They're only partly responsible. Management has a tendency to optimize everything and big structures/corps are rarely fine grained, they like synthetic and uniform rules that are easy to monitor. It's a subtle cultural shift.

> I feel like these "take advantage of the system people" are partially the cause of stricter monitoring and leeway.

But these people are so obviously detected it makes no sense. They are not even trying to hide. They could be the cause of stricter legislation, not monitoring.

I think everyone has a good measure about the value of the people they are directly in contact: direct coworkers, bosses and subordinates. You can ask other people when in doubt. I'm not claiming this solves every problem, my point is that monitoring is usually completely unnecessary and creates an oppressive atmosphere.

> But these people are so obviously detected it makes no sense. They are not even trying to hide.

Why would they try to hide? If their employment agreement or their company's benefits clearly spell out a way to get 6-24 months of leave, how is it wrong to simply choose to do what's spelled out? How did "making use of benefits that are clearly written out and allowed" turn into "taking advantage of the system"?

I take advantage of 100% my company's 401(k) match. Am I taking advantage of the system? How about someone who takes their full maternity leave? Should too many people who do so be a cause of stricter legislation?

If the entire company fully utilizes their unlimited PTO, then open ended policies will become less open ended... Unlimited PTO and sick days become tracked PTO and sick days. Which brings us to the original point of employers tracking their employees more.

Unlimited PTO is never unlimited... It's always tracked and limited.

As for sick days, a sane company should have insurance for those cases (to cover for people being sick).

Why shouldn't you take advantage of the system?

It's not like you're scamming the system...

This is a very pro-business victim mentality trying to explain why businesses act heavy handed. This is no different than the welfare queen argument.

What if they're experiencing mental health issues? Many can take years to resolve and some never will.

Tying private health care to employment really creates some odd situations.

> What if they're experiencing mental health issues?

The people I know that do this use the time and money for a full time vacation as they travel the world. I am not sure public or private healthcare should fund people's (mental health) vacations.

Well, a vacation probably isn't hurting their mental health. I assume it's short term disability insurance that's picking up that bill. I wonder who actually ends up working more days - a French worker who gets all kinds of leave by law, or an American who maxes out their private insurance benefits? I really couldn't say, but I just can't get all that angry at a worker getting the benefit here.