We investigate a long‐standing methodological rule of thumb, the idea that the frequency of absenteeism from work approximates an expression of voluntary behavior while total time lost better reflects involuntary behavior and ill health. Conducting original meta‐analyses and using results from existing meta‐analyses, we determine that time lost and frequency are equally reliable, that the relationship between them approximates unity when corrections for measurement artifacts are applied, and that there is very little evidence for differential criterion‐related validity predicated on the voluntariness distinction. We supply new meta‐analytic estimates of the reliability of absenteeism adjusted for aggregation period and determine that most extant meta‐analyses of the correlates of absenteeism have markedly under‐corrected for unreliability. Our results question the basic construct validity of the time lost–frequency distinction, and they contradict the practice of using “trigger points” that factor absence frequency into attendance monitoring and associated discipline systems so as to discourage short‐term absenteeism, assumed to be volitional. We conclude that the idea that time lost and frequency reflect different degrees of voluntariness is an unsupported urban research legend. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.