17 ms·
BuzzFeed employees demand it pay out earned PTO to all laid-off U.S. staffers
- magduf 8y agoAm I missing something? I thought it was illegal to not pay out accrued PTO. (If it isn't, it certainly should be.)
- tylermac1 8y agoI think it's only mandatory in California.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoCalifornia, Illinois, Montana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Rhode Island. I have seen corporate officers pursued successfully for unpaid PTO after corporate insolvency in Illinois. Side note: This is why “unlimited vacation” is a bit quirky as a benefit. Ask what the minimum is, because that’s what is going to be paid out when you seperate.
- ghaff 8y agoMy understanding is that California and maybe Nebraska also prohibit use it or lose it policies—although they do allow AFAIK limiting accrual to some maximum number of days
- dpark 8y ago> although they do allow AFAIK limiting accrual to some maximum number of days How is that not “use it or lose it”?
- fuzz4lyfe 8y agoReally the default assumption should be that the employee desires to use his/her PTO and if they were unable to do so that situation would be a failure on the companies part (not having enough coverage, over promised a schedule, etc) and any PTO that failed to roll over should be paid out. In my view that puts the incentives in the right places, firms that are unwilling to abide by those clear rules are likely trying to game the PTO system anyway and are committing a variety of fraud when they hire someone under those false terms.
- lmkg 8y agoLegal in California: You earn 2 vacation days per month, to a max of 24. Hired in January, never use PTO, by December you have 24 days banked. In January you fail to earn PTO because you hit the cap. Total balance at end of January: 24 days banked. Illegal in California: You earn 2 vacation days per month, and they are "use it or lose it." Hired in January, by December you have 24 days banked and never use them. The next January, your existing PTO balance is set to 0 and you are not compensated for the unused days. Balance at end of January: 2 days banked. The legal distinction is that your employer can decide not to give you PTO for any arbitrary reason (there is no legal requirement to give any at all), but they cannot take back PTO that has already been paid out.
- dpark 8y agoI'd still call this "use it or lose it", just a less harsh version than a yearly reset to zero. I've never heard of anywhere doing this sort of yearly zero-reset anyway. Wouldn't this make it literally impossible to use the vacation earned during the last pay period of the year? Typically the yearly reset is for awarded (as opposed to earned) PTO. e.g. On Jan 1 you reset, but back to 15 days, and you have the rest of the year to use it. I'm guessing this is also legal in California because PTO is not earned in this model.
- ghaff 8y agoSpeaking from experience. The PTO is given up-front. (Say by quarter.) There may be a grace period into the next calendar before the previous year's PTO is zeroed out. And you can potentially, by policy, go negative. It's not uncommon for companies to have some variant of this. I agree that it's not all that different from accrual caps in practice but does need a little more management to avoid losing time. ADDED: Accrual caps are also typically more along the lines of vacation earned over 18-24 months in my experience.
- sverige 8y agoThe article says they're paying out PTO in California because it's required by law. My guess is the severance is to compensate employees in states where it's not required. They could decide to pay out PTO and take away the severance, which would likely be worse for most of them. I guess they've missed the big picture that the company is bleeding money so fast that they had to lay off 15% of their workforce.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- foobiekr 8y agoSeverance is to get people to sign exit agreements. They’re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they’re going to have people agree not to sue them and potentially other things (like clawbacks for criticizing the company publicly).
- paradygm 8y agoColorado as well: https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/finance_etc/2015/09/no-more-use-it-or-lose-it-vacation-rules-for.html https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/finance_etc/2015/09/...
- toomuchtodo 8y agoFantastic news. Only 42 states to go.
- duxup 8y agoYeah everywhere I worked even HR said outright that they had to pay PTO. Some companies I worked at did regular "shutdowns" to get PTO off the books as it showed as a sort of expense they would have to pay. Maybe BuzzFeed was playing some weird word games and it wasn't PTO... but was?
- tracker1 8y agoA friend works for a company that does similar for holidays. You don't get regular holidays off on weekdays, you get them the last two weeks of the year. In order to minimize interruptions during the year. Most are encouraged to take all their vacation time during the same month in the summer time.
- jshowa3 8y agoMany states actually don't require to pay out PTO, but it is wide industry practice and it is the law in California. If they aren't paying PTO, even if legal, that's ridiculous, because as others have said, PTO is interpreted as a form of compensation which could be interpreted as your employer not paying you.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y agoYep, it’s not like that PTO expense isnt an easy thing to calculate into your companies finances. This is clearly a business trying to extend their runway ever so slightly at the expense of the employee.
- vvanders 8y agoNope, not in WA. Left a job with 3 months of PTO due to 80-90hr work weeks. Never saw a bit of it but was still the right call in the long run.
- seattle_spring 8y agoThis statement is absolutely bonkers to me. I've never had more than 2 weeks accrued, and often go into the negatives. I would go postal if I took so little vacation that I was able to accrue 3 months worth. I'd have to have, and I'm not exaggerating, a million dollar salary to forego vacation like that.
- vvanders 8y agoOh yeah, don't mistake my glib tone I experienced major burnout and won't touch that subset of the industry with a 10ft pole. When you're working 6-7 days a week at 80 hours+ there's really not room for any vacation.
- magduf 8y agoDifferent people are different. I have a coworker who has some ridiculous amount of PTO like that accrued. He just doesn't care that much about taking vacations for some odd reason, and likes to go to work and be "productive". I'm with you; I don't let that much PTO accrue, as I need time off.
- gumby 8y agoaccording to this article, only in California (where they did pay out PTO). This was a surprise to me.
- moftz 8y agoOnly in CA
- cco 8y agoCan't wait to get my unlimited PTO paid out!
- pavlov 8y agoOne of the reasons why "unlimited PTO" is a bit of a scam.
- wolco 8y agoNever been in this situation but couldn't you just take off a few months with unlimited vacation or even a few years.
- reportingsjr 8y agoYou are pretty much guaranteed to get let go if you tried to do this without having a very good reason and a very understanding boss. Even though it is called "unlimited" that doesn't mean you actually get to take unlimited vacation.
- grimjack00 8y agoThe term my employer is using is "unaccrued".
- ryandrake 8y agoSo, it’s like “unlimited” Internet data plans.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Zutano 8y agoProductivity is productivity. If you take so much time off that you aren't getting anything done, you're going to be fired.
- Reedx 8y agoSee, the problem is you're interpreting words like "unlimited" by their dictionary definition.
- Spoom 8y agoNot the case in Ohio at least. They don't have to pay any PTO. Often, good employers will pay a portion as a good will gesture if you follow their notice procedures. (Prior employer paid half.)
- malvosenior 8y agoYou would not normally be paid for accumulated vacation time so I’m not sure why they’re asking for this other than they have enough combined social media presence to make management capitulate.
- unethical_ban 8y agoIt depends on how it is earned/allocated, I suppose. PTO that is earned over time, as part of your pay period, is a form of compensation to be expected.
- tylermac1 8y agoEvery job I've had has paid accrued PTO/Vacation when being let go or even leaving on your own will.
- wil421 8y agoEvery job I’ve had does not pay accrued PTO no matter how you left the company. Most states do not require companies to pay out accrued PTO.
- CydeWeys 8y agoYou've had some pretty worker-unfriendly employers then? I too have been paid out unused PTO by every company I've ever worked for (and my current company pays it out too), and I've never worked in a state where doing so is unfriendly.
- wil421 8y agoYes I have and very glad I left. My current employer will pay you out if they terminate you but not if you leave voluntarily.
- CydeWeys 8y agoWell that's a silly and expensive policy. It means that people take long vacations as they're leaving -- but they haven't quit yet, so the company's still on the hook for employment taxes and health insurance. It'd be cheaper for them to just pay it out and then get the employee off the payrolls.
- detaro 8y agopreviously (16 hours ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19014373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19014373
- minimaxir 8y agoIt's interesting to see the difference in attitudes/voting patterns on this thread than the previous thread.
- Pinbenterjamin 8y agoI agree with the idea that all accrued PTO should be paid out, if the release of the employee was the decision of the company. I also would like to add, that Buzzfeed did not simply throw these people out the door and into poverty, they did provide severance and benefits through April, which should be plenty of time to find another source of income (hopefully). "BuzzFeed’s laid-off employees received a severance of a minimum 10 weeks pay, and benefits through April. Taylor’s response to the petition’s organizers said the company wants to meet with staff to discuss the issue"
- sverige 8y agoSo basically BuzzFeed could just do the math on the ten weeks of severance by subtracting each employee's PTO, calling the remainder 'severance.' I don't think they are obligated by law to pay any severance, though I could be wrong about that.
- kevindong 8y agoI don't know about Buzzfeed in specific, but some established companies have a formally stated severance benefits (i.e. if you're laid off for non-performance reasons, you get x weeks of severance).
- dudul 8y agoThat doesn't make it required by law though. I don't think "at will" employment comes with any legally enforced severance requirement.
- kevindong 8y agoAt the company I was at, the severance benefit was a part of a contractually promised benefit package. I could definitely be wrong, but I do believe that if it's promised (even in a 'at will' employment), it can be enforced.
- 8y ago
- rdtsc 8y agoSurprised this isn't illegal in most states. Good on California for having the law. And of course, if you do take PTO that you haven't accrued yet for the year, and then leave, companies will claw it back, that's legal and "fair" but paying it out if you don't take it and have some left somehow never managed to becomes a law. It's also disappointing that this comes from BuzzFeed. One would expect this from some fast food restaurant chain and BuzzFeed would be at the forefront, doing a lot more for its employees.
- pjdemers 8y agoso, everyone who is left at BuzzFeed will use all of their accrued PTO as quickly as possible?
- who-knows95 8y agoI'm a young male working in cyber security, but before this i was a trained cocktail barman/supervisor. this means i worked weekends, 12 hour shifts, holidays, whatever was needed to keep the bar running. (i felt super burned out, and i was only doing this 4 days a week) now i work in a office, doing this cyber security work. i would never stay past 5:30, i'd never forgo PTO, or force myself to over work myself beyond respectable limits. “This is paid time that employees accrued by choosing not to take vacation days, and instead do their work at BuzzFeed,” when i read things like this it just strengthens my feelings towards it. is this the right attitude?
- guitarbill 8y ago> now i work in a office, doing this cyber security work. i would never stay past 5:30, i'd never forgo PTO, or force myself to over work myself beyond respectable limits. > is this the right attitude? being professional and setting boundaries is absolutely the right attitude. it's just a job.
- who-knows95 8y agothank you
- ghaff 8y agoI tend to avoid the word "never" and, among other things, I do a lot of work travel that certainly involves working past 5:30 (in whatever timezone). I'm not opposed to checking in now and then on weekends or evenings. But I've always taken my earned PTO (which has generally been pretty good for the US) over many decades. I've taken multiple month-long trips. And I don't feel pressure to work into the night on anything like a regular basis.
- who-knows95 8y agothat is true, i guess its more situational, than black/white. when you say, "month long trips" are those holidays or work related?
- minimaxir 8y agoThis article contains the BuzzFeed CEO, Jonah Peretti's response which wasn't available yesterday. He's also discussing it a bit on Twitter: https://twitter.com/peretti/status/1089914253857894401 https://twitter.com/peretti/status/1089914253857894401 Additionally, the layoffs are not done yet. :(
- simonsarris 8y agoCEO: > I can’t really have this discussion in public, can’t share all relevant information on twitter, but I look forward to being very open-minded and transparent with the staff council in our upcoming meeting Seems... dishonest. What precisely prevents him from having it in public besides his desire not to?
- TomVDB 8y agoThere are always potential legal issue with layoffs. It seems reckless to have that kind of discussion in public. I don’t see that as dishonest (really, how is it?), I see that as being cautious.
- simonsarris 8y agoCan't vs won't. He's making a choice, which is probably the wiser decision, but by saying "can't" he's offloading the responsibility of the choice.
- KallDrexx 8y agoThe same thing that prevents you from getting feedback of your interview from a company. The slightest misinterpretation can have legal ramifications and invite lawsuits.
- whatok 8y agoI don't see the problem in relaying the information to employees before the general public; if that's the intent that is.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- puranjay 8y agoAs an aside, why does a meme site have so many employees? I know a few entrepreneurs who run Buzzfeed clones and they run on a skeletal staff of freelancers. I know that the news division needs dedicated journalists, but the main site is basically rehashing existing content. Surely you don't need 2,000 employees for that.
- greglindahl 8y agoBuzzFeed does two things: they're a meme site with actual, serious investigative journalism sharing the same brand.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shard972 8y agoSo are they just a serious journalistic website now they have fired their opinions section?
- bonaldi 8y agoIt's still a mystery why they didn't unionize when they had the opportunity. They believed Jonah would look out for their interests more than they themselves could?
- not_a_moth 8y agoFun story. I worked at a "trendy" SV startup. I was hired in a wave of employees around the start of the year. I took no PTO. Around the end of the year they announce they are moving to an unlimited PTO plan. No one got paid for unused PTO that year.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jopsen 8y agoSo maybe take an extra 4 weeks off :)
- Loughla 8y agoI don't care for unlimited PTO. Here's why: When I accrue time off, you as the employer and I as the employee have a written contract on what that time is for, when it can be used, and why it can be used. It places parameters on my time, yes, but it also is an actual agreement between the two of us, in objective terms. Whereas unlimited PTO sounds nice, it also opens up more problems between myself and workplace 'culture'. It's so subjective and down to personal opinion as to whether or not I'm abusing the system. It just tastes bad. I've worked in both environments, and I much rather prefer the structured environment. There seems to be far less drama and nonsense related to taking time off.
- notyourday 8y agoStartups love unlimited PTO exactly because of this - unused PTO is not a liability in the event of acquisition or employee termination.
- hoaw 8y agoIt really shouldn't be called "unlimited PTO". Something like "unguaranteed vacation" would be more accurate.
- finaliteration 8y agoPart of why I left my last job was due to its “unlimited PTO” policy feeling more like a “you don’t -actually- have any days we really owe you so you’ll catch shade every time you take time off” policy. I now work for a place where I have a set amount of PTO that accrues so I feel more entitled to using it without feeling bad about it because if I don’t then it’s gone. Unlimited PTO is one of those things that sounds great to potential employees who have never experienced it. Until you get in and realize you end up taking way less time off than if you just had 15 set days or whatever.
- vkou 8y agoI am consistently told that unions used to be a good thing, but are completely unnecessary, now that they have fought for, and won all the important employee rights. And now I read that in 45 US states, companies don't have to pay what they owe you in vacation time, when you get laid off.
- abarringer 8y agoWhen I left AVG Technologies (now owned by Avast) I figured they would try to screw me on this. I copied a line out of the employee handbook, that I had to sign a receipt for and acknowledge I had read, that said "All accrued unused vacation will be paid out in full on an employees termination" sent that line to HR and asked them if they would pay my vacation if I left. They replied, you work in FL which does not legally require us to pay it so no. Anyways, I showed my direct supervisor the email from HR, worked two weeks then took three weeks off. When "I got back from vacation" I turned in my notice and walked out even though the handbook said a two week notice was required... because FL is a right to work state and you do not legally have to turn in a two week notice. We each enjoyed our own groups at AVG but "Corporate" was just evil.
- wu_tang_chris 8y ago> because FL is a right to work state and you do not legally have to turn in a two week notice right to work or not, is there any state where you have to "legally" give 2 weeks notice? i don't think there is.
- baddox 8y agoI don’t think that right to work has anything to do with it. Perhaps the commenter meant at-will employment?
- moate 8y agoFrom the states or government: No, there is nothing. You might have something in a contract that requires it (and is actually enforceable)
- Spoom 8y agoMy understanding is that at-will states usually override anything in a contract stating to the contrary, unless there is an agreed-upon employment duration (that overrides at-will on both sides, i.e., they can't fire you without compensation), and this is quite rare outside of executives. Not a lawyer, do not rely on this as legal advice, etc.
- cletus 8y agoEvery time I see a company go belly up and the employees get screwed I wonder why there's not protection for this. IMHO regular employees should be treated as creditors of first priority for unpaid wages/salary, PTO and any IRA/401k benefits. This should probably include COBRA health insurance for some period of time (this may already be covered?). This means paying regular employees should come ahead of repaying investors, banks, bondholders, etc. And this should be mandated by law. Likewise unused PTO should be paid out for all employees who leave a job.
- whatok 8y agoIn almost any case, employees who have unpaid wage claims are treated as secured creditors. I'm not sure what you mean by IRA/401k benefits as these are usually employer administered but held by the employee and should be shielded from any sort of bankruptcy. As mentioned earlier here, PTO is treated differently state by state. Most of what you have a gripe with is already covered by existing bankruptcy law. Sure, if there's no recovery value in a bankruptcy, employees aren't going to get paid back wages but no one else is getting paid either.
- patmcc 8y ago>>why there's not protection for this. Because the people who own companies have a lot more power and influence than the people that work for them, and the politicians write laws that reflect this.
- randomacct3847 8y agoIsn’t the amount of severance a company like Buzzfeed decides to give out completely arbitrary? I don’t know if there’s stats by industry but 10 weeks seems above average. E.g. they could’ve paid out PTO but given only a month of severance (4 weeks) instead of 10 and most employees would be better off with current situation than the former?
- whatok 8y agoIn a lot of WARN notice cases, severance mysteriously lines up with the 60 day notice requirement. Draw your own conclusions from that. This is above but not such a crazy amount to be considered generous.
- mancerayder 8y agoMy plan, the next time someone offers me a role with unlimited PTO, is to tell HR and management before I join that I plan on taking four weeks vacation due to needing to see family overseas. If someone whines later, they were warned.
- pcurve 8y agoHrm, you would think companies should be legally required to have a separate pool of cash for unused PTO, and transfer $$$ to their cash book as employees use them... I'm sure some already do this.
- mywacaday 8y agoAs a European every time I read articles like this and the comments that go with it it makes me happy that I never moved to the states. In my last job I had a basic of 25 days PTO + public holidays + whatever days I carried over from the previous year. If I had to work a public holiday I'd get two days PTO in lieu. Reached the point that my allowance for my last two years before I left was 35 days per annum. I'm contracting for the last three years and just take the days(unpaid) I want , I just can't imaging living under the American system.
- mbrameld 8y agoThat's worse than what I receive as an American. Sorry to shatter your world view!
- bloomca 8y agoEuropeans have more public holidays than americans (on average). Also, general work culture encourages better work-life balance, and people rarely expect you to do anything outside of your working hours.
- DanTheManPR 8y agoIt's dramatically better than what I receive as an American (I get the 6 major American holidays, any time off beyond that is unpaid). Europeans rightly view that as crazy.
- cribbles 8y agoYou are an extreme outlier. American workers have on average nearly half as many vacation days as are legally mandated in the EU,[1] while EU member states have more public holidays than the United States. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- joshstrange 8y agoThis hits close to home as I'm currently in the process of revamping our handbook and one thing I've fought for for some time is the ability to be paid out or "take" PTO if you leave the company on good terms (ie. 2 weeks notices, you aren't on a PIP, etc). My main arguments is our PTO is accrued (not front loaded) and I feel it is part of my compensation package and I am owed it. The run-around I've gotten in the past is PTO is a benefit not compensation (I honestly don't see a difference) and it would cost the company too much to pay out PTO. My thoughts are this should be treated like 401K contributions where the company HAS to set aside the full amount of money even if the employee isn't fully vested (they get it back if they leave before fully vesting). Also, in my mind, this is easily solvable with just continuing to pay the employee for the duration of their PTO when they leave. That way it's not an increase, it's just the status quo. It would be the same as taking all your vacation then coming back and putting in your 2 weeks (or just leaving). Would love to know any arguments you all have or have made regarding this situation.
- vkou 8y ago> you aren't on a PIP Should you also not get a paycheck for your last two weeks of work if you leave, while on a PIP?
- fbonetti 8y agoFrom the employee's side, there's too much risk and uncertainty around PTO when leaving a job. It's easier to just take a vacation before putting in your notice than to haggle with your employer after the fact, when you have no leverage. This is especially true with companies that offer "unlimited vacation" in which PTO does not accrue.
- jordache 8y agothis practice is legal? Isn't that part of the earned benefits?
- hhanesand 8y agoMaybe instead of lobbying the company we should lobby to change the law...
- newnewpdro 8y agoAdd PTO protection to the long list of California wins.
- niij 8y agoHigh taxes and widespread homelessness caused by a housing crisis. Nowhere is perfect.
- grdeken 8y agoThis is misleading. All employees got 2.5 months of salary. Do you want your 2-3 weeks of PTO or would rather take 10 weeks of paid leave? Legit fake news.
- vkou 8y agoWhy should someone who has 4 weeks of PTO saved up receive the same 10 weeks of severance, as someone who was on paid vacation for 4 weeks, right before the day of the layoffs?
- decebalus1 8y ago> All employees got 2.5 months of salary. Bob gets 2.5 months of salary. Alice also gets 2.5 months of salary. But Alice hasn't taken any time off for the past year, while Bob went on vacation and depleted his PTO budget. Alice is a sucker, Bob is a hustler. Fuck Alice, right?
- paxy 8y agoExcept employees in California got both
- dragonwriter 8y agoBecause California employment law requires paying out PTO. Employees outside of California who want the benefits of California law should lobby their State government to adopt similar rules.
- beezlebubba 8y agoThese laid off BuzzFeed staffers should get together and form their own news parody site, similar to The Onion. BuzzFeed is already well experienced with passing off satire as "news" so it should be a slam dunk.
- paulddraper 8y agoThey buried the lede: Buzzfeed is paying 10 weeks benefits and salary instead. They'd probably save a lot more if they had paid for PTO and only PTO.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoPerhaps the worst hypocrisy is that the publication promotes on a daily basis their own version of 'social equality and justice' etc. which they themselves don't bother to live up to? Funny that.