Unlimited Vacation time - the "new" trend? (1 Viewer)

[AAABatteries]

Burnout leads to mistakes.  In the medical field that leads to bad outcomes which leads to lawsuits.

Obviously they dont care that we are burnt out.  I am not an idiot.  However, they dont want us making the kinds of brainfart screwups that lead to lawsuits, and burnout is the #1 way those mistakes happen.  

That's what I said.

 

[AAABatteries]

You say it like i is a bad thing. 

It is.

 

[AAABatteries]

I know these are the talking points, but those days are over. You think a millennial is looking at the vacation benefits at a place and says to himself "wow! I cant wait until year 20 when I get that 6th week of vacation." They dont think that far ahead career wise. It isn't even just millennials. Tons of people dont think that they will be working where they are now in 5 years. That is going to change even more as technology keeps moving forward.  

So your argument is that companies implement this policy to stay competitive in the industry which helps them get top notch talent - the same talent that apparently can't read studies that shows people take less vacation when there is a policy like this put in place?  You know why companies want to hire these milleniels?  Because they can pay them just a little more than Krishna in Hyderabad and they will work twice as long from a TZ that isn't 10 hours ahead.  

My point is that it is comical that people think comanpies are doing this to help burnout - they would replace you with a robot tomorrow if they could.

 

[-OZ-]

I imagine many of us have jobs where this doesnt apply.

And many of us have / had / will have jobs where it does apply. 

You say it like i is a bad thing. It is nothing more than a financial arrangement.  

It is.

it's great to develop personal relationships with your co-workers but at the end of the day the vast majority of us work to get paid in businesses/organizations that are there to make money or perform a mission.  One thing that moving positions every year or two constantly reminded me was we're replaceable in the workforce.  If your job is the most important thing in your life you're doing it wrong. 

 

[AAABatteries]

And many of us have / had / will have jobs where it does apply. 

it's great to develop personal relationships with your co-workers but at the end of the day the vast majority of us work to get paid in businesses/organizations that are there to make money or perform a mission.  One thing that moving positions every year or two constantly reminded me was we're replaceable in the workforce.  If your job is the most important thing in your life you're doing it wrong. 

It's not but some of us don't like the idea of having to move around and job hop - I have no delusions about my arrangement with my employer but it doesn't mean I don't think it's bad that companies take these approaches just to help their bottom line.  But it is what it is - nothing I can do about it.

 

[-OZ-]

It's not but some of us don't like the idea of having to move around and job hop - I have no delusions about my arrangement with my employer but it doesn't mean I don't think it's bad that companies take these approaches just to help their bottom line.  But it is what it is - nothing I can do about it.

Sure there is, but many of us don't want to start our own business.  I know I don't, although I had thought a lot about it.  

 

[AAABatteries]

Sure there is, but many of us don't want to start our own business.  I know I don't, although I had thought a lot about it.  

Sorry, I meant I can't do anything about companies being this way or their policies - i think it's great people start their own business but I'm not interested.  

 

[GroveDiesel]

And many of us have / had / will have jobs where it does apply. 

it's great to develop personal relationships with your co-workers but at the end of the day the vast majority of us work to get paid in businesses/organizations that are there to make money or perform a mission.  One thing that moving positions every year or two constantly reminded me was we're replaceable in the workforce. If your job is the most important thing in your life you're doing it wrong.

This is exactly why workers should fight this. They need to realize that this is nothing but bad for employees. They're going to end up with less time away from work and less compensation for that time. It's absolutely a lose/lose for workers.

 

[-OZ-]

This is exactly why workers should fight this. They need to realize that this is nothing but bad for employees. They're going to end up with less time away from work and less compensation for that time. It's absolutely a lose/lose for workers.

Agreed.  But making that argument has to be tough if you're being honest. Not to say it can't be done but it needs to be more than "We don't want unlimited vacations because we won't go on vacation because we don't want to be perceived as slackers"

 

[ghostguy123]

Soooo, get a second job and work there 15 weeks a year while on "vacation"?

Definitely gonna be people trying this one.

 

[-OZ-]

Soooo, get a second job and work there 15 weeks a year while on "vacation"?

Definitely gonna be people trying this one.

pretty sure the shark move is two jobs with unlimited days, take vacation from both. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

So your argument is that companies implement this policy to stay competitive in the industry which helps them get top notch talent - the same talent that apparently can't read studies that shows people take less vacation when there is a policy like this put in place?  You know why companies want to hire these milleniels?  Because they can pay them just a little more than Krishna in Hyderabad and they will work twice as long from a TZ that isn't 10 hours ahead.  

My point is that it is comical that people think comanpies are doing this to help burnout - they would replace you with a robot tomorrow if they could.

I didnt say they were doing it to help with burnout. I cant find studies that show which level of tenure resulted in the biggest number of fewer days used, but i dont think it is from the new hires. 

So i think companies know darn well that fewer days will be used. I think that the biggest impact on this will be from the people that have been there for many years with tons of vacation. So if nancy in accounting takes 20 days instead of 30 and new hire bob uses 8 instead of 5 the stats would should 7 fewer days used and it helped them recruit bob. 

Now maybe Bob is being shortsighted and not realizing that if he still works there in 10 years he will have fewer days, but that goes back to my earlier point of not thinking you will work at a place in 10 years. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

I've spoken heavily about this in previous threads, no idea which thread, but consider me the forum expert on this subject. This is a tech company model that others are starting to adopt and it is terrible, I personally hate it. Every company I've worked for in the last decade has had this policy... A few notes:

1) It is statistically proven that people take less time with unlimited days

2) No accrued time, so if you don't take as much vacation, it is a benefit for the company

3) On the flip side, if you abuse it, you'll hear about it

4) There is zero benefit to having "unlimited" days, I wish it was just illegal for a company to have this kind of policy. At the end of the day, it is just a way to screw the employee while looking like you care. Longer term employees get shafted bc they don't get any extra time for being at a company for a long time. 

 

[-OZ-]

I've spoken heavily about this in previous threads, no idea which thread, but consider me the forum expert on this subject. This is a tech company model that others are starting to adopt and it is terrible, I personally hate it. Every company I've worked for in the last decade has had this policy... A few notes:

1) It is statistically proven that people take less time with unlimited days

2) No accrued time, so if you don't take as much vacation, it is a benefit for the company

3) On the flip side, if you abuse it, you'll hear about it

4) There is zero benefit to having "unlimited" days, I wish it was just illegal for a company to have this kind of policy. At the end of the day, it is just a way to screw the employee while looking like you care. Longer term employees get shafted bc they don't get any extra time for being at a company for a long time. 

the bold IMO is the biggest issue.  What exactly is "abusing" this policy?  (somewhat rhetorical)  the lack of an objective standard is the issue.  One manager might think Bob taking every other Friday off is fine, he works 10 hour days the rest of the time and is productive, another manager might think he's taking too much time off, especially if he takes another week or two in the summer or over Christmas.  

 

[fantasycurse42]

the bold IMO is the biggest issue.  What exactly is "abusing" this policy?  (somewhat rhetorical)  the lack of an objective standard is the issue.  One manager might think Bob taking every other Friday off is fine, he works 10 hour days the rest of the time and is productive, another manager might think he's taking too much time off, especially if he takes another week or two in the summer or over Christmas.  

The bold is open for interpretation, which there lies the issue. Regardless, due to not accruing the time off (and being able to collect $ on it), it is a bull#### policy. It really varies employee to employee & director to director. I'm cool as #### with my boss, I'll take whenever and not give a #### & he'll rarely bust my balls... With that being said, if you're an underperforming employee, you'll be heavily scrutinized. 

I promise, regardless of the debate in here, the unlimited policy sucks ###. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

My last company pulled this crap. I lost 17 accrued weeks. Would have been a large payout. Cali guys got a lawyer and were compensated. The rest of us were left holding our dongs. 

Bad beat Clyde.

 

[IC FBGCav]

For the most part, I've always been one of the more efficient guys on my team. I refuse to get into the "lets see who can work the longest" contest with the 50 year old women that decide they're gonna show up at 7:45 and stay until 6.(which is only required because they aren't very good at the job)   

I have found these kind of people simply either don't like their home life ie being at work is easier or have nothing else to do for the most part.  Most people I know that are "busy" at work will leave the office to least eat and come back in the evening.

 

[IC FBGCav]

The problem is people feeling entitled to the money aspect of vacation days. #### this "banked" days crap. Take days off or don't. Don't expect to get paid for not taking time off. Take the damn time off.

You must use ours at work or you lose it, we don't allow you to accumulate.   I oversee this so I will let people use a week or two a month late but you are not to carry huge amounts over.   Now this woman my wife works with never used a vacation day in 10 years (they can accumulate), she pays back at % of her SSI because she is 70 makes too much.   I don't get this on any level. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

This is funny to read. The company just moved to unlimited vacation time. This doesnt screw "the employees". It helps most of them. The only employees that get "screwed" are the guys that have been around forever and have 6 weeks of vacation each year.  

Millenials want vacation time and they want it quick. 

In most companies vacation time keeps going up,up,up with years if service. Preference to days is often given by seniority. So while you are taking your 6 weeks vacation Mr. 55 year old and taking it around every holiday that exists. Mr. 25 year old is doing your job while you are gone seething mad that you are always gone and they have to work the day before and after every holiday. Eventually they start pointing this out.

You know who starts using less vacation time when the field is leveled? The insecure 55 year old that realizes they arent producing as much as the 25 year old that is paid half as much as them. Guess who takes more vacation? The 25 year old that started with only 5 days and couldnt ever get anything but fridays in february.

Guess who becomes more productive and doesnt get let go in two years? Guess who becomes happier and doesnt jump ship in two years to go work at a more progressive company?

Of course i am oversimplifying, but this is not uncommon. Companies are figuring out that in this ever changing climate 20 years of service isnt as valuable anymore. Especially when salaries and benefits have been known to swell at faster rates than experience enhanced production does. 

When you factor in that vacation policies are generally universal, that difference gets exposed in greater detail. So at your lower level positions like admin, warehouse, etc these gaps in production become staggering. 

Who do you want in the warehouse? The 25 year old that has no lifting restrictions and can adapt to change of product line much easier, or the 55 year old overweight with bad knees with 6 weeks vacation smoker at 3 bucks an hour more? 

Yeah man, F those loyal employees that got bad knees busting their butt for the company, screw them bro!   Lowers health insurance costs too.  New campaign.  "Fire over 50! Fire over 50!"

 

[culdeus]

At my place they pay you back at 75% if you go over.  People do this regularly.  I don't get it.

We also have many people that take no vacation for 2 years, then do it all at once and go away for 6 weeks at a time.  To an extent that's less disruptive than the people that take a week off every so often.

 

[IC FBGCav]

People need to start coming into work sick, going into this manager's office and sneezing/coughing all over everything including him.  Then you'll see if he still wants people there when sick.

The owner of my company does this to me when he is sick.   I always get sick a few days later.

 

[snogger]

I've spoken heavily about this in previous threads, no idea which thread, but consider me the forum expert on this subject. This is a tech company model that others are starting to adopt and it is terrible, I personally hate it. Every company I've worked for in the last decade has had this policy... A few notes:

1) It is statistically proven that people take less time with unlimited days

2) No accrued time, so if you don't take as much vacation, it is a benefit for the company

3) On the flip side, if you abuse it, you'll hear about it

4) There is zero benefit to having "unlimited" days, I wish it was just illegal for a company to have this kind of policy. At the end of the day, it is just a way to screw the employee while looking like you care. Longer term employees get shafted bc they don't get any extra time for being at a company for a long time. 

the bold IMO is the biggest issue.  What exactly is "abusing" this policy?  (somewhat rhetorical)  the lack of an objective standard is the issue.  One manager might think Bob taking every other Friday off is fine, he works 10 hour days the rest of the time and is productive, another manager might think he's taking too much time off, especially if he takes another week or two in the summer or over Christmas.

exactly.. right now I, along with other team members, take a couple days off each month to stay under the 200 hour max. It is a GREAT push to get us to take a couple days off to relax  and is easily justified by the Max allowed.

With this change I can see upper management questioning why some are taking 2 or 3 days off each month along with 2 to 3 weeks of "legit" vacation.
As I've mentioned, I don't fear my manager questioning my days off, nor who he reports to. But they aren't the "Bean counters", so as long as the work is done they have no issues approving those days.
But higher ups though may start questioning and thus making it harder to take a few days off a month. I could even see sometime down the line a "policy" being put in place that vacation time must be 3 or more days in a row.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yeah man, F those loyal employees that got bad knees busting their butt for the company, screw them bro!   Lowers health insurance costs too.  New campaign.  "Fire over 50! Fire over 50!"

What if they didnt get them busting their butt for the company?

What if they have been a union slouch for 20 years and the reason they have bad knees is because they are a fatass?

 

[IC FBGCav]

What if they didnt get them busting their butt for the company?

What if they have been a union slouch for 20 years and the reason they have bad knees is because they are a fatass?

Then it was a bad hire.   

We still have unions?

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think vacation time should be awarded like bonuses quarterly. At minimum you get x number of days at maximum you can earn y days. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

I think vacation time should be awarded like bonuses quarterly. At minimum you get x number of days at maximum you can earn y days. 

Yep, that will run smoothly and be good for moral.   Seems like a huge headache and that is without the favoritism and nepotism issues.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Then it was a bad hire.   

We still have unions?

Bad hires can be inherited. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

Bad hires can be inherited. 

So can wealth, what's the point?   I mean you are talking about one specific person that I don't know it and it seems you can't fire them.   

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yep, that will run smoothly and be good for moral.   Seems like a huge headache and that is without the favoritism and nepotism issues.

If there is favoritism and nepotism, that has already infected the workplace. This wont be what brings it in. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

If there is favoritism and nepotism, that has already infected the workplace. This wont be what brings it in. 

Did I state different?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Did I state different?

I guess i misunderstood you bringing up morale and nepotism/favoritism in the same post. 

 

[top dog]

I asked 2 guys in our office about what they thought would happen if our company put this policy in place.  We have a progressive vacation plan like most companies.  2 weeks initially, maxing out at 5 weeks based on years of service.  Both of these guys have been with the company under 5 years, so both of them have the same amount of vacation time.  Only difference is their age.  One is a millennial, the other is late 40s..

TD: "What would happen if our company implemented an "unlimited approved vacation" time policy?

Millennial: "Nothing would get done because people wouldn't be here more often."

40s Guy: "People would take less vacation because it would be like our "Unlimited" sick time that is "managed" by the bosses."

 

[Steve Tasker]

not matching your 401k contribution until the next year (so if you left during the year you get $0 match)

I don't disagree with the overall gist of your post, but this particular matter re: the 401k has a lot of legal implications and your employer may not be able to do this at their discretion at the drop of a hat, so to speak.  It is totally dependent on the structure of the plan.

 

[-OZ-]

At my place they pay you back at 75% if you go over.  People do this regularly.  I don't get it.

We also have many people that take no vacation for 2 years, then do it all at once and go away for 6 weeks at a time.  To an extent that's less disruptive than the people that take a week off every so often.

Pretty much whatever else they'd do on their time off is worth less than 75% of their salary to them. 

 

[Judge Smails]

Bad hires can be inherited. 

Get rid of bad hires.  Problem solved.

 

[moleculo]

I think having clearly defined expectations of "overdoing" it would be key - that, plus good planning with your boss.  Suppose I wanted to take a month off.

I knew a guy in the old days who didn't take any vacation all year and used his entire 4 weeks in December - he got a commercial fishing license and spent the month harvesting pompano.  It worked fine - he got his #### done and we all knew Bob would be out in December, and we could plan around that.

Today, if I were to tell my boss I wanted to take off August, my boss would tell me to not bother coming back (based on the project I'm working on now).  But, if I told him I was planning a giant trip in December of 2019 and that works around the timelines of current projects and I'm buying non-refundable tickets right now, I think this is something that could be accommodated.

 

[RUSF18]

I asked 2 guys in our office about what they thought would happen if our company put this policy in place.  We have a progressive vacation plan like most companies.  2 weeks initially, maxing out at 5 weeks based on years of service.  Both of these guys have been with the company under 5 years, so both of them have the same amount of vacation time.  Only difference is their age.  One is a millennial, the other is late 40s..

TD: "What would happen if our company implemented an "unlimited approved vacation" time policy?

Millennial: "Nothing would get done because people wouldn't be here more often."

40s Guy: "People would take less vacation because it would be like our "Unlimited" sick time that is "managed" by the bosses."

You're basically saying that the guy with 20 years of work experience has a better understanding of how things actually work in practice, than the millennial with a few years under his belt. Let's see if the millennial actually tries to take an unlimited amount of vacation. 

 

[culdeus]

Pretty much whatever else they'd do on their time off is worth less than 75% of their salary to them. 

Well i get that part. Its for all intents overtime paid at half the overtime rate.

It is just interesting in light of the unlimited thing. This would represent a pay cut to them in a manner.  Because I assume pay doesnt increase. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

You're basically saying that the guy with 20 years of work experience has a better understanding of how things actually work in practice, than the millennial with a few years under his belt. Let's see if the millennial actually tries to take an unlimited amount of vacation. 

This varies wildly, it takes a year or less to know how an employee will be IMO no matter the age.   I have employed 24 years olds that you know off the bat are going to be great employees in the first month and other you knew were going to bust 6 months in.    Same with people in their 30's and 40's  

 

[Sand]

he got a commercial fishing license and spent the month harvesting pompano.  It worked fine - he got his #### done and we all knew Bob would be out in December, and we could plan around that.

Smart dude -     

Well i get that part. Its for all intents overtime paid at half the overtime rate.

It is just interesting in light of the unlimited thing. This would represent a pay cut to them in a manner.  Because I assume pay doesnt increase. 

They know this will decrease paid days off.  I'd think the number of companies that increase pay to institute this are right around 0%.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Just curious for lawyers to chime in.  I've never had a set amount of vacation at my firm.  That said, I've never taken more than 15 non-holiday days in a year (except when my kids were born), and my average total days off a year (non-holiday) is about 7- 10 a year.

 

[rascal]

The work is never done.

That was exactly my point.

 

[culdeus]

Smart dude -     

They know this will decrease paid days off.  I'd think the number of companies that increase pay to institute this are right around 0%.

This isn't necessarily requesting a response from you specifically, but in a situation where a company pays you out for unused vacation and then adopts this how does this work on their bottom line. I always thought they liked it when we got paid out because they get to reduce their compensation expense line item.  

So now that they won't pay you out for not using vacation they will make this up because the unfunded liability is off the books?  I guess that far outweighs the benefit from the reduction of payroll expenses?

I think at my company I've heard they directly deduct from your compensation and then give you the 75% as a bonus, rather than straight line income so it gets taxed even higher than if you just took it.  I've never cashed out so I don't really care.

 

[Sand]

This isn't necessarily requesting a response from you specifically, but in a situation where a company pays you out for unused vacation and then adopts this how does this work on their bottom line. I always thought they liked it when we got paid out because they get to reduce their compensation expense line item.  

So now that they won't pay you out for not using vacation they will make this up because the unfunded liability is off the books?  I guess that far outweighs the benefit from the reduction of payroll expenses?

I think at my company I've heard they directly deduct from your compensation and then give you the 75% as a bonus, rather than straight line income so it gets taxed even higher than if you just took it.  I've never cashed out so I don't really care.

In your case they are paying for your hours at a 25% discount if you cash in vacation - at least that's the way I'd look at it as CFO.  That's a steal from a financial point of view.   With unlimited vacation they still anticipate the same (or better) productivity, they just remove the liability from the books and any future terminations don't need a payout.  So they win on both ends.

Taxation is a separate issue - Most companies would (and mine does) give bonuses withheld at a maximum rate to be safe.  You get that money back once you file your taxes, though.

 

[jfranco77]

Just curious for lawyers to chime in.  I've never had a set amount of vacation at my firm.  That said, I've never taken more than 15 non-holiday days in a year (except when my kids were born), and my average total days off a year (non-holiday) is about 7- 10 a year.

Wife is a lawyer with unlimited vacation. Still has to meet billable hours. So if she busts her butt and bills her hours in 11 months, she could theoretically take off. Works great for people in big departments when someone else can cover that last month. Works terrible in small ones when you're on call whenever you're on vacation. Works great for people who are busy enough to bill 11 hours a day (or unscrupulous, I guess). Works terrible for people who don't generate / receive enough work to bill 8 hours a day even if they wanted to.

 

[ShaqAttaq]

i'm afraid of this. where i've worked for 6 years, the policy allows for banking of vacation time. never had that before. i've always feared that the policy would change and i'd lose my accrued days that i view as another emergency fund

 

[Slapdash]

The bold is open for interpretation, which there lies the issue. Regardless, due to not accruing the time off (and being able to collect $ on it), it is a bull#### policy. It really varies employee to employee & director to director. I'm cool as #### with my boss, I'll take whenever and not give a #### & he'll rarely bust my balls... With that being said, if you're an underperforming employee, you'll be heavily scrutinized. 

I promise, regardless of the debate in here, the unlimited policy sucks ###. 

That is just so huge.  Did you ever end up taking the new gig?

 

[fantasycurse42]

That is just so huge.  Did you ever end up taking the new gig?

Never got an offer, honestly pretty shocked. TBH, I decided I wasn't going to take it, then an offer never came and I got more interested. I didn't follow-up and at this point, water under the bridge. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

i'm afraid of this. where i've worked for 6 years, the policy allows for banking of vacation time. never had that before. i've always feared that the policy would change and i'd lose my accrued days that i view as another emergency fund

You can only collect on all the accrued days when you leave the company, right? 

ETA: this is how the OP got the shaft from his current company IIRC.

 

[Slapdash]

Never got an offer, honestly pretty shocked. TBH, I decided I wasn't going to take it, then an offer never came and I got more interested. I didn't follow-up and at this point, water under the bridge. 

That sucks, but my vote was for you to stay anyways.  I recently have been finally able to work for a guy I'd been trying to for 4 years, having a great manager makes such a big difference IMO.  Particularly with ambiguous vacation policies.