> But 2 months off could be a totally reasonable amount?

Sure. Leave of two months should obviously be coordinated with your leadership, which this person didn't do.

Which makes your comment moot.

>Sure. Leave of two months should obviously be coordinated with your leadership, which this person didn't do.

How do you know that individual wasn't approved for the 2 months? I missed that part of the story. Do you not believe an employee has the right to resign from a job, or are they a slave for a certain period of time after taking a vacation?

> How do you know that individual wasn't approved for the 2 months? I missed that part of the story.

Context clues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(language_use)

> Do you not believe an employee has the right to resign from a job

Of course. Nobody said any different. Are you confused about the thread you're responding to?

I appreciate your honesty that it is complete conjecture on your part that the 2 months hadn't been coordinated.

If that's what you think context clues means, I can't help you.

By the fact that the two months of PTO didn't result in an immediate "you are fired for not coming to work", I take the position that it was approved PTO, and (thus) coordinated with (some) management. I do not see any context that supports another interpretation.

As my dad has always told me, you have no idea what agreement the other employee had with the company, so never speculate.