving rentals every six months and getting a day off every time. You can’t please everyone! But I never resented the people who had a day off to move.

          1. Chirpy*

            Not really, most leases start on the 1st of a month and end on the 30th/ 31st. You’re lucky if you can get into the new place even a day or two before the 1st – so quite often, you have to move everything in very quickly, plus deep clean the old place before you leave. And find a rental truck that isn’t booked, because everyone else is moving on the same day, too. Not to mention that even if you can haul everything in a day, you’ll probably spend your evenings packing for weeks if you don’t get any time off work.

            Worst case scenario is you have to move out on the 30th and can’t move in until the 1st.

            1. Reebee*

              “…most leases start on the 1st of a month and end on the 30th/ 31st.”
              —

              “Most leases”? Um, no, leases start when they start and rent is then pro-rated accordingly.

              1. Chirpy*

                I have never once seen a lease that didn’t start on the 1st. I have been allowed to move in 4 days early (prorated) *once*. I have never seen anyone get the end of a lease prorated for moving out early- if it’s less than a month, it’s not considered, more than one month early and it’s considered breaking your lease, and some places will just require you to finish out the term of the lease as a penalty. Sometimes you can get a lease extension for a few weeks past the original term if your landlord is good, but a lot won’t do it.

          2. Great Frogs of Literature*

            I find this fascinating, because I (US) had a LOT more flexibility about my move when I bought that when I rented. There was work we wanted to do before moving in, so we wound up moving about two months after everything was finalized, and if I were going to do it again I’d try to give myself even more of a buffer than that, at least if the house needed a comparable amount of work.

            Whereas there’s a VERY strong September-August rental cycle here (lots of universities). I’ve never personally had to do the out-by-August-31, can’t-move-in-until-September-1 move, but I’ve known people who have. And even if you’re off-cycle, unless you have an unusually accommodating landlord, you’re usually stuck moving on the month-end, except if you’re willing/able to pay rent on two places simultaneously for a month. I would have thought that London prices encouraged similar dynamics, but it sounds like no?

            1. doreen*

              I think the flexibility involves paying rent/mortgage on two places simultaneously , although not necessarily for a month. I plenty of flexibility i when I bought a house and moved form a rental apartment – the closing was Oct 4 or something so I was already paying rent for October. It’s selling the house that doesn’t have much flexibility – the people I bought from had to be out by Oct 6 or so. One of the reasons I’m a little hesitant about eventually selling my house is the timing – I’ve known a couple of people who basically had to move twice because they had to be out of the old house by a certain date which was a few weeks before they closed on the new house

            2. Beth**

              The UK doesn’t really do bridging loans, so you have to move out of your old place on the same day you move into your new place. And everyone involved in the transaction has to do the same. Depending on the buyers/sellers, this can involve multiple properties all having to be ready at same time.
              My experience in England is that you normally have almost no notice of the final date and then it’s a huge scramble to get everything packed and ready for the day.
              It’s a terrible system but no one seems to want to start offering bridging loans to allow people more flexibility.

            3. Michigander*

              I went to college and then lived for about 5 years after in Boston, so all of my earliest adult life. I was a bit surprised later to realize that leases starting in September was not the rule across the country.

              1. ScruffyInternHerder*

                It was a total brain-reset moment, I completely understand where you’re coming from.

                Our leases typically were up by the 20th-25th of August…but you could never move in until sometime between August 30th-September 5th. I always suspected this was so that $hitty landlords (because in a college town they’re supremely $hitty in all the ways including a few you hadn’t thought of yet) to convince people to just “stay put and re-sign that lease for a second or third year and we’ll “waive” the rent in that no-man-land week or two”

                So much time wasted moving everything from apartment to a friend’s barn/garage/temporary storage, then again from the temporary location to the new place.

              2. Emily of New Moon*

                So you know all about the annual “Storrowing” of U-hauls, no matter how much they try to prevent them?

            4. Jackalope*

              Our most recent rental we had the last few days of the month prorated, so we paid rent for 4 or 5 days at the new place and up to the end of the month at the old places. (We were combining households, which added to the complexity.)

          3. LL*

            Maybe it’s differnet in London, but in the US you don’t usually have tons of flexibility unless your leases overlap. But if your old lease ends on June 7th, you have to be out on that date and leases usually don’t overlap.

        3. Jeanine*

          I don’t know about you but I certainly don’t move every 6 to 12 months just because I’m renting. I like to put down roots, and I have been at my place for about 15 years now.

          1. bamcheeks*

            I own a house now, but partly because it wasn’t possible to have any kind of long-term security whilst renting privately in the UK. Short-term assured tenancies are rarely longer than 12 months, sometimes as short as 3 or 6 months. Some people get lucky with landlords who want long-term tenants and are happy to let the tenancy keep rolling, but many landlords will try to increase rents at the end of the tenancy, so it’s not uncommon to have to move once or twice a year. We don’t have any legal frameworks that support long-term rentals or tenant security in the private sector.

            1. Emmy Noether*

              woah, that’s crazy.

              I’m used to very strong renter protections. They’re kind of analogous to employee protections, in that the landlord cannot get you out without a good reason. Basically unless a renter stops paying entirely or the landlord wants to move in himself or the building is getting destroyed to build a highway, there’s no getting rid of a renter. Prices can increase during that time though (within strict rules).

              1. amoeba*

                Yup, same here (OK, I know we’re talking about the same countries, haha) – but then we also have a much, much higher proportion of renters than most of the world, certainly than US and UK! The large majority of rental contracts doesn’t have a fixed term, it’s unlimited. And people do regularly stay in the same flat for literal decades.

                I honestly never understand why people would actually want to buy instead of rent here… but if renting meant moving every year, then yes, that would be super annoying, and I get why you’d want to buy instead!

          2. Nonsense*

            Good for you. You’re the outlier. There’s been plenty of articles in the media over the last 5 years talking about why people have to move so often. Hint: salaries and cost of living increases don’t match.

            1. amoeba*

              I find that interesting because in my experience, moving is really, really expensive and I’m stressed just by the thought of having to pay for that every year!

              But yeah, having good protection for people who rent, including limiting the amount the rent is allowed to go up, definitely helps. A lot.

          3. Chirpy*

            I moved every 6 months in college, the dorms were closed over the summer (and you couldn’t access them during winter break, so you were probably taking a lot of stuff home for that month, too).

            My old roommate has moved every year in the last seven years, except for two years when I convinced her to stay put during the pandemic (the first place together had mold, second place was fine, when she wanted to move again we split). I fully intend on staying in my current place for a few more years, why move if you don’t have to.

      2. The Voice of Reason*

        I think it’s nice to give people time off for their honeymoon – often it’s the most expensive and extravagant holiday people will go on in their lives, and it’s a nice gesture for the company to give an extra week’s holiday for it.

        This is exactly right. The people whining about how “unfair” it is to give a very rare gift to a newly-married couple are being very tendentious and churlish, and yes, I would think poorly of them for it.

        1. mlem*

          It is neither tendentious nor churlish to question why companies (or countries) choose to be “nice” to one set of people and not another. Parental leave has broad societal benefits. It’s much harder to argue that for marriage, and that’s before you get into what groups are excluded from being able to marry.

          Sure, it’s “nice” of companies (or countries) to give leave to people getting married. It’d be “nice” to give that same kindness to people with other major events, and choosing only marriage for that kindness raises justified questions.

          1. Wilbur*

            Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. It is a nice and generous thing and it has a very limited impact on the company. Many people getting married are early in their careers and have less PTO, this is a nice way of easing that. There are leave policies for other major life events such as parental leave, bereavement, and disability. What major life events are you referring to?

        2. Dek*

          So the people who have an occasion to take an expensive and extravagant holiday also get a reward for it?

          I’m just saying, the fact that honeymoons are expensive and extravagant doesn’t really seem to mean that Therefore They Should Get Extra Leave For It. If someone else takes a big Once In A Lifetime Trip for a reason other than getting married, they don’t get extra leave for that.

          There’s social (and financial) pressure and punishment in being single, and I don’t think it’s whining or churlish to feel that this is part of that. Especially when leave in certain countries is so minimal.

          1. Chirpy*

            This, exactly. It absolutely sucks that a friend and I could both plan the exact same once-in-a-lifetime trip, but only the one of us lucky enough to find a spouse would get extra paid time off for it.

            1. The Voice of Reason*

              There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, because you are using the trip for different purposes. You are going on holiday. Your newlywed friend is going to bond with his/her spouse.

              1. inksmith*

                Oh, come on. They already bonded, that’s why they decided to get married! very few people are marrying a stranger, or even someone they don’t already live with, they don’t need paid “bonding time”.

              2. Chirpy*

                That’s just ridiculous. What about bonding with a good friend, or a sibling you never get to see on a trip? A person who’s just gotten married will almost always be living with that person after the wedding, they have all the time in the world to “bond” (and quite frankly, unless the wedding was arranged, one would hope they’ve already bonded! They got married!)

              3. amoeba*

                I mean… I don’t have a big problem with the policy as such, but this seems wrong. If you need the honeymoon to bond with your spouse, I feel like you got married a little bit too quickly! Of course it’s a vacation for the couple, it’s not like they’re going to use the week to do, I don’t know, an intense couple’s therapy or something…

      3. Katara's side braids*

        With parental leave there is an actual human being whose wellbeing depends on that initial bonding time. It would actually be unethical (*is unethical, in the case of the US) to deny the child that time with their parents, especially now that we know so much more about early childhood development.

        I don’t understand how so many people are trying to compare that to a very nice vacation.

      4. Anna*

        My country does give leave for moving house for the same reason you get extra leave for marriage – it’s not for the wedding, honeymoon, etc it’s to do the actual paperwork, registration, etc. Same reason fathers are given “birth” days off in addition to actual parental leave – those days are just to go get the birth certificate, etc. not for the bonding and care of the child.

      5. LL*

        If getting an extra day off for buying a house was also giving to renters who were moving, I’d support it 100%. I usually have to use my PTO to move and it would be nice not to have to do that.

    4. Runcible Wintergreen*

      I kind of assume this policy started as a logistical solution to people not having enough leave to take a honeymoon, and it’s just become codified. I have personally seen people get more leeway for their honeymoon, such as getting an advance on accruing hours or getting more flexibility on consecutive time off. If managers were treating different employees differently (eg, one person got flex time, one person got unpaid leave, etc) when they got married, it makes sense that the company would want to standardize the approach across the board.

      If everyone at the company got sufficient vacation time to do whatever they need to do (vacation, move, pets, whatever) then it likely wouldn’t have been an issue in the first place, but it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out why this happened.

  5. Nodramalama*

    I’d be so resentful if my work offered married leave. It makes me feel like Carrie in sex and the city. Where’s my “congrats on succeeding and thriving in life without a partner and going on holidays by myself and saving to buy a house on my own” leave.

    2. Abigail*

      I think people need to throw their own celebrations.

      A friend of mine made partner and threw herself a big fancy dinner to celebrate. She probably spent more on this than many weddings. I was thrilled for her and of course I showed up ready to celebrate.

      She didn’t sit around moaning “where is my party for my career milestone?” She hosted a party for her career milestone. Love her for that.

    3. Dek*

      It kinda makes me think how sometimes I wish I could’ve just had a “well, I guess I’m staying single forever probably” party sometime in my 20s, because hey, maybe I’d like a waffle iron or a matching set of plates.

      Like, not bitter exactly. I loved getting my friends wedding shower gifts, and felt honored to participate in their wedding. But it’s a lot harder to afford Nice Things For The Home on a single person’s salary.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Totally this! I commented about that in another thread. One of my friends pointed out when she got married how odd she felt it was that she could register for home items when not only did she already have a lot of stuff but her husband also had many of the same things, so they had a lot of duplicates already. It made sense in the olden days when most people didn’t move away from home until they got married and therefore needed a lot of things to start a new household, but it’s kind of an old-fashioned tradition these days.

        Also: I feel like I definitely missed out on the “fun party with everyone you know” aspect of getting married, so I am planning to throw myself a 50th birthday party in a few years. I want to see all my friends and family at the same time! It’s never too late!

        1. Hlao-roo*

          Just a note on your 50th birthday party plans: a (distant) relative of mine did this for his 40th birthday party! I didn’t attend because I’m not close to him, but one of my family members who went said it was a great time–exactly like all the best parts of a wedding (mixing of different social groups all important to the main person/people, dancing, celebrating).

        2. Seal Call*

          I had a roommate in my single days who had been married briefly and and had a set of (branded) food storage containers she’d received as a wedding gift. She wanted to store the whole box behind the couch. I lobbied hard for her to see them as useful for “People Who Eat Food”, not just household items for only “People Who Are Married”. I think she freed up a few of them; though I can understand her wanting to protect them from damage, disappearance, or missing burpable seals. Fortunately I was a (probably more) reliable and conscientious user than spouses (from experience) I’ve known.

      2. Skylight*

        I think it would be nice to replace wedding showers with a “leave the nest” party for everyone (single or engaged) and gift household items. Then people who are single get some help for household items and those going straight from living at home to married both benefit.

        I and a sibling both went straight from living at home to getting married. Two other siblings went out on their own. We all received household items and furniture when we moved out. (My mom has hoarder tendencies so when older relatives downsized or passed away, she’d save a lot of their furniture and household items, then pass them on.) Unfortunately the single siblings didn’t get wedding showers with gifts from extended family. My mom was the one who made sure they got some help getting started. I think she also would use Christmas and bdays to buy them bigger, pricer items that they needed. I remember she’d sometimes tell me that she was going to give them something special but that they needed it and it wasn’t favoritism. I was happy for them! They are younger than me and I knew they needed the help. My spouse and I already had what we needed.

      3. amoeba*

        True – at least here in Europe, I do feel that is inverted once people have kids, though! (There’s a reason for the DINK clichée – but I feel that even single I have much more disposable income than a couple with children.)

  6. NforKnowledge*

    LW3 who was late, from the way the story is told it sounds like you planned to arrive maybe 5-10 min early and then finding parking took that long so you eventually texted 7 min late to say you’d be there soon.

    To my mind that is far too little time to have as a buffer, especially if you know it’s snowy and icy. For something where I definitely don’t want to be late I generally count on adding 50-100% to my travel time, so if I expect it to take 30 min I give myself 45-60 min to get there in plenty of time. And that’s without adverse weather conditions!

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      Same. I understand LWs frustration but I don’t think the employer is completely off base by taking this as reflection on the ability to plan ahead and manage time in order to be punctual, especially if that’s vital to the role.

    2. Dust Bunny*

      Thirding. You can always dawdle somewhere if you’re early but you can’t do much about being late. If it’s somewhere where you don’t know the parking, etc., logistics really well you always err on the side of too much time.

    3. Sunshine Gal*

      Yea, I am having a hard time with this one as I live on the Canadian Prairies where lots of snow fall and icy roads are the norm for 6-8 months of the year. If you showed up to an interview saying you were late due to snow/icy roads, you would literally be laughed out of the room, however if you lived through the snow/ice storms Texas had a few years ago, then being late due to snow/icy roads would be 300% understandable. It is so specific to your region.

      PS – this is from a former hiring manager that usually hired 300 new staff each year, and had about 50% of my staff live rurally who had to commute 1 or more hours each way to get to work. The rural folks made to work everyday we were open and the highways were not closed, regardless of how icy the roads were.

    4. Aphrodite*

      A long time ago I took a career advice class in which the teacher said (the only thing I remember from it), “Arrive at least 20 minutes early for your interview but don’t park within eyesight of any part of the building. Around a corner, two blocks away, anywhere you know you can’t be seen by anyone, then wait in the car until five minutes ahead of time.” I followed that advice since then and found it works perfectly. Except I give it at least a half-hour, more if there is any possibility of parking challenges.

      1. SpaceySteph*

        I don’t think you really need to park around the corner from the building like you’re in a spy movie or something. Even if they saw you (which they probably won’t unless its a really remote work location) there’s not really anything lost by demonstrating that you value their time and showed up early.

        But I do think aiming to arrive 20-30 mins early is good advice. I just go and park and give my notes a once over so they’re fresh in my mind while I wait until a little closer to time to walk in.

        1. amoeba*

          Yeah, I don’t drive (and a lot of people here don’t, either) and I’ve never had a problem with just waiting in the reception area for 15 mins or so! Might be different in a small office though, we generally have a reception with a waiting area, coffee, bathrooms, and the like, so it’s a natural choice to go in early, let the receptionist know you’re there, and then sit there until the actual time.

    5. iglwif*

      Absolutely. I have been very late for things as a result of factors outside my control (just last week I was 26 minutes late for a rehearsal because of a freak subway situation that made what should have been the last 5-10 minutes of my trip take an hour!) but if that situation is happening I am texting or calling or SOMETHING to alert people as soon as I possibly can, not almost 10 minutes after the thing I’m late for was scheduled to begin.

      I fully understand that people run late for things!* But it’s 2024, not 1994; you simply must communicate about it before you are actually late in arriving and not significantly afterwards. And that goes triple in a high-stakes context like a job interview!

      *In my experience, people who drive places and have to find parking run late much more often than people who get around in other ways, but my study sample is obviously limited to people I know who live in or around the same city as me at the time of observation, so I would not be surprise if the data are not at all representative.

  7. Raida*

    “If I worked at her office, I would get a week less of PTO — just because I’m single.”
    To clarify, you’d get one week less ONE TIME because you’re single.
    She’d get one week more ONE TIME, unless she gets married every year.

    You’d lose nothing by them getting this gift that most staff would use once, if that.

    Certainly the Major Events thing is a nice idea, to balance it out, but then capping it becomes ‘unfair’ like I get married and then Nanna is sick and I don’t get more time. Or it’s not capped and a drama and bad luck staffer gets a month a year…
    Best format: Don’t have one week PTO a year. Hi from Australia :P

    1. TheBunny*

      How about we just make it a blanket rule that we don’t award PTO based on a patriarchal societal construct and leave it at that?

      It’s been 5 years. Hopefully that office has decided the same by now.

        1. Samwise*

          I’m married. I like the idea of marriage. Most of the time I like being married.

          But it’s still a patriarchal social construct.

          You kinda went from zero to 6o in a blink, didn’t ya? Enjoy slapping around internet strangers, yah?

          1. Analyst*

            we literally live in a world where 2 women can get married….and that’s somehow patriarchal?
            Alison’s version is more inclusive and better, but c’mon, this is nt some horrible policy either

            1. Orv*

              We don’t all live in that world. I do (at least for now), you probably do, but there are lots of people who read this blog who live in countries that still don’t have same-sex marriages.

          1. Dandylions*

            What are you talking about? Marriage has a lot of protections baked in specifically for women. Alimony for one, and property rights for another. Not to mention legal next of kinship for inheritance purposes.

            I see this idea touted a lot online and these folks are in for a rude awakening when the high earner of their poly family passed away. That persons parents can kick them out of his home and only care for his children no matter what your family structure was if you haven’t formalized it legally. By all means if you don’t want to get married don’t but for goodness sake educate yourself on the tax, property, and kinship laws it instantly imparts and get thee to a family lawyer and CPA at the very least to make sure your family and kids have those protections that marriage offers.

            1. Nonsense*

              Well, for one, men live longer when married but women live longer when single. – American College of Cardiology, February 2023

              Alimony is no longer a guarantee upon divorce. It was originally implemented at a time when women were not expected to work outside the home and divorce had to have an at-fault party, so it was a way to compensate the woman for suddenly losing her support. In today’s world, where both spouses are often working by necessity, alimony is a lot more rare.

              Property rights: varies by state. Many laws have been expanded to include dedicated but unmarried partners in division of property. Takes a couple extra steps, but they’re there. Not to mention that being married does not guarantee an equal division of assets, unless you live a joint-asset state.

              Legal next of kin: this gets contested all the time regardless of marital status.

              Child support: again, people have a hard time collecting support regardless of marital status or even DNA proof. It’s not a guarantee.

              1. Dandylions*

                You kind of proved my point. There are a lot of instant legal protections with marriage that you would have to specifically hodgepodge and carve out. Alimony is still huge, especially for stay at home spouses, but even if both parents work it can still be there to helpaontaon the exes lifestyle.

                Put another way, it marriage were nothing but shackles for women in hetero marriage then it wouldn’t be men who typically try to avoid it and pre-nipe wouldn’t overwhelmingly be drafted by men foren either.

        1. Nathan*

          I know, right? I feel like all the arguments against this policy also apply to paid parental leave. What if I had a kid before I joined the company? What if I never plan on having kids? What if I’m aggressively childfree and even hate the idea of other people having kids?

          A friend and I had a kid just a few days apart. My company offered me 8 weeks of paid parental leave (which for my country is pretty standard for professional jobs). His company offered him three months, which is on the generous end. Was I a bit envious? Yes. Was I happy for the extra time he got to spend with his son? Also yes.

          Lots of angst over this lovely policy that feels very unwarranted to me. Of course it would be different if this company were weirdly stingy with leave otherwise or if they favored married employees in other ways (such as expecting single employees to work late but encouraging married employees to leave on time or early), but an extra week of leave on the year you get married is not really worth bringing out the pitchforks.

          1. Emily of New Moon*

            I’m married, don’t have kids, and don’t plan to, but even I know that 8 weeks of paid parental leave is hardly a vacation or a perk that childfree people miss out on. People who just had a baby need that time off because having a baby and getting used to it is very stressful.
            Planning a wedding, while stressful, doesn’t require one to take an entire week off of work.

    2. Roland*

      Yeah as a perpetually single person who doesn’t see myself getting married, I agree it’s maybe kind of unfair but I just can’t bring myself to care too much. It doesn’t feel like that big of a deal.

    3. Dandylions*

      Yeah I’m in the same boat. I’m married for 11 years now and I can’t imagine feeling bitter about a nice perk being offerred to someone just because I didn’t/won’t get it.

      Smacks to me of “I paid my student loans. No forgiveness!” Or “It’s not fair to give new moms and birthing parents 10 weeks of paid recovery leave because I’m never going to have a child!”

      It’s called equity. It may be equal to expect typically younger people who have the least amount of PTO, have awfully expensive and crummy housing that typically requires longer commutes, to schedule a typically once in a lifetime event solely in off hours but it’s not at all equitable.

      Rather then trying to tear down existing perks try speaking up for the perks you’d like to see added. Also try reframing perks you don’t get not as something unfair, but as a sign that your company supports your coworkers and you to if you were in that situation. Like I don’t use daycare, yet I see my companies affiliate daycare discounts as a sign they care a out their players families even if it’s something my guy will never use. Assuming positive intent goes a long way.

    4. Hroethvitnir*

      I honestly don’t know where I sit on this as a hypothetical – in practice I wouldn’t mind.

      I was raised by parents who were opposed to marriage as

      1. Hroethvitnir*

        Ahh, I have got to turn off Messenger bubbles. I wasn’t even convinced I was going to post this, but I’m committed now, haha.

        My parents were anti-marriage in the 80s as they opposed the degree to which it was an entwined religious and legal institution (and given the way bigoted churches argue against marriage equality, it would be intellectually dishonest to act like they’re totally separate in culturally Christian countries) – this was a terrible plan, as my mother was unable to visit my father when he was dying in hospital, and the fine from the drunk driver who killed him went to his parents (a little to me).

        Now Aotearoa gives defacto partners mostly equal rights, I am happily not-married to my partner of 20 years next month. Realistically, it’s the baked in gender roles that are so hard to avoid in straight weddings I mostly hate – and talking about my feelings in public. lol I would get legally married if moving overseas for a while.

        Aaanyway, so not remotely equivalent to being a parent, jesus. I’m also child free, and I want both parents to have a paid year off (that’s actually easier to cover than a few months – and in Sweden they had to force both parents to split leave, to many complaints, but now it’s normal and there’s one less way women are more impacted by having kids).

        I’m happy for others to get a celebration I’m not interested in, but definitely understand a whole week if you get less than a month annually feels like a slap in the face.

        I’m literally working through my thoughts as I write this, sorry for the novel.

        I think I come down on being OK with it as a nice thing, but some mixed feelings about the place of marriage in societ(ies). Obviously not commenting on anywhere with a wildly different cultural and religious context!

    1. Elizabeth West*

      Yes. Even if you’re taking public transit, delays can and do happen, so even if you’re not driving, it’s still a good rule of thumb.

    2. iglwif*

      Absolutely. A job interview is not the time to play traffic roulette!

      Even if you’ve done the journey several times before and it’s taken X minutes each time, as soon as you get overconfident there will be a traffic-blocking accident, an unexpected road closure, a stranded train, a malfunctioning bus, an overturned container truck full of pineapples, or something that makes it take X+20 minutes when you most need to be on time.

  9. Mid*

    It’s interesting to see everyone is so strongly against the marriage leave. I’m not married and have zero intention of getting married. But, I don’t see it as a big deal that they offer it. Weddings aren’t typically a relaxing, low stress time for people. That extra week is a nice way to allow people to take care of Wedding Stuff without having to use all their normal vacation time, so they can actually relax on their vacation.

    Maybe my feelings would differ if my employer was otherwise stingy with vacation time (like only giving 1-2 weeks, so that extra week changes vacation from “low” to “slightly more reasonable”) but otherwise…I don’t get why people are so opposed. It’s not like you’re getting a week taken away from you when your coworker gets married. I’m also never going to take maternity leave, and I’m not upset when my coworkers get that extra time off.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      I get what you’re saying, and I love weddings personally, but it’s not like they are unavoidable things that happen TO people; you don’t have to have a wedding even to be married. You can just go have a simple ceremony with a couple of witnesses. Also, there are just plenty of life events that are more stressful. I’ve planned two weddings; one big and one small and honestly moving house was more stressful than either.

    2. korangeen*

      Why is that wedding more important than any other stressful thing? Plus a wedding is largely stressful by choice, since you could choose to not do a complicated wedding. Wouldn’t it only be fair to also get an extra week of vacation for an extravagant 40th birthday party or something?

      1. Pescadero*

        “Why is that wedding more important than any other stressful thing?”

        It isn’t.

        …but everything in the world doesn’t have to be 100% equal or fair.

        It’d be nice if it was, but this is so minor on the scale of injustices perpetrated by our employers and late stage capitalism it really feels like crabs in a bucket to complain about it.

        1. sparkle emoji*

          This is where I land too. Weddings aren’t necessarily more important than other life events, but they are still important and the cost/benefit to give the week might be worth it for this company. As long as other leave policies are similarly generous this is fine.

        2. Dust Bunny*

          However, this is something that could very easily be more equal and fair because it’s entirely unnecessary when people could just spend their normal PTO on it. Or everyone could have an extra week regardless of how they plan to use it. What is annoying about it is that, unlike parental leave where you need to physically recover and care for a baby or bereavement where you’re wrecked and probably handling a lot of legal and funereal bother, this isn’t really necessary. It’s purely pandering to a voluntary event.

      2. Lastochkina*

        Because most people see weddings as a very exceptional, happy event and wish the new couple the best in their new life, instead of howling about “patriarchical societal constructs.”

        2. The 99%*

          Yes, some commentators here are often very out of touch with how most people think about things. Most normal people don’t call marriage a “patriarchal societal construct” or their job “late-stage capitalism.” I just want to lightly push back that these opinions are very outside of the norm and can be like nails on a chalkboard to people who probably mostly agree with them.

        3. Churlish*

          LMAO except that half of marriages end in divorce, so how “exceptional” is a wedding, really? I’m 44 and half my friends are on their second marriages now and a few are even on their third.

          1. Lastochkina*

            The fact that you are able to keep track of who is married and who is divorced, as opposed to (say) how many times they’ve had a Rueben sandwich over the past month, suggests that weddings are indeed exceptional.

            1. Jackalope*

              I couldn’t find exact stats but from what I’ve seen the vast # of people have no more than 4 marriages (although there are of course exceptions), and having a number of marriages in the double digits is pretty much unheard of, unless you count someone in a country where they can have multiple marriages at once.

      3. Mid*

        I never said they were—and I suppose I’m operating under the assumption that this company also has things like bereavement leave and supports employees during other stressful life events. I would argue that weddings are a bigger deal than birthdays, since those occur annually. I think weddings are more comparable to having a baby, in that it’s a rare event that not everyone will experience, some people will experience it once or twice, and some will experience it multiple times, and it’s a logistically complicated and emotionally charged time.

    3. Nodramalama*

      A lot of stressful things happen in life. I don’t get rewarded with leave everytime something happens that is stressful.

    4. Spinster*

      Weddings are, however, a choice. Other highly stressful life events that may happen to anyone are not.

      This is about the cultural value placed on getting married, and how out of date it is.

    5. Lala*

      It is a big deal (to me, at least) because you’re paying them. You’re increasing the amount of money they earn…because they got married?

      Yeah, that doesn’t fly with me. If the government offers it, I’ll roll my eyes, but the company? Seriously?
      If the company wants to offer it unpaid, that is one thing (and imo, bad enough) but at least then the company isn’t saying that they are going to financially reward someone for nothing to do with the job.

      I have plenty of things that I would like to take time off for. That I need to take time off for (and frankly, that the government should financially cover because by doing them I’m saving the government money – but it doesn’t work like that at least in this period of time). I take them off, either unpaid or use pto. And I get financially penalized anyway, either way, because guess who doesn’t love me taking that much time off? Why the people I work for. Which makes it that much less likely that I get raises and bonuses.

      So the idea of a company paying for extra pto for people who get married really annoys me. They should take it unpaid (if allowed) or use PTO like everyone else.

      1. Colette*

        Companies offer lots of benefits that benefit some but not all employees – transit subsidies, gym subsidies, volunteer programs, snacks/lunches, etc. They also offer sick leave and bereavement leave, which some people never use. They offer healt insurance, which some people will use more than others.

        I don’t love marriage leave, but no company benefit applies equally to every employee.

        1. L-squared*

          Exactly.

          My last company, I was remote, but the people in the city of the home office got transit benefits, meals paid for, etc. So by that logic, they got paid more than me too. But I wasn’t bothered.

          I’ve been fortunate enough to only have to use bereavement leave at one job. Does that mean people who had parents die and had to take their full time “made more” than me that year?

        2. Koa*

          Exactly. People will complain about literally anything and these comments prove it. This is akin to me complaining about my company providing lunch I can’t eat because of my food allergies. But because the benefit centers around marriage women are offended.

          1. Dek*

            “This is akin to me complaining about my company providing lunch I can’t eat because of my food allergies.”

            That…actually seems like a perfectly fine thing to complain about. Or to mention to the company, since “complain” has such a negative connotation on the person saying anything. Like, you don’t have to be outraged or ~offended~ to say “Hey, I think the way we’re handling this isn’t as equitable as it could be.”

          2. New Jack Karyn*

            I don’t know that it’s only women who are irritated by this (not really offended, just irritated). Big assumption you made there.

            And when my district orders pizza for everyone at this all-day training every year, but never gets any gluten-free options, yeah, it rubs me the wrong way.

      2. Pescadero*

        “the company isn’t saying that they are going to financially reward someone for nothing to do with the job.”

        Does your company subsidize health insurance for spouses and children like almost every company in existence?

        If so – they ARE financially rewarding someone for nothing to do with the job… with all of the consequences you noted above.

      1. Seashell*

        I’m married and not grouchy, but I have never heard of such a thing as marriage leave and it seems quite odd to me. I used regular vacation time for my honeymoon. I don’t know that I would complain if it were a thing in my office, but there are a lot of other things I would rather see people get more time off for, like bereavement.

        1. sparkle emoji*

          Does it have to be an either/or? I don’t see any indication that they’re stingy with other types of leave. If that’s the case then that’s not okay but offering the marriage leave doesn’t mean they have to take bereavement leave away.

      2. Michigander*

        Yes, the comments section can tend to skew a certain way. I would guess most of the general public would have no strong feelings on it either way.

        1. HA2*

          The commenters Ashish probably had no strong feelings on it until it came up in the letter. Kind of the nature of an advice column – people think about and firm opinions on what Allison writes about even though they wouldn’t have given it ac serving right otherwise.

      4. Ellis Bell*

        Honestly I think it is pretty grouchy to be opposed to the alternative. No one is saying that people shouldn’t get to be able to take a nice honeymoon. We are just saying that other people should be able to take a ‘once in a lifetime ‘ trip as well. It is very easy to offer the same courtesy more widely, and that way people who are not out at work, or people who are already married will benefit too. Is anyone really opposed to bosses’ offering that?

        1. Dek*

          This. This exactly.

          It’s not: “Take that away from them!”

          It’s: “Find a way to make that available to more people.”

      5. Colette*

        I think more people are probably opposed to it than you think – they just don’t think it’s a big enough deal to raise it as an issue. Silence does not necessarily mean agreement.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          So far none of my workplaces have offered it. If most workplaces don’t, their employees don’t need to protest it.

      6. Seeking Second Childhood*

        there are fascinating comments from across the world saying what their governments do–and marriage leave is not uncommon.

        The worst frustration seems to come from my country–the USA–where our PTO is very low and our staffing levels are very lean.

        Personally I would have loved That One Co-Worker(TM) to have had an extra week off for marriage planning because we got REALLY tired of vendor calls during the day. (Yes the manager discussed it, but even if TOC-W took a message and called back on break later, her concentration was broken.

        1. Jackalope*

          I can’t speak for everyone else, but as someone who spent several years single and happy about it, then several more years single and not happy about it, and then got married for the first (and so far only) time in my early 40s, a lot of it is the way marriage is looked at. All of my life I’ve heard from one side that marriage doesn’t matter, it’s just a piece of paper (or as some people have said in this discussion, a patriarchal hierarchical institution). On the other side there are queer people pointing out that no, marriage is actually a big deal, and needs to be available to everyone, not just straight people. (I haven’t heard the disability advocates side as much but I’d put that in the second category.) Marriage in some form exists in every society I know of, including from what I understand a handful that have tried to get rid of it, so it seems to be something that has inherent importance to us as a species in some way (there have also always been unmarried people, at least to the best of my knowledge; it’s never been all-encompassing). I fully support having a society that a) makes marriage available to all adults who want to be married, and b) makes life feasible for those who don’t get married. But it gets old having people complain that it’s “not a big deal” (again, ask all of the queer people who worked so hard to get marriage legal for same-sex marriages). And it gets old being told that something that’s traditionally an acknowledgement of a new legal family and new relations between two previously existing families, as well as a big change in your own personal life (even the people I know who were already living together and had a tiny wedding felt this) is just a luxury, or criticizing anyone who wants to have a ceremony beyond a courthouse wedding with 2 witnesses. I mean, I 100% support the tiny courthouse wedding; I just think that people who want to have a more traditional wedding with a bunch of friends and family shouldn’t get told that this is just a luxury, or lectured for wasting their time, or whatever. Let’s make other life events a bigger deal, not pretend that this specific event doesn’t matter.

          1. Dek*

            “Let’s make other life events a bigger deal, not pretend that this specific event doesn’t matter.”

            I mean, that’s my take too, but it does mean that looking at it as it is, I feel like it’s just a little more salt in the wound. Of course marriage is a big life event for most people who get married.

    7. Michigander*

      Having read through the comments, I think how much leave you get definitely affects the way you view the issue. I don’t think I’ve read any comments from people in countries/companies with generous leave policies who are also strongly opposed to the idea of someone getting time off for their wedding. If you get 36 days of annual leave, unlimited sick time, 10 days off for dependent care, 10 days bereavement leave, etc, you are probably a lot less likely to mind if a coworker gets a few more days one year.

      1. HA2*

        Yeah, and the amount of leave discussed is specific – 1 week – so people are going to react differently based on how much of a relative change that is.

        If someone gets those 36+ days you mentioned, and extra week sounds like a nice perk. If someone gets 2 weeks (all-inclusive, no extra for sick time or anything else) then it really highlights that the company seems to care about marriage a whole lot more than anything else, and that grates.

    8. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Weddings are only as stressful as you make them. What about an extra week to see a kid off to college, or move an elderly parent in with you, or help clean out a grandparent’s house after a death? That sort of thing is why I like Alison’s “major live events” framing.

    9. Abigail*

      Hard agree with you.

      I’m a widow who does not plan to marry again, certainly not in the immediate future, and I do not begrudge this benefit at all.

    10. Hyaline*

      Because some people would rather no one gets cake if they can’t have the cake.

      There’s no indication in this letter that accommodating time off for other stressful events isn’t happening; obviously that would be the right thing for a company to do! But many stressful situations likely one-offs (you aren’t likely going to write a “car was stolen” or “raccoons infested my house” policy) as opposed to this blanket thing they could make a policy about.

      1. Dust Bunny*

        Literally nobody is saying this. They are saying that there is no reason for some people to get two slices when people at the same company only ever get one. Cake isn’t a dietary staple. Nobody is going to starve to death without dessert.

        2. eisa*

          Literally yes, people are saying this.

          to give you an example

          Carri
          “I would be very happy if they just scrapped the leave entirely (option C), instead of rewarding people for getting married. That is still a far better outcome than the status quo.”

      2. Dek*

        “Because some people would rather no one gets cake if they can’t have the cake.”

        I don’t think that’s fair to say, since most of the comments seem more about trying to find a way for *everyone* to get cake.

        “There’s no indication in this letter that accommodating time off for other stressful events isn’t happening”

        There’s no indication that it is either, and since it’s more the norm for companies NOT to offer special non-specific Leave-That-Doesn’t-Come-Out-of-Your-Annual-or-Sick-Leave for stressful events, it seems more likely that they’re not.

      3. Michigander*

        My work has an emergency situations policy which gives 1 paid day off for things like theft or flood. There’s no mention of raccoons though. Maybe I should suggest it?

  10. RCB*

    This is an honest question so please don’t cancel me: how are we differentiating between marriage leave being not okay and parental leave being okay? They are both additional leaves for something that wouldn’t always apply to everyone if you framed it that way. I guess the parental leave we’re treating more as a medical leave situation? I think everyone is seeing the marriage leave as a honeymoon treat, thus extra vacation, but I read it as time off to deal with the stress of planning the wedding, a major life event. You’re hosting this huge life event and it’s going to be stressful and you need more time off to deal with all those moving parts (even small weddings can be very stressful so let’s not take this into the weeds like we are known to do) and headaches so you can focus on that and not be distracted at work (because you’re going to be anyways so why not give up the charade and just make it official!). I think if you look at it this way it makes a lot more sense, and the unfairness meter drops significantly.

    1. Beth**

      This was my thought. One of my colleagues is about to go off on her third maternity leave, which is 6 months of full pay plus another 3 months on partial pay. I don’t and am very unlikely to ever have children. Should I get 18 months off paid to make up for that?

      My employer doesn’t offer marriage leave anymore, but used to offer a week, which seemed reasonable. Yes, some people get married more than once and others not at all, but it’s not something people are going to do just to get one week of extra leave any more than people are going to have additional children just for the mat leave.

    2. Mameshiba*

      I agree, I think it comes from the same thinking behind giving practical home gifts as wedding gifts. The idea being that you are moving house, starting new lives together, and need time off to do all of that. That isn’t the case for many people nowadays who live together before marriage, but that’s where the idea comes from, I think.

      Same with bereavement leave. It’s not a medical event for the person taking the leave, but it is a major stressful life event, and I wouldn’t begrudge someone taking that time away from work.

      1. Paint N Drip*

        I think the bereavement corollary is a good example. It’s a leave to ~deal with things~ because life happens, good and bad

    3. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      > time off to deal with the stress of planning the wedding, a major life event

      But that is completely self-inflicted. You can get married just by making an appointment at town hall (or similar). Why should the employer, and the newly married person’s colleagues, gave to accommodate what is essentially an expensive party.

      1. Insert Clever Name Here*

        Ha, that’s the exact argument someone made to me when I was pregnant and my company increased the amount of parental leave offered — “you’re the one who decided to get pregnant.”

      2. Pescadero*

        “Why should the employer, and the newly married person’s colleagues, gave to accommodate what is essentially an expensive party.”

        Well, I can argue it should be government doing it – but like having children, marriage is overall a societal positive. It’s a financial win for society as a whole.

        1. Daphne*

          First, it’s not entirely clear that marriage is an overall positive, or even really necessary. Just look at Nordic countries where couples remain unmarried even after several years and a couple of kids together.
          Second, it’s *marriage* leave, not *wedding* leave.

          1. Pescadero*

            “First, it’s not entirely clear that marriage is an overall positive”

            Yes, yes it is.

            “or even really necessary”

            That is correct – with respect to family structures for children. It is not correct with respect to pooled resources and reducing burden on social services. You can’t defeat the reality of economies of scale.

            “Second, it’s *marriage* leave, not *wedding* leave.”

            A distinction without a difference.

            1. Hroethvitnir*

              “It is not correct with respect to pooled resources and reducing burden on social services. You can’t defeat the reality of economies of scale.”

              Ahh, see I care a lot more about said economy leaving one partner (usually women) extremely vulnerable to abuse. The reality of domestic violence and homelessness for women is that it’s intrinsically tied to the economic reality of the nuclear family, lack of financial autonomy, and ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approaches to these issues.

              Frankly, the current system is not terribly economic either when looking at all the moving parts, but that’s not really my main concern.

            2. Daphne*

              It is not correct with respect to pooled resources and reducing burden on social services. You can’t defeat the reality of economies of scale.

              You don’t need to be married to pool resources or take advantage of economies of scale. Maybe the government should fund an extra week of PTO for roommates…and an extra week on top of that for each roommate they live with.

              “Second, it’s *marriage* leave, not *wedding* leave.”

              A distinction without a difference.

              You don’t need a wedding to be married. Back to the roommate situation, let’s have the government fund their expensive moving in party.

              Or, let’s dispense with the silly idea that anyone is owed leave for signing a piece of paper and moving in together.

      3. Lightbourne Elite*

        Because maybe there should be some joy and happiness for other humans in the world instead of a constant zero sum game of who gets more stuff.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          This should go for single people too, then. Part of the problem is that so many of the extras only come into play if you get married, have kids, or can afford to buy and move into a house (which is roughly twice as hard if you’re single). If you’re not in a position for any of those things to happen, can’t you just have some extra time, just because?

          2. Lightbourne Elite*

            It absolutely should. I’m single. I think we should spread more of that kind of positivity around to everyone. I also think people preferring to have this taken away or getting lost in their resentment over this need to take a look at how they approach the world.

            1. The Kulprit*

              I don’t want it taken away. I want it to be applied more equitably, “Major Freakin Life Event Leave” Usable if you have a family tragedy, move house, etc. not just getting married leave.

      4. sparkle emoji*

        I’ll probably elope if I ever do get married but for many of my friends who are into the big weddings thing, this would likely help with loyalty to the company. Also, there’s a work life balance aspect. I’d appreciate a company who’s understanding of big personal life events even if I’m not personally benefiting from it.

    4. talos*

      If you’re a parent…you have a baby now. I recognize that your baby needs your time.

      If you got married…your new spouse probably doesn’t need nearly-continuous care for several months?

      A honeymoon is basically an optional fancy vacation. I, a single person, would also love a fancy vacation (alone or with the not-married-to-me person of my choice) if it was available, but I wouldn’t love or benefit from a “take care of a helpless tiny baby” leave.

      1. English Rose*

        Yes this is the difference, and to venture into loftier concepts, a good start in life for a child is an investment in the future for all of us, child-free or not.

      2. ferrina*

        Yeah, the parental leave is partially for the mother’s medical needs. But it’s also about caring full-time for a tiny thing that needs round the clock availability from it’s caregiver. New parents are exhausted because they are fully on call.

        A wedding is something you can amp up or tune down. You have control over the timing, size and complexity of a wedding. You do not have control over the timing or complexity of an infant. And while a simple wedding is incredibly simple, there is no such thing as a simple infant (only a less complicated one).

        Finally- the stakes are lower with a wedding. If a wedding goes horribly, it’s very frustrating, but at the end of the day, it’s a party. If something goes wrong with an infant, the stakes are very, very high. Frustrated and overwhelmed parents have caused irreparable harm to their child’s life. Not going into more detail than that, but just remember how high the stakes are.

    6. Nodramalama*

      Parental leave is given because 1. It ensures parents don’t have to leave the work place and 2. It is because they have extra responsibilities. It’s not a reward. It’s not recreational leave. Leave after a wedding is literally just a reward for a particular life event happening.

      Lots of people have stressful things going on, they don’t get leave rewards for going through them.

      1. dogwoodblossom*

        Also 3, if somebody has just given birth they do actually need time to physically recover from that.

        1. WS*

          And even if they haven’t given birth (they’re the other partner or an adopting parent) they now have a new dependent human in their life and that’s a big, tiring deal and children are a societal responsibility. Plus, if there’s no parental leave, the burden of caring for a newborn falls very heavily on one gender. Who used to have to leave work on getting married, or at the very least while pregnant.

          I don’t have kids but I don’t resent people taking parental leave or paying taxes to fund schools, that’s part of living in a society.

          1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

            Thank you! I sometimes feel like I’m the only person who realizes that adoptees need to be cared for too, with all the “maternity leave is to recover” framing. I mean, that’s part of it, but there’s also a baby.

              1. Dahlia*

                That’s why in Canada you have 2 separate forms of leave, one for actually giving birth, which the parent who gives birth can take, and one for taking care of the child, which either parent can take (possibly a 3rd parent too in Ontario but I’d have to check that).

      2. Emmy Noether*

        Yeah, for people with a brand new baby, the alternatives are probably parental leave or quit to take care of the baby. So if the employer wants to keep the employee, leave it is (also, it’s required by law in many places). Not so many people would quit to take a honeymoon.

      3. ferrina*

        Work is easier than my parental leave. At work I can stop to have some coffee, have some quiet, to some degree control my schedule. On parental leave, I was on call 24/7, it was physically demanding, and I couldn’t even take a bathroom break without ensuring I had full coverage.

    7. Media Monkey*

      i agree with both and very happy to be in the UK where we have generous mat leave policies. but when you have a baby you have a whole person depending on you for everything. for a wedding you are possibly travelling, making final arrangements etc but it’s hardly life or death. based on having decent leave policies, i’m happy to be able to extend the usual max consecutive holiday to 3 weeks rather than 2 for a wedding (also applicable to “holidays of a lifetime” and visiting family in e.g. Australia where 2 weeks wouldn’t be long enough).

    8. HannahS*

      Parental leave is not a celebration of the fact that you’ve had a child. It’s to allow the birthing parent to physically recover from birth and to ensure that a baby has someone to take care of them. Allowing parents time away from work to parent was fought for–hard–to keep women from being kicked out of the workforce after having children. The fact that parents of any gender and any way of becoming a parent (adoption, surrogacy, etc.) can also take leave is a more recent, but also very equity-focused. Parental leave is a matter of justice.

      Marriage leave is just an additional vacation; it’s nice, but it’s not a matter of justice and equity. As a person who is both married and has a child, I can say that these are completely different experiences. I took vacation when I got married, and I felt it was a completely appropriate use of my vacation time. Leave is given after family deaths because death is sudden and unexpected and comes with lots of time-sensitive issues to attend to. It’s really not the same as planning a wedding.

    9. mreasy*

      I will never have kids but I don’t begrudge anyone their parental leave (and in general, I think we should have much more, and paid). I also don’t see why leave for marriage is so different.

    10. Jenna*

      To me, parental leave serves a purpose for the child as well as a medical purpose for the one who give birth – it allows time for the new child to bond with the parents. Additional vacation for your wedding is just a prize for making the choice to get married. It’s a cultural reward for making a choice that society values.

      A wedding is only as stressful as you choose to make it. If you can’t handle the stress, you do not need to have a big wedding. If a small wedding is too stressful, you don’t actually need to get married at all. But vacation time is part of the compensation for your job. Giving people more compensation because they choose to do something stressful (but only for this particular stressful thing) is discriminatory, unfair and unreasonable.

      So I do not agree that “look at it this way it makes a lot more sense, and the unfairness meter drops significantly”. In fact, looked at this way it is even more infuriating, since the company is choosing to reward this one specific life event with bonus vacation because of the stress, but not others. If this is genuinely about ameliorating the stress of major life events, it should be applicable to ALL such events, not just the poor pathetic couples who cannot cope with their own weddings.

      1. Great Frogs of Literature*

        I’m not saying that it’s remotely comparable to having a child, or that this necessarily justifies the leave, but I had just about the lowest-effort getting married possible (few guests, no venue, no new clothes, no decorations, justice of the peace, cake/flowers/photography only because it was provided by a friend, other food was a regular takeout order) and we didn’t think we thought it was a big deal, and it was still shockingly stressful and I was kind of glad to be unemployed to have time to deal with the paperwork and logistics. (The being unemployed was the primary reason for the marriage, at least for the marriage right then, because capitalist hellscape.)

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          I got married on three days notice and was on my husband’s health insurance a week later, it was pretty easy – I’m not negating your experience but it’s not a universal one, and I don’t think paperwork and logistics rises to the level of employer’s needing to accommodate newlyweds with a whole week of extra pay.

    11. DrSalty*

      I’m going to guess you haven’t spent a lot of time with a newborn. They need constant, around the clock care. And then on top of that, you have the physical recovery from birth itself, which is NOT trivial. If you have a C section, that’s major abdominal surgery. That’s what maternity leave is for. Paternity leave (or non birthing parent leave) is to care for your baby and your partner. It’s hard work for everyone involved. It’s not a vacation!!!

      Parental leave is not a vacation, and I cannot believe how they are being conflated up and down this comments section.

      1. mreasy*

        Parental leave is important and should be the law in the US, in my opinion. But it is also leave you take that is based on a decision you make. Why not marriage leave? Some places offer new pet leave, which only pet owners have. Bereavement leave is a good example – not everyone will need it at every job, but employers offer it to be compassionate and because grieving people don’t do their best work. Why not recognize that newlyweds may also feel that way? Why not moving leave? If PTO were generous this wouldn’t feel so unfair. My husband’s company gave a month paid sabbatical to everyone there 5 years. I had to max out my PTO and sick leave when I went on medical leave but then got half pay – is that fair to people who don’t have to go to the mental hospital? It’s never going to be fair because everyone’s lives are different.

    12. Cat Tree*

      Weddings can be work, but don’t have to be. You can always choose to have a small low-key wedding. You can’t choose to have a low-key newborn.

      1. Pescadero*

        Wedding can be more or less work – but they’re all work.

        Just dealing with the paperwork for a justice of the peace wedding takes a few hours.

        1. metadata minion*

          Sure, but a few hours is on a scale comparable to any number of things people have to handle, and it doesn’t make sense to have a specific leave policy to handle just one out of the dozens of half-day administrative chores an employee might have. That can be accommodated for just by having a reasonable amount of PTO. It does make sense to have specific policies for parental leave and extended medical leave.

          1. Pescadero*

            I didn’t say it was comparable (but obviously it is – you’re comparing them) or that it made sense.

            I just said the statement – “Weddings can be work, but don’t have to be” is false.

            10 minutes of work is work.

        2. Daphne*

          The government should fund a week of leave for every visit to the DMV. Dealing that paperwork takes a few hours, and even 10 min of work is work.

    13. Ellis Bell*

      Aside from the fact that one is usually a medical necessity? Parental leave affects everyone in the workplace. So, if your workplace was to do away with parental leave, you would find your workplace becoming very gendered and sexist, fast. If you are a woman you will have people guessing about your plans to have children because there’s no point promoting you if you’re going to leave to have children. If you’re a man who’s a parent, you’re supposed to put in the overtime and not see your kids because women need to be supported. It also affects who gets laid off and who doesn’t. None of that applies to only some people being able to take nice holidays.

    14. doreen*

      You don’t have to have a wedding that requires stressful planning , will have you distracted at work , etc ( I’ve known people who got married on their lunch hour) – but even if you choose to do that , it’s not wedding-specific and I doubt that a company checks on what type of wedding someone has before giving them time-off . I spent more time planning my mother’s 75 birthday party than my niece spent planning her backyard wedding . It’s really not about the stress of planning a wedding , it’s basically a pretty large wedding gift that isn’t given for other major life events like buying a house or retiring. There’s really no way to have a kid that doesn’t involve adjusting to taking care of a new person , not even if you adopt a 10 year old.

    15. Audrey Puffins*

      If you anticipate needing time to physically heal from the strain of the wedding, followed by months of nurturing and caring for your new spouse on a 24/7 basis because they are entering the marriage in a state of complete helplessness, then I suppose this is a like-for-like comparison…..

      1. Zelda*

        Some of the question isn’t “what would an employee do with the time off,” but “why is that the employer’s responsibility to pay for.” We’ve had discussions here before that a boss really shouldn’t be denying vacation requests if they find out the employee is planning to spend the time playing video games; the employer has no right to make value judgements about what people do with their time off, and does benefit from having rested employees. The employer really does not benefit from employees having kids… But given that getting married and having kids are both optional, comparing the uses of the time and saying that parents need the time and newlyweds don’t is missing something– come right down to it, no one *needs* to be a parent.

        People *want* both of these things, and of course there are larger social reasons to incentivize both marriage and parenting. I think a number of folks have been chiming in from countries where the government pays for the leave, rather than the employer paying. I would think that was great, but I don’t see it happening in the US anytime soon. So why employers pay for one but not the other is a matter of custom and expectation, and perhaps a bit peculiar.

    16. musical chairs*

      I see this as a perk that a company offers to retain/attract staff. If you’re planning a wedding, you’re doing so over several months if not up to a couple of years. Depending on the job market for that company’s industry it may be a strategic move for an employee to stay a little longer with that company then maybe they personally want to. They could totally quit right after, and I’m sure the company is aware of that.

      I know that I’ve made employment decisions at least in part based on my bank of sick leave as I don’t get family leave for a baby and would need to essentially pay for my federally mandated 12 weeks with my own banked sick time and PTO. I don’t have other options in my industry that offer paid mat leave (at least not without other huge, non-negotiable-for-me drawbacks).

      I agree with you that it feels like it’s in the same bucket as parental leave for me in that it’s not going to be used by everyone but a compensation framework for with a life event that many, many people experience, even if not everyone. I’m not sure that afforded leave necessarily has to be for reasons tied to some kind of suffering to be worth having.

      It could also be tied to compliance with a country’s laws/customs for marriage leave and they’re doing across all their locations internationally as a blanket rule.

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        “I see this as a perk that a company offers to retain/attract staff”

        I think the concern then being it may do the opposite. The pool of employees who will get married specifically in the time frame they are employed by a given employer is in almost all cases going to be a lot smaller than the pool of those who don’t, and treating the larger pool in a way that feels unfair is not in the best interest of retention and morale.

        1. L-squared*

          I honestly don’t see very many people seeing that perk on your list of benefits, liking everything else, and then saying “Well if I can’t get that extra week, then I”m not taking that job”

          Nor do I see people who are otherwise happy at a job leaving because of it.

          But I can see a person having 2 options and taking the one the seems to do little nice things like this.

          I’m probably never getting married, but seeing that perk would make me think this company actually cares about their employees, even if that is something I”d never personally use. In the same way that I’ll probably never be a parent, but I see a generous parental leave policy as a net positive for a company, even if I’ll likely never need it myself.

    17. Tammy 2*

      Because parental leave is for figuring out how to keep a new human alive* (and oftentimes also recovering from a major medical event) and wedding leave is for throwing a party and doing paperwork?

      *or “new to your family” in the case of older child adoptions

    18. LL*

      Well, parental leave is something that’s necessary.
      It allows women to have children and not have to drop out of the workforce completely.
      It allows the birthing parent time to recover physically.
      It allows both parents the time to take care of and bond with the baby.
      It’s good for the baby to have parents giving it their undivided attention.

    19. SQ*

      Because the corollary to parental leave for people who aren’t parents is medical leave. In the US, it’s all covered under FMLA. As a single, childless woman, I won’t ever need parental leave but I’m likely to need medical leave at some point because I have parents and I’m a human being. I might never use medical leave or disability benefits at a given employer, but they’re offered to all employees specifically for these kind of situations where you need extra leave to care for a family member and/or heal your body.

      I don’t see a corollary for marriage leave for people who don’t marry. I’m not personally ready to storm the HR office over it, but Allison is correct that there are ways to offer this perk that are more inclusive. Being able to avail yourself of a one-time extra week off for major life events would probably be great for folks who have completed degrees or are getting divorced. The point isn’t that every single person have a reason to use the benefit, but that it’s available to every employee based on the category “major life event.” There’s almost never a way to include literally every person in every thing, but there are ways to make the benefit as broadly applicable as possible so that your employees feel valued and rewarded rather than excluded or punished.

  11. Scottish Beanie*

    I see the wedding leave similar to bereavement leave or paternal leave. It’s a specific category for a special circumstance where it would be nice, and sometimes essential, to have some time off. Although I will say that it would be nice if special categories could extend to elder care.

    1. No thanks*

      Yes. Coming from a country where wedding leave is regulated by law, I can confirm that the idea is more similar to bereavement leave than a free additional vacation. It is more to deal with the complications of changing your legal status etc. At least, that’s how the law means it.

  12. Mark*

    #1 My office give 5 days marriage leave (once) per employee, also 5 days bereavement leave (close family) 1 day bereavement leave (any funeral), 5 days miscarriage leave, 5 days IVF leave, 10 days paternal leave (per pregnancy), 5 days domestic violence leave and various other ones. Basically for life events that cause stress or take your mind away from work. Some staff avail of many, some staff avail of none, but the options are there. Overall it makes a better workplace and those who have no need to avail of any of the leave options are normally happy their close relatives and themselves are healthy and well.

    1. Michigander*

      These comments made me curious and I looked up the various types of leave that my UK employer offers. There are so many that I’ve never heard of and likely will never have to use. I think there’s a good chance that the people who are angriest about the idea of wedding days off are used to companies without much paid time off.

    2. Seashell*

      I hope people have other options like sick time for parental leave after giving birth, because otherwise 10 days seems skimpy in light of all that other coverage. I had c-sections and I was barely back to driving and still in pain after 10 days.

      1. doreen*

        That say 10 days “paternal leave” – if it’s not a typo, I assume that people giving birth get more than 10 days.

        1. Mark*

          Paternal leave in my company is the spouse or partner of the birth mum. The mother is covered by legislation. And I am in Europe.

    3. Pokemon Go To The Polls*

      I like this. Sometimes you just need time not at work to deal with life for lots of various reasons that should not impact your vacation or sick leave.
      You certainly wouldn’t want somebody to have to use a lot those but it’s a really good thing they’re there just in case terrible things happen.

    4. Book Addict*

      I work in a place with all these types of leave, and many more. And I hate it. I think it’s unnecessarily complex and intrusive. I would hate to have to tell my boss (because they approve our leaves in the system) that I was taking time off for a miscarriage, for IVF, or for domestic violence! Everyone should just be given a bucket of non-specified days that they can use as they see fit, for their own needs.

    5. SpaceySteph*

      God I would have loved some miscarriage leave rather than what happened which is that I took one singular day off for my D&C due to missed miscarriage and then was back to work at 7am the next morning for a high stakes presentation. On the bright side, I was too busy to cry.

  13. Anna*

    I’ve worked in 3 different countries that all offer 1-10 days of marriage leave. I think the difference is that it’s statutory, just like parental leave so probably a much less sensitive topic since it’s not an individual manager or company decision. It’s literally the law.

  14. Janne*

    Marriage / registered partnership leave is in my collective labour agreement. My colleague just did his registered partnership and got I think 4 days off. When I moved houses I also got days off, because moving leave is also in the CLA. The thing is, we have so many days off that I don’t even notice if someone has more or fewer. I’ve been off for more than 4 weeks already this year, then also I work 36 hours so I am off once every 2 weeks too, and I have more than a week of vacation time left. I’m not at work often enough to have opinions about my colleagues’ vacations haha!

  15. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    I think FinalJob gave an extra 1 or 2 days PTO for people who got married. Marriage is one of those institutions that most countries regard as beneficial for the stability of society as a whole and often by employers too (that think longterm), much like having kids.

    As a singleton, I didn’t resent the extra PTO at all – because I received 32 days vacation, ~10 public holidays and 6 weeks full sick pay per incident (not per year).
    Also it seemed minor compared to 12 months paid maternity leave and 3 months paternity, which I also never had cause to use.

    imo, when those extra marriage days are a really tiny extra %, there isn’t resentment unless you are making a stand on principle.
    (We’ve had marriage equality for many years, so that wouldn’t be one of the principles)

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      I’d have seriously resented it if I’d just had the standard US 3 weeks PTO though.

      1. Michigander*

        Yes, I agree. I live in the UK now and get ample amounts of time off and wouldn’t begrudge anyone for getting extra time off to deal with their wedding or honeymoon (I don’t think we do at my employer but I was married before I started and it’s never come up). If I was still living in the US and getting two weeks of vacation time a year I’d probably be a bit more bitter though.

        I do think it’s odd though that the company doesn’t require that the extra time off be used in the same month as the wedding. I’m guessing it’s in case people need to wait to take their honeymoon or need days off earlier in the year for wedding tasks that have to happen during the day, but if I were someone at the company who didn’t get extra wedding time off I’d probably wonder if my coworkers were really using it for wedding stuff or if they were just taking extra vacation days.

        1. Beth**

          We took our honeymoon about 7 months after our wedding. It was a long weekend, so extra annual leave wasn’t a consideration, but not everyone who takes a honeymoon takes it straight away.

        2. Ellis Bell*

          The only experience I’ve had with weddings getting special treatment for time off in the UK is in places that didn’t like you to take three weeks off at once; they were willing to make an exception for weddings because of it’s one-off nature, but they didn’t get any more leave in total for the year than anyone else. They would also have been pretty willing to show the same flexibility for anyone doing something special or important as a one-off.

      2. Seashell*

        I don’t know what the average is in the US, but I wouldn’t call 3 weeks “standard”. Some jobs do routinely give more than that. People working for schools, for example, typically get much more.

        1. doreen*

          People working in schools get more time off but they often don’t get much discretionary PTO , if any. They have the summer off and may get paid during the summer but they are frequently 10 month employees who have little or no PTO they can take during the school year.

          1. doreen*

            By 10 month employee, I mean they get paid for working during the school year and if they get paychecks during the summer, it’s because 10 months of pay has been divided into 12 months of paychecks.

  16. Irish Teacher.*

    LW1, in Ireland, those working in the public service are entitled to 5 days “marriage leave.” I’ve never heard any resentment about it and as somebody who has no intention of marrying, would never have thought of seeing it as anything other than positive.

    I do realise that leave often works differently in the US and it seems like there are less different types which may affect people’s impression as may the issue of whether or not it’s a norm.

    1. Wolf*

      I feel like this is largely fuelled by not having enough time off in LW1’s part of the world. “Someone gets something I don’t get” stings way less when all of us get enough of that thing and the extra is just a bonus.

  17. r..*

    LW1,

    we do give extra PTO for newly married employees or their relatives (3 days if you’re getting married, 1 day if a direct relative of yours gets married), but we also do give extra PTO for certain other major life events like moving, or short-term home-care of sick childs/parents/partners if full-time care is required and no carer can be arranged on short notice.

    This is in addition to 5 weeks vacation (not combined with sick days; those are extra) every one gets.

    Which brings us to the crux of the matter: Could it be that your employer’s PTO policy isn’t exactly generous in the first place? People who get 4-5 weeks of PTO a year would likely have much less (negative) strong feelings about giving 3-5 extra days off to newlyweds than if you are stuck with 2 weeks PTO and sick leave combined.

    1. Carol*

      This seems fair. I think having some flex “life event” days can be good. But I do agree that overall if you had plenty of vacation people wouldn’t care about this

  18. eisa*

    #1 :
    Whatever one’s personal feelings about this, be aware of the following :

    Say I am an unmarried person employed by such a company; or I did not get the perk because my wedding predates my employment at said company.
    I find the policy inherently unfair and ask myself “where is MY extra PTO, then?”
    I find a group of people who agree and we go to HR or the CEO .

    What might happen ?

    A ) We are ignored.
    B) TPTB : “well, the policy IS unfair to the majority of our employees. Let’s give everyone an extra week of PTO – one time only during their employment with us. Sure, it will cost us, but we can afford it.”
    C) TPTB : “well, the policy IS unfair to the majority of our employees and some of them have noticed it .. let’s just scratch it then. No extra PTO for anyone.”

    If you think that B) is a more likely outcome than C) , prepare to be surprised .

    1. eisa*

      The following happened in my country some years ago.

      It’s about a certain religious holiday (or holy day)

      By law of the country, a few religious minorities automatically were given that day off (schoolchildren as well as employees)

      One employee (affiliated with no religion whatsoever) sued because of inequality; he had worked on that day and wanted to get the extra bonus for working on a holiday (which his minority-religion colleague had received.)

      An institution which protects workers’ rights supported him and paid the cost of the trials, up to and including before the court of the European Union.

      The EU court ruled that the law was not justified, and ordered the country to amend it.
      Which it did.
      Fairness won the day ! Yay !

      Does everyone in my country now have that day off ?

      Of course not.
      It was taken away from the religious-minority people.

      The instituion we have to “thank” for this is in general a real and powerful force for good; but that was not their brightest moment …

      However, the claimant should now be happy.
      He retroactively received a “working on holiday” bonus from his employer, amounting to around 77 dollars (converted from Euro).
      From now on, he will neither get the day off nor a bonus if he works ..
      but neither will anyone else and that’s the important thing !

        1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

          Brexit changed nothing there :)
          the UK is still bound by the ECHR because it covers all European countries, not just those in the EU.

          btw, the UK was one of the founding members who created the ECHR in 1950, several years before European countries formed the Common Market, which was a forerunner of the EU.

          1. eisa*

            No, Vulcan. I used the words “EU court” advisedly.
            It was the European Court of Justice (ECJ), “the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law.”

            The European Court of Human Rights had nothing to do with it. Purely an EU thing.

      2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        If men were being paid more than women at a certain job, would the European Court of Human Rights be wrong to rule that illegal – in case the employer reduced the men’s wages instead of increasing the womens’?

        There was a case brought against the UK many years ago iirc for not allowing women to bring their foreign (usually POC) fiances to live in the country, but allowing men to do so. There was great celebration when the ECHR ruled this illegal – until the UK govt obeyed by stopping men bringing in fiances too.
        The campaigners rightly blamed the govt 100%.

        It is a choice whether to reduce or increase rights for everyone. Blame those who chose to be mean.

        However, a few extra days PTO for getting married doesn’t seem worth agitating about, because it’s a one-off.
        If it grates because you have a miserly 3 weeks PTO in the USA, then campaign to raise that, every year, instead of worrying about some people getting a once-only extra few days to help get through a time-suck life event.

        1. eisa*

          Thank you, the UK case is very interesting, I didn’t know about it.

          Personally, I would applaud that the glaring inequality (against the already less privileged 50 % of the population) has been removed, while being unemotional about the direction it finally took.

          Of course the cases differ somewhat – the previously sole beneficiaries being the already more privileged 50 % in yours , a group of people the country had previously oppressed, forbidden to live their faith and driven out in mine.

    2. Bronte*

      You assume that C isn’t an acceptable outcome for someone upset about this. Of course, B would be the better option – people have lives and should be able to celebrate life events. But if you’ve been left to juggle your own life event/crisis and then expected to cover for someone else’s marriage leave – well, C isn’t ideal, but at least you now don’t have to juggle stuff AND see someone else get extra time off.

      1. eisa*

        “You assume that C isn’t an acceptable outcome for someone upset about this.”

        I do not assume that; on the contrary, part of the comments here and in the 2019 post show that C) would be a very acceptable output to any number of people.

        It was a preemptive observation: especially in the 2019 comments, there were also a number of people who seemed to have high hopes for B) .

      2. Orv*

        Yup. Any leave comes at the expense of the people who have to pick up the slack. If that leave isn’t available to them in exchange, it’s an unfair situation.

    3. Carri*

      I would be very happy if they just scrapped the leave entirely (option C), instead of rewarding people for getting married. That is still a far better outcome than the status quo.

      And if they opt for A, I’m jobhunting.

      2. Filofaxes*

        That’s a mindset that is basically “Well MY student loans weren’t forgiven so screw all y’all! They didn’t have ANY maternity leave/marriage equality/civil rights/etc back in MY day so why should any of you get to have it now?!”

    4. Ellis Bell*

      I think you have laid the dangers out pretty well for pushing back as a group, but if the dilemma is more “shall I start job hunting?” then A and C are useful bits of info to have.

  19. Annie*

    Wholeheartedly agree with not approaching HMs outside the office to discuss open roles! I am always on the lookout for talented folks to join my teams; if I’m out of the office and caffeinating, I am also in desperate need of a break. (You know how you stepped out for a coffee to get away from your desk/decompress after a hard meeting/see a sliver of sunlight? Hard same, friend!) Apply via our hiring system. Trust that it works. Flag your application for me on Slack/via email if we work at the same company; that doesn’t bother me at all, and unless my hair is actually on fire thanks to the 20 other non-managerial things on my plate, I will get back to you in a few days. But respect the sanctity of coffee time.

    1. Cordelia*

      absolutely – if I’m out of the office getting a coffee, it’s because I’ve decided/needed to take a break from work. If I’m there by myself, it’s because I also need a break from talking to people. So I definitely won’t want to talk to you about work.

  20. Purple Turtle*

    LW3, I agree with Alison that the main issue is probably the fact that you didn’t notify them until 1:07.

  21. Ganymede II*

    My company has a policy of giving days off for a few specific events – 2 days for getting married, 1 day for moving house, etc. This is on top of generous leave policy (total of 30 days every year), and because these are days that many people relate to, and aren’t very common, it does not create any resentment.
    The “fair” approach is: fewer days for special events, more days for everyone by default, and suddenly no one resents the special days.

  22. Bronte*

    I think I prefer how our company does things – we have a decent amount of time off (28 days, plus public holidays, plus our birthdays) and we don’t limit sick leave (though we do need documentation after a point).

    Additional time off, you can apply for and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a reasonable request refused. Last year a colleague was given a month off immediately (without needing to request it) following the death of her daughter, and that was extended when she understandably needed it. The plannable things, we take as leave, the ‘hit you out of the blue’ things we get help with. I think if anyone had managed to misuse this it might be different, but it works for us.

    1. Media Monkey*

      agree on the bereavement leave. i don’t know how you can do anything with just a couple of days off for a close relative. my mum died (in hospital – so sudden but not totally unexpected) on the Tuesday evening, after we had spent the day with her and i had spent the day before trying to sort out hospice care and meeting with doctors as well as spending time with her. The earliest we could see a funeral director was the Thursday and I didn’t get documentation from the hospital until the Friday which we needed to book in the funeral, which was a week later and required paperwork, lots of organising and calling people, zoom calls with the officiant to choose music and readings. so without any “grieving” time (which is of course not going to be over in a few days/ weeks/months) i would have needed 2 full weeks off minimum. which luckily my company gave without question.

  23. HannahS*

    I find it…interesting? Frustrating? Odd? To see, immediately, several comments comparing marriage leave and parental leave. I don’t see why that comparison would be automatic to people, other than the fact that marriage and children and associated with women (despite the fact that people of all genders marry and have children.) It would seem to me more intuitive to compare marriage leave to funerary leave, and parental leave to medical leave. I think it’s worth sitting with–the ways in which we link marriage to women and then to children.

    1. Cat Tree*

      Yeah, I agree. It’s a weird comparison. I have to think most people making that comparison have never actually cared for a newborn baby.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        Or been in the company of a woman who has just given birth! To compare that to choosing an extra long honeymoon is batcrackers.

      2. Apex Mountain*

        I don’t think they’re comparing the acts of marriage and having a baby, just that these are two examples of time off that not everyone can take.

        1. Katara's side braids*

          But a lot of the comments are comparing them with the express intent of questioning why we’re okay with one and not the other. Which should be pretty obvious given the moral and ethical consequences of *not* providing one, versus the other.

          1. Apex Mountain*

            Right, and if a company was giving employees the wedding week off but had incredibly poor family leave policies I would agree. But in this case they get both

            1. Katara's side braids*

              The point is that it makes no sense to bring parental leave into the discussion in the first place, because it’s a necessity once the child in the picture.

              A more useful comparison would be graduations or milestone birthdays. A general “celebratory life event” category limited to one use every 5-ish years would easily solve this.

              1. Apex Mountain*

                Agree it’s a necessity but many places still don’t offer it, so I’m not sure it’s a great comparison in any event.

                Either way imo there’s nothing wrong with giving employees extremely generous time off – someone shouldn’t have to worry about how much PTO they have if they want to take a honeymoon.

                1. Katara's side braids*

                  Right, it’s not a good comparison. One is unethical *not* to provide, and one is a nice “extra” thing to provide to people who choose to throw a big party. I think we generally agree that it’s overall a good thing for people to have more time off for big life events. Not going to assume where you live, but since I’m in the US, a week unfortunately makes a huge difference.

                2. Apex Mountain*

                  I agree that it’s unethical to not provide parental leave and that the wedding week is an extra – I don’t think anyone’s claiming otherwise.

                  My point is that the extras (not just weddings but other life stuff) are also valuable to employees and businesses should be as flexible as they can to accommodate

                  And yes I’m in the US and honestly that’s the biggest problem – i think if everyone had enough PTO in general (which many of us here do not), someone getting an extra week once in a lifetime wouldn’t be as much of an issue

                3. Katara's side braids*

                  I think at this point we’re basically agreeing but my tone just isn’t coming off right! Sorry if that’s the case.

        2. Ellis Bell*

          Yeah that’s where you get the phrase “comparing apples and oranges” from. Both are fruits, but they’re too different to compare. Grouping things by one similarity is a little pointless.

          1. Apex Mountain*

            But in this case the one similarity is the basis for the whole discussion so I think it is relevant here. Either way though, in my opinion more time off is always the better option.

            1. Ellis Bell*

              Interesting; we call this the difference between equality (treat everyone the same) and equity (certain people need extra things in order to achieve equal status) in education. Because I don’t think the crux of the issue is as simple as the ‘equality’ argument of “if my coworker gets x, then I should get X too”, because that would be nuts; people don’t need the same work accessibility arrangements as their dyslexic or disabled colleagues. They don’t need the same sick leave, or bereavement leave, or parental leave as other people. Now we come to the equity argument of “If my colleague doesn’t *need* this, it’s a reward but one only given to people who are in a certain category.” Need is the key word here, and giving people something that they don’t need is favouritism. The problem people have with inequitable policies is it really does feel unjust and makes certain people feel like they don’t belong.

              1. Apex Mountain*

                I agree with this. Ideally everyone in the company would get a similar benefit for a life event of their own whatever that might be, or no event at all and just take an extra week if you want. It would be really simple to enact this.

    2. The Kulprit*

      I definitely see a lot of what you’re seeing regarding the comparison. I would just like to add that parental leave is leave because of a life event that people choose and that may or may not happen to or for others.

      As Alison mentioned, there are plenty of times when parents are granted leeway or PTO (not Official Parental Leave) that non-parents aren’t — but the non-parents still have family and friends that they want to care for and spend time with.

      It can feel like certain circumstances an paths are being prioritized as Important, or even rewarded, instead of being a policy to foster work-life balance.

      (to be clear I mean the extra PTO that we’ve heard of in this and other letters, not parental leave)

    3. Hyaline*

      I made the comparison below because both are what are considered “joyous“ events that also come along with a lot of pragmatic logistics for which people might need time off. Bereavement leave is also a fair comparison except that it’s by definition not for a “joyous” event, and unlike maternity leave, many companies don’t have funeral policies. Nothing to do with gender imo.

      1. musical chairs*

        And bereavement leave (or jury duty) would happen not at a time of the employee’s choosing. Parental leave (to an extent) has some element of choice in it and also a long lead up. More a structural comparison. People of all genders take parental leave.

        1. LizB*

          Yeah, I see marriage leave and parental leave as somewhat comparable because they are both situations where not all people will have occasion to use them, and whether or not they do/when they do is, broadly speaking, something an individual has some control over or at least can anticipate. (With all the important caveats about not every single person is single by choice, and not every pregnancy & birth is wanted.)

          I do think that if moving leave was a thing, which it should be, it would be a much more apt comparison.

    4. Person from the Resume*

      I think maternity leave (for a woman to give birth and recover from giving birth) is most like sick leave.

      Parental leave for parents of all genders to bound with a child (including a newly adopted child) is closer to paid time off since there’s not a medical recovery involved and still …

      Social convention has become that following a wedding people take a honeymoon. I’m not sure that it is social convention yet but there’s a group of people that think it is that a wedding is the most important event in a woman’s life (completely gendered) and there is a boatload of planning before and a grand 2+ week honeymoon following it.

      Yes, a newlywed can bound with their spouse on a honeymoon, but it is not like a parent bonding with a new child. So it’s different.

      1. Emily of New Moon*

        2+ week honeymoon? That certainly wasn’t the case in 2005 when I got married! We just had one week.

    5. learnedthehardway*

      Agreeing with you. I don’t see them as similar at all. I can (and did) have a wedding and honeymoon without having to take a leave of absence from my job (I took vacation time).

      I could not physically have had my children and gone back to work in the first 3-6 months – There’s the recovery from the birth itself (or c-sections and complications, in my case), bonding with the baby (which is a biological process as much as it is psychological), the physical realities of breastfeeding (hint – there’s no control over milk production – at first, it just happens, and even later, your body is on a schedule that IT determines), and then there’s the sheer exhaustion of dealing with a tiny, very helpless human who needs to be fed, diapered, burped, held, and figured out every 2-3 hours.

      I could see a “life event” kind of leave, but tend to think that this is what vacation is supposed to be about. I think there should be some provision for people to be able to take blocks of time longer than 1 week at a time, and that people should have enough vacation time that they can take a big trip every once in awhile. I also think people should be able to bank some vacation time.

  24. Apex Mountain*

    I do understand the unfairness concern, but more time off is never a bad thing imo. I’d rather try to expand it to a “life events” policy rather than go for the “crabs in the bucket” mindset

    1. sparkle emoji*

      Exactly, all the comments arguing that no one should have any nice extras if they don’t personally benefit are baffling to me. It seems like such a frustrating mindset to have, to constantly be keeping score.

      1. Orv*

        Partly it’s because any time someone takes leave, that means someone else has to take on their workload without any compensation. When it’s leave everyone gets that feels like more of a fair tradeoff.

  25. Falling Diphthong*

    They may stumble upon a very talented individual for their team.

    OP2, this is the rom-com model of finding employees. Where an epic meet-cute will always triumph over the mundane “We realized we needed someone with specific coding expertise, so we drafted a job listing and people applied.”

    1. H.Regalis*

      I went horror movie with it XD

      The hiring manager is in a deserted train station late at night, and goes to use the public toilet. The bathroom is brightly lit, but industrial, empty, and vaguely creepy. Jump-cut to their washing up in the sink after using the facilities. First-person shot, they (and we) look down at their hands. They look up and see a reflection in the mirror of someone now standing directly behind them smiling menacingly. It’s a prospective job candidate who wants to talk about their qualifications.

    2. Two-Faced Big-Haired Food Critic*

      I was thinking “bootstraps”. Like Bob Benson on Mad Men, or Don in a flashback. “Yeah, so I found out where the feller in charge of hiring got his coffee. Dropped by morning, started talking about the job, and next thing you know, we’re walking back to the office together and I was hired that same day!”

  26. frida*

    I used to work at a UK satellite of an Ireland (ROI)-based company that offered marriage leave but the handbook made it very clear it was for your FIRST MARRIAGE ONLY bc Catholic guilt goes haaaard.

  27. Hyaline*

    If you think of marriage leave as a pragmatism rather than a reward it makes a lot more sense. Given that most people are going to require a time off for a wedding both in the lead up and in the honeymoon after (and in more bygone times the combination of households that often required moving shortly after a wedding) it makes sense that companies would just say OK you know what? Automatic time off for everyone for their weddings, no need to debate, no need to fuss , easy peasy. (Like in the way that maternity leave is not a reward for having a baby. It’s a pragmatic need because you have to have the time off.) I would hope that most companies would also have generously for other major life, events, and time away needs.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      This is why I think that it’s a holdover from days of yore; you don’t often see people moving house at the same time as the wedding any more. I also think they probably give paltry time off on all other occasions.

      1. L-squared*

        YOu think they give paltry time off based on NOTHING. You have absolutely no reason to believe that. Even the story we are hearing is second hand, as the letter writer doesn’t work there. But sure, just assume the absolute worst based on 0 info

        1. Ellis Bell*

          Whoa, ease up there tiger. I said “think” and I’m totally willing to be convinced otherwise. I suppose it’s possible for people there to take a nice honeymoon on the general PTO and there’s no need for extra allowance.

  28. English Rose*

    #4 – networking events: I’ve sometimes got in situations where I’ve felt stuck because the person I’ve been talking to is not anxious to move on. In that case it can help to treat it like a similar purely social situation at a party. If you know anyone else there, you say to the person “Have you met so and so”, walk up to them with your new acquaintance in tow, make the introductions and excuse yourself. Then you’ve not left the person alone while you go off to circulate, which is considerate.

  29. L-squared*

    As a single person who is very attune to the unfairness that single and childfree people often experience in the office, I honestly wouldn’t be bothered by the 1 week extra for people getting married.

    Its 1 week, and probably 1 time during your tenure. As opposed to parental leave which can be FAR more often. I was at a company for 3.5 years, and in that 3 years one guy I knew took his 3 months paid leave 3 times. They were busy lol. To me, that is FAR more disruptive and “unfair”. And look, I”m not saying parental leave is a bad thing at all. But if I can deal with that, I’m not going to be mad at a one time free week off for your honeymoon.

    I get that single people often get the crap end of the stick, but I also feel that some of us go too far in the “no one should get anything more than me” direction, and it just seems petty.

  30. Apex Mountain*

    I agree overall with the advice on #2, unless the candidate already knows the manager. In this case they recognized the manager, so not sure if that’s because they already know each other, or it’s just from LinkedIn or something

    1. Michigander*

      If you know the manager, I feel like “Are you free to chat some time about your job opening?” could work. Then they can either say “Sure, I’ve got 5 minutes now if that works” or “Sure, send me an email and we’ll set something up”. Or no, I guess.

  31. RagingADHD*

    #2, I think if you recognize someone in an out of work setting and know enough about them to know that they have an opening you’re a fit for, it’s fine to greet them (and re-introduce yourself if need be), and potentially chitchat if they are open to it. But you have to pay attention to their cues, not be pushy, and not make a hard pitch for the job directly.

    If they are open to a brief conversation, you might possibly get as far as remarking on some aspect of the project they are working on, or a recent accomplishment. That’s enough to show that you have insight or interest in their work.

    You just want to leave a general positive impression – which means that if they aren’t up for a chat, you just greet them and keep walking.

  32. HonorBox*

    I don’t like the situation in letter 1 one single bit. I have a bias because I live in the US, but the disparities in PTO in general, bereavement leave, parental leave, etc. are already so profound from place to place that giving someone an extra week because of their marriage seems additionally unfair and arbitrary.

    I’ve read the comments about how other countries (I’m in the US) handle things, and if it is universal for all the way parental leave is universal in other countries, that’s different entirely.

    I like the idea that someone could get the extra week to be sure, but I absolutely think it has to be broader than just marriage.

    1. The Kulprit*

      Agreed. Its not that I don’t want other people to have perks, but applying it only to one single life event is not on.

      The fact that I get a paltry not quite 2 weeks vacation a year is absolutely playing a role in my response to this. An additional week is a significant disparity in my case.

  33. Abigail*

    I would not craft a leave plan to include a week for marriage.

    If I worked someplace that offered this benefit, I wouldn’t care. And I say this as a single person with no desire to marry. Marriage is not the kind of thing that happens often enough for this benefit to be consistently applied unequally.

    To me, this is the same as a gym membership when I don’t work out at a gym or a parking pass if I take the train. Sometimes a benefit is offered but not applied to me. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

  34. Nancy*

    LW1: Do you know for a fact that no one in her office gets extra PTO for other major events or reasoj? Personally I could not care less if someone got an extra week for a honeymoon. I’ve gotten extra time after the deaths of people close to me. Not some policy, just something extra.

    1. RagingADHD*

      That’s the thing about these friend’s-mother’s-aunt’s-cat’s-boyfriend questions.

      The LW can’t possibly know what the overall policies about life event leave are like at somebody else’s job unless they are doing the kind of deep dive that doesn’t come up in ordinary conversation, and often the employees at companies with multiple special leave options don’t even know about all of them until they need one.

  35. Hiring Mgr*

    This might be tangential, but to me the wedding time off issue is a great case for unlimited PTO – you don’t have to worry about things like this and everyone can take what they need for their major life events.

    1. Abigail*

      Unlimited PTO need better branding. Like flexible PTO.

      It is obviously not unlimited or else nobody would go to work at all

  36. MCMonkeybean*

    I agree that #1 is a nice thought but probably not a good idea. When I got married, my boss let me know that if I needed more time for my honeymoon than I had, I was allowed to go a little negative on PTO. So I could have a little extra this year but then take a little less the next year.

    I thought that was fair, but it’s obviously only useful if a place offers enough PTO that giving up a couple days the next year wouldn’t really be a problem. And I’m sure they would allow you to go negative for other reasons if you really needed to (probably at manager discretion).

  37. AthenaC*

    #4 – My favorite way to end a conversation is “Well I won’t keep you – lovely to see / meet you! (I’m sure we’ll talk more / connect soon!)*” and then give a smile and friendly wave as I physically walk away.

    *Replace with “Take care!” or “Have a good one!” or “Have fun on your upcoming vacation!” or whatever makes the most sense with what you just talked about.

    I like using the “I won’t keep you” phrasing because it sounds like I’m being considerate of their time rather than selfishly protective of my time.

    1. Person from the Resume*

      I like using the “I won’t keep you” phrasing because it sounds like I’m being considerate of their time rather than selfishly protective of my time.

      This is more personal than professional, but I was friends with someone who tried using the “I won’t keep you” with me, but because I had allocated more time for us, I just responded that they weren’t keeping me. Finally I suggested they own that THEY were ready to wrap it up and not act like they were being considerate of my time when I wanted to keep talking.

      So I would suggest is only use this if you think they are done and ready to move on to.

      1. L-squared*

        That seems extremely rude on your part.

        You knew they were trying to end the conversation, but you just HAD to make them say it and “own” it? What did that accomplish? If you were my friend, you probably wouldn’t be after that

      3. Glomarization, Esq.*

        So what did you win when you won that conversation by making them confess that they were ready to conclude the interaction?

      5. Saint Dorothy Mantooth*

        This is…kind of a strange way to interact with people, I must say.

        You say you suggested that they own that they were ready to wrap it up, but–that’s what they were doing, by using a polite social convention to transition out of the conversation. Your insistence on stating, for the record, who really wanted to end the conversation is weird and pedantic. It kind of feels like the way people act when they’re trying to assert dominance in situations that don’t require it. Don’t be that person.

      7. Lilac*

        I could *maybe* see doing this if there’s a power imbalance (like if you’re their boss or their teacher) and they seem genuinely worried that they’re bothering you or wasting your time—but even then, I’d probably change the phrasing to something more like, “Oh, you’re not keeping me! Is there anything else you needed?” That still gives them an easy way to politely end the conversation if they want to, or keep talking if the “I won’t keep you” really was meant out of concern for your time rather than theirs.

        In most cases, though, “I won’t keep you” is just a polite way of ending the interaction and should be treated as such.

      8. Apex Mountain*

        I’m not sure where you’re located, but in the US at least someone saying “I won’t keep you” in this way IS wrapping up the conversation

      11. hiraeth*

        So you knew exactly what they meant but pretended not to? That’s… a profoundly indirect and passive-aggressive way to try and elicit more direct communication.

      12. Phoebe*

        Just because you use that phrase the way you do, doesn’t mean everyone perceives it that way. Some people actually do respect your time and don’t want to waste it. I’m sure the person you were having that conversation with was very confused by your confrontational attitude. If you had things you wanted to say, just say them. A conversation isn’t a competition.

      13. RagingADHD*

        Wow. Do you also approach every handshake palm-down and saw the legs of visitor chairs shorter than your own?

        Because this is giving very strong “bad 1980s assertiveness training” vibes.

    2. Decagon*

      On the other hand, hearing “I won’t keep you” makes me feel much more like I’m being shooed away — and being shooed away by someone granting me a false favor.

  38. Varthema*

    If the LW’s friend works at a multinational, it could be something they did to bring the US employees’ benefits in line with their non-US colleagues, since SO many countries mandate extra PTO for marriage. My US-based colleagues’ maternity leave got extended from 12 weeks to 16 because the disparity between theirs and ours (4 months in Brazil and Spain, 6-8 months here in Ireland) was so vast.

  39. Cat*

    I feel so sad for all the bitter folks about #1. Genuinely, it must be tough navigating life with such a strict sense of fairness. I found my life and attitude improved significantly when I let go of the (frankly childish) notion that fair = exactly the same for everyone or that just because you’re not benefiting from something that makes it wrong. I think it’s wonderful this company cares about such an important event in their employees lives!

    1. Hiring Mgr*

      I think part of it is the lack of PTO people (in the US at least) have generally. If PTO is already stingy, an extra week even once in a lifetime is going to seem far different than in a workplace where everyone feels good about their vacation/sick time

      2. The Kulprit*

        When you work a job where people have to take FLMA leave to protect their jobs while caring for their sick or grieving their dead, an extra week for something people choose to do hits different.

        1. Gytha Ogden*

          UK poster here.

          That’s the same in other countries too. We have to take annual leave for everything as well in order to get paid, and generally longer bereavements are covered by sick leave (with all the corresponding loss of pay because not all companies have good sick leave policies compared to the statutory right to paid annual leave). We also have stricter reporting requirements for ill health in general, and things like doctor’s appointments etc don’t generally count as sick leave unless they’re emergencies. To take more than a few days off for bereavement, such as when I lost my husband, I had to take sick leave, same as when I broke my ankle or had panic attacks at the beginning of the pandemic.

          It sounds like you think that everyone else is basically off work forever on leave on full pay…but we’re actually not. We may be a bit more generous in terms of statutory leave, but we’re not a whole lot more flexible either with this sort of thing.

          1. basically functional*

            Do you not realize that FMLA, which is the only federal law protecting sick people or caregivers from being summarily fired, requires companies to allow 12 weeks of unpaid leave? This is all we have in the US, and it doesn’t even apply to everyone. Companies are not required to offer any paid leave for any reason whatsoever. Your complaints are painfully tone deaf in this context.

    2. Glomarization, Esq.*

      Indeed. Fair and equitable are not the same thing.

      Not everybody at the company will take all of the available types of PTO: marriage leave, bereavement leave, parental leave, sick leave. What a mindset to think that fairness, rather than equitableness, should be the deciding factor as to what types and lengths of leave should be available to employees.

    3. inksmith*

      I found my life improved a lot when I didn’t go around declaring how much of a more enlightened and better person I was than other people to their faces and stopped calling them childish and bitter.

      But that’s just me.

  40. LateForTheInterview*

    If someone is driving they may not be able to pull over to text, although in theory they could call if they gave a hands free set up.

    If someone is taking public transit they may be underground or in a service-free zone.

    It may be a choice of being 5 minutes late without calling or 20 minutes late with it.

    Also, it would never occur to me that I could text an office number, and it is often much too loud to call on a bus or train that does have service. In my case I use a walker, so calling when I get off the train delays my arrival further- I can’t walk and use the phone at the same time.

    It’s also pretty common for the interviewee not to have direct contact info for an interviewer. Sometimes I don’t even know their name, just the name of the HR person doing the initial greet or that I’m supposed to check in at reception and follow their instructions.

    I’ve arrived at office buildings and had security unable to reach the HR person I’d been dealing with and unwilling to contact anyone else at the company to tell them I was downstairs waiting.

    All kinds of things can go wrong, many of which aren’t fixed by leaving extra time.

    1. Bruce*

      When I did a lot of my youthful interviewing cell phones were not a thing, so: when I had a collision in pouring rain it took me an hour or more to contact the interviewer… they were cool and rescheduled me, then later made an offer (that I declined). But for a teen summer job when I took the wrong fork on the freeway and arrived 20 minutes late, my chances were sunk. Leaving extra time is prudent, but sometimes things go wrong even if you do try to prepare for the worst!

    2. Jessen*

      Same. I don’t understand how it’s somehow now considered rude that I’m not going to make an illegal phone call in traffic. Most trips I’ve had there is no good place to pull over safely, and I’m honestly kind of disturbed how many people seem to think it’s somehow rude that I didn’t contact them because I didn’t want to crash my car.

    3. Two Fish*

      Yes. Some parts of North Hollywood, California for one, have absolutely no easy street or strip mall parking to just pull over and make a call.

  41. Katara's side braids*

    It’s confusing and a bit concerning to see so many people compare the marriage leave to parental leave on the basis that they’re “both large life events that happen mostly by choice.” It’s pretty clear to me that one involves assuming responsibility for an extremely vulnerable human being, who we know needs that bonding time with their adult caregivers. The other is a very nice vacation that is 100% a choice, as is a wedding itself – it’s fully possible to get married without all of the planning and logistics that so many have cited to try and equate it with becoming a parent.

    It seems like people making the comparison either see parental leave as a vacation – which minimizes not only the consequences to the child of NOT providing that time, but also the extreme mental and physical effects of childbirth – or see a honeymoon as a physical and ethical necessity on par with taking time to care for a brand new (or extremely vulnerable and likely traumatized, in the case of adoption) human being. Yikes.

      1. Katara's side braids*

        Again, it’s a choice that usually has significant health consequences for the birth parent AND results in an extremely vulnerable person who needs time to bond with their caregivers. We give parental leave because it’s unethical *not* to give it. That’s not the case for marriage leave. I don’t know why we’re focusing on the “choice” aspect.

        I’m not even opposed to extra leave for voluntary life events! This comparison has just been bugging me, because they’re so obviously not comparable if you extend your thinking beyond the most basic “choice” aspect.

          1. Katara's side braids*

            Trust me, I know. It’s super unethical. The point is that one type of leave IS unethical not to provide (even if many employers don’t provide it), and the other is a “nice to have” that could easily be extended to other comparable situations.

            1. RussianInTexas*

              As someone who works for a company that does not give any “nice to have” leaves, and do not provide paid leave for parents either, yeah.
              I would love not to spend some of my precious PTO days to save someone from life in prison via jury duty.

    2. Media Monkey*

      same reason why people don’t always offer seats on public transport to pregnant women – “you CHOSE to be pregnant”. i just don’t get it.

    3. Hansfel*

      I had a similar reaction.

      The comparison also strikes me as strange because even assuming parental leave happens “mostly by choice” (which, at least in the United States, feels like quite the assumption), you do NOT get a choice with regards to the physical impacts of birth (which vary widely and can impact the workforce availability of both birthing and non-birthing partners) or a choice with regards to the type of baby you have either temperamentally or from a health standpoint (which once again impacts workforce availability).

      Meanwhile, you do get to choose when, where, how and if you get married.

      1. RussianInTexas*

        I also do not buy the argument that it takes hours to do paperwork before you get married even if you go in front of justice of the peace.
        It takes hours to do paperwork to lease an apartment, to buy a house, to buy a car, hell, it took me an hour of online paperwork plus two phone calls to register with the dermatology practice for a routine exam.
        People do it on their own time. Do your marriage paperwork on your own time as well. Or take your regular PTO as people do for other life events.

  42. Jiminy Cricket*

    Re: Extricating yourself from networking conversations. Alison’s scripts are (of course) spot on, but body language is so important. If you’re saying those things while continuing to stand squarely facing a person and maybe even leaning in and nodding your head, then you’re still stuck. You have to start signaling you’re moving away. Shift your weight to your back foot, straighten up a little bit, shift your plate or glasses to one hand. You have to look like you’re leaving.

  43. whimbrel*

    My government employer has what used to be called ‘marriage leave’, which was five days of leave that an employee could take on getting married. When they modernized it (probably more than a couple decades back), it turned into five days of one-time leave that any employee can take once during their term of employment.

    I took mine for my grad school graduation. :)

    1. Lily Potter*

      If I ever found myself at a job with a “five days of one-time leave that any employee can take once during their term of employment”, you can bet I’d be taking those five days at the very first opportunity. You never know when you might have to switch jobs (voluntarily or not) and then those five days will be gone forever. No way would I wait around until I might need them to get married, have children, move, or whatever. Besides, the biggest need for PTO is often in the first year, when you don’t have anything banked. Way better to take the five days of one-time leave in year one and bank PTO for use in year two…..if you’re even there in year two!

  44. Busy Bee*

    For #1 – the (U.S.) state where I live specifically lists marital status as a protected class for employment. I wonder if extra PTO for marriage would be illegal here.

    (In any case, I’ve never seen it at any of my employers in this state.)

    1. Pescadero*

      Probably not – because they aren’t giving it to all with the marital status of married. They’re giving it to people getting married.

  45. dfrax*

    From Think Fast, Talk Smart podcast by Matt Abrahams: To extract yourself from a conversation gracefully, say, “I have to move on/head out/run, but before I go, (ask a final question relevant to the conversation).” Listen to their answer, thank them, and go on your way. This has been a complete game changer for me. MOST people see this as an opportunity to give a short reply and maybe ask to trade contact info. For those who don’t, you’ve already established you need to leave, so you just do.

  46. My Useless Two Cents*

    This!
    Most of the time it literally takes more time to let the person waiting know I’m going to be late (10+min to stop and shoot a text) than I am late (less than 10 min late).
    So I can be less than 10 min late and not contact you. Or I can be more than 20 min late if I stop to let you know I’m going to be late when I finally know that yes, I’m going to be late.
    Now if I’m going to be 15-20 min plus late, there is usually a time to pause and let them know I’m running late but even that isn’t a guarantee if it was something unforeseeable en route.

    1. My Useless Two Cents*

      This was meant as a reply to a comment up thread about stopping to text someone if you are late.

  47. WetNReady*

    Best way to exit a conversation at a networking function?
    Loudly proclaim “GIDDY UP!” and walk away. You can do this in an awkward pause or mid-sentence by the other person.

    Two other options: “I don’t have time to listen to idiots” and stroll away.
    Say nothing…just turn….walk away.

    OR…for added effect, maintain eye contact while walking away backwards.

    2. Daphne*

      There was a prof at my undergrad institution who was known for just walking away from conversations he was done with.

  48. pally*

    RE: #1: It occurs to me that businesses might offer a new kind of leave that doesn’t fall neatly into sick leave or vacation time. Something like “special event leave”. This would be used for essentially a one-time or an unexpected event an employee may encounter. This would cover the gamut from getting married, to the kitchen got flooded, dealing with a family issue, managing a pet final illness, having to stay home to deal with contractors working on the home, or anything that you might need a few days off to take care of.

    Sure it might simply fold into vacation time. On the other hand, this might even things out a bit for those places that give folks getting married a one-time extra bit of time off. We all have those one-time events where we need a few days to attend to something.

    2. Lily Potter*

      I have seen this when working jobs that require coverage. At one such place, employees are given “vacation” time which is used for pre-planned time away from the office with X amount of lead time, “sick” time which is used for planned or unplanned personal illness, pre-planned personal medical appointments, and (sometimes) sick time & appointments for family members, and “personal” time which is used for items that Pally is mentioning above – life things that require unscheduled time off. If you burn through your personal time and still want unscheduled, non-sick time off, you go unpaid or take vacation time – and get internal “points” on your “record”. After a certain number of points, you’re dismissed from your job. Again, this is at a place where coverage is required so when someone calls out last minute, it’s a scramble to cover the post – hence the split in vacation/personal time to encourage prescheduling as much as possible.

    3. basically functional*

      This is already a thing – personal leave! As a state government employee, I get sick leave, personal leave, annual leave, volunteer and school assistance leave (can be used for volunteering, chaperoning field trips, parent-teacher conferences, etc.), civil and work-related leave (jury duty, appearing in court as a witness, etc.), bereavement leave, and possibly more I can’t remember.

  49. BTDT - X2*

    While working at the same company, I got married – divorced – married again. The first wedding no one acknowledged. When I was going thru the divorce, my manager gave me a few days off. The same manager, years later, and in a different role, gave me a week off for the honeymoon. I appreciated it immensely. My husband got nothing, same company. Other people got ‘free’ time off for adoptions, funerals, other major life events. It was entirely up to the manager you had if you got anything. (When I quit that job, after twenty years and never a promotion, my supervisor handed me an envelope with money and told me to buy myself a gift, no one else had time. My manager ignored me during my two weeks. Other people got parties or walked to the door immediately, there didn’t seem to be any rules.)

  50. WetNReady*

    First company I worked for out of grad school gave a pay raise when you married and each time you have a child. #LawsuitAnyone???

  51. RussianInTexas*

    I am in the US. I get 10 days of vacation until I reach 10 years and 4 sick days per year. My company does not offer paid parental leave, nor paid jury duty, nor paid bereavement.
    I would be LIVID if my company offered even one extra paid day off for marriage.
    In my old job, when I had 27 vacation days, 8 sick days, various other benefits – meh.

    1. SpanishWork*

      Why would you be livid that something nice happened to your coworkers?

      I would be more livid that your company treats their employees so horribly that they don’t even offer parental leave and only give a measly 10 days. I would be happy for the people who get some extra days for such a big life event. Your anger is misdirected.

      1. RussianInTexas*

        Oh, trust me, I am angry at the company too, but no, I do not think getting married is special enough to give extras unless you give such extras for other occasions.
        I do not think getting married itself is any more important than jury duty or bereavement. It’s just another life event that you actually CHOOSE to have, unlike many others.
        As for parental leave – the company falls under FMLA and that is what they offer. Only about 27% of private sector employees in the US have paid parental leave, so really, that is while crappy, is not that unexpected.

        1. Jackalope*

          I truly hope you’re exaggerating here for effect, because I have not ever known ANYONE, including people who had the quick and easy courthouse wedding, who felt like getting married (specifically, the wedding part of it) was in any way comparable to jury duty. At. All. In terms of the effect it had on their lives. I mean, I agree that jury duty is important, but let’s not pretend that any individual juror feels that having jury duty affects their lives as much as the day they get married.

          1. RussianInTexas*

            I mean, when I was on a jury, we saved someone from life in prison. I say it’s an important as someone else getting married.
            Why should I spend my PTO on jury duty that I did not chose to be a part of while someone getting married gets not to do so?
            I am not at all sure about societal benefits of marriage (I am not saying people who want to get married shouldn’t do so, knock yourself out), and therefore I don’t see why it should be ranked so much higher than other life events.
            And be honest, we are talking about a wedding here. Not marriage. A marriage itself does not need a week off, a huge celebration, stressful planning, etc. A wedding does. A wedding is something you decide to have, so you deal with it. Just like you would deal with buying a house, moving, and other more or less voluntarily events in your life.

  52. SpanishWork*

    I live in Spain and every single person who gets married gets 15 extra paid days off that year by law. This is SUPER common in a ton of countries. Even Taiwan gives some extra days.

    America should do the same and I think it’s great that her office does this. It’s not unfair, it’s a major life event that is also changes your legal status! It takes a lot of planning and possible stress and you shouldn’t have to feel guilty about celebrating that with a honeymoon.

    People who don’t have babies also don’t get maternity leave, even if they want to have babies. Maternity leave isn’t a vacation but it is very normal to get more days of for certain life events.

    If you want the days off then you always have the freedom to marry as well.

    1. RussianInTexas*

      America, as you meant the US here, does not even have mandated vacation in general. Your employer does not have to give you ANY time off. Or mandated paid maternity leave. Or mandated sick leave.
      Lets just start with basics and don’t bring up a PERK of marriage leave that is fairly frivolous.
      Also, you don’t actually have to do a lot of planning, you can fill out the license, go to court within the next 90 days, pay $75, and you are done.

  53. SpaceySteph*

    I think the truth is that so many people (especially in the US) are so accustomed to having inadequate leave/time off that they begrudge people who get more. If we all had enough leave to handle ourselves and our lives, an extra week for a life event wouldn’t get people worked up. The people you are mad at is the corporate/capitalist system, not your fellow employee.

  54. Scarlet ribbons in her hair*

    I think that it’s really funny that so many people here think that someone who gets married deserves extra time off because of the stress of planning the wedding and honeymoon, because:

    1) The LW said that their friend was given “an extra week of PTO to use in the year which she got married. (The idea behind it being that she’ll use it on her honeymoon, although I doubt that that’s enforced.)” So maybe the friend did not use the week for honeymoon. Maybe she just took a day off here and there.

    2) Planning a wedding does not necessarily involve stress. I went to the wedding of the daughter of my boyfriend’s landlord. (I was a plus-one. I did not know either the landlord or his daughter.) The ceremony was held in the landlord’s back yard. The couple wore regular clothing. There was no bridal party. There was no music. There were no flowers, not even a bouquet for the bride. Refreshments consisted of bowls of popcorn and potato chips, plus large bottles of soda and paper cups. I am not complaining about the refreshments. I just mean that preparing a Thanksgiving dinner must be more stressful than planning the refreshments for that wedding, and yet I don’t think that people can get an extra day off the day before Thanksgiving because they will be under so much stress preparing dinner.

    I once worked at a very small company (fewer than ten employees) that was exempt from FMLA. I asked for an unpaid week off so that I could take care of my seriously ill father. I was given that week off. However, during that week, the company emailed me to say that I had been fired, and that I should mail my office keys back to them. If that company had given people who got married an extra week off, but fired me while I was taking an unpaid week off to take care of my father, I would have been extremely upset.

    1. I Have RBF*

      My wedding was just about that sparse. It was under an oak tree in a neighborhood park. There was the officiant, my spouse to be, my best man, a couple of our friends, and me. We had coordinated street clothes as out wedding outfits – black with coordinated Hawaiian shirts on top. The “reception” was us going back to our house for food and drink. No music or flowers. Our best man used my phone to take pictures, which came out fine. It was a wedding after we had a DP for several years.

    2. RussianInTexas*

      Yes, the “stress of planning a wedding” is just something that is not a reasonable excuse to me. Many important things in life are stressful.

      1. RussianInTexas*

        Where I live you can absolutely plan a wedding without stress.
        You get the license form from the courthouse. Or you know, online. You fill it out, it’s one page. Submit it.
        Wait no less than 3 days, and no more than 90.
        Go to the courthouse, pay $75, get married.
        I do not see why this act requires an extra week of PTO by the employer or 10 or whatever days by the country.
        Everything above this stress and planning-wise is strictly on you. You chose it.

        1. Mid*

          Sure, but you can acknowledge that’s far from the cultural norm, right? Regardless of your feelings about complicated weddings, it’s pretty standard, on an international level, for weddings to be A Big Deal. Many cultures have multiple days of events, or weeks of events. My neighbors took up an entire block for two weeks straight for their wedding, and it was considered modest by their cultural standards. Most people have family and friends coming from different areas and there’s a lot of joy in gathering everyone’s families and friends together to celebrate.

    3. Caramel & Cheddar*

      I’m so fascinated by being close enough to one’s landlord that you get invited to their daughter’s wedding!

  55. Cedrus Libani*

    I’ve been #3 – though it was made quite clear on the day that I’d blown it. This was before smart phones, and while I’d brought directions and a map, I’d neglected to print the email with the contact’s phone number. Also, while I’d left 30 minutes early, I spent 40 minutes wandering in a maze of highway detours…so yeah, 10 minutes late, no call no show.

    Was fairly humiliating, but I could see their side of it. They would’ve had a very finite amount of information to work with. I had made a preventable and obvious mistake, presumably they had other qualified candidates who at least managed to get there on time, that’s all they needed to know. Could I have done the job? Sure. If they’d interviewed me, would they have decided to hire me anyway? Maybe, but who knows. They didn’t, and whoever did get hired was likely a good hire also.

  56. DJ*

    In Australia it’s illegal to discriminate on marital status, including married, single, divorced etc so it wouldn’t fly to give someone marriage leave. Different re parents as only discriminatory to discriminate over being a carer, eg, carers leave although some employers broadens this to family leave etc. Those who aren’t carers are not covered by legislation for not being a carer.

  57. SofiaDeo*

    For #3, I do think Alison’s comment that “texting you were going to be late AFTER the start time had already passed” was the problem, is spot-on and still relevant today. Life happens and delays are unavoidable, but I can’t recall any event outside of a bona fide emergency where I couldn’t notify someone I was going to be running late. Even waking up really late past work start time, the first thing I would do is call in “OMG I overslept sorry I’ll be in as quickly as I can” and it was OK.

    It’s incredibly disrespectful to be so cavalier with others time, and I seem to see it more and more these past few years. People may not care if you are running late, but they do care about standing around waiting for you, wondering what’s going on. And it adds insult to injury when the person arrives & says “oh sorry I’m late, X came up” and X was something that they easily could have paused for a half minute to text/call.

Comments are closed.