2 ms·

A 90% time employee is worth far less than 90% to the company. I had a 90% job with a large software vendor. The deal being 20 days additional vacation for 10%

A 90% time employee is worth far less than 90% to the company. I had a 90% job with a large software vendor. The deal being 20 days additional vacation for 10% less pay. I can guarantee you that during the time I worked I was a far better and efficient employee. That's based on the simple fact that I ws much better rested, far less stressed and much more creative due to the additional time off, in which I travelled the world. Based on my anecdotal evidence I stipulate that you're dead wrong.

usrusr 7y ago
A higher rate of vacation absence is much less noticeable day to day than a shorter routine schedule in "projecty" occupations where a team effort is pushed to completion. Being on vacation is quite similar to being temporarily assigned to a different project, the temporarily smaller team will cope just fine, they might even win efficiency tho compensate for some of the nominal throughput loss. But most hours reductions are of the predictable continuously reduced schedule type, which is great for occupations where a defined number of positions has to be filled at all times (pretty much everything that is more reactive than active). But in "projecty" work, that predictability is of little value, the reduced-hours teammember will count fully (or more) to team size in terms of organisational overhead and task dependency delays, but will contribute fractionally less. It's not the lower amount of total hours in that scenario, but the permanent asymmetry.