5 ms·

When recruiters mention unlimited vacation, I translate that in my head to ~3 weeks, which is less than what I currently get, so definitely not a selling point.

When recruiters mention unlimited vacation, I translate that in my head to ~3 weeks, which is less than what I currently get, so definitely not a selling point. I think we'll see unlimited disappear over time because everybody knows it's BS, and we'll see lawsuits from employees who were reprimanded for taking 10 weeks or whatever.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pseudoramble 7y ago
My current job also offers unlimited time off, and this is a similar approach that I took when evaluating. I basically wrote it off as break-even with my last job's time offering, as it seemed reasonable to assume I shouldn't get less. Reflecting back though, I think much of this has to be determined by the manager who looks at these things. I've been fortunate to have good circumstances with a very understanding boss who seems to be content with whatever time off is needed as long as things are moving forward. I worry many others won't have the same luck.
drstewart 7y ago
Yeah, it's the best when you can't take a day off because you haven't accrued it yet. I love dictating my life around arbitrary days in some HR system's log books.
el_benhameen 7y ago
I don't know. I agree that everyone thinks, or ought to think, it's BS. But everyone thinks, or ought to think, that open offices are BS and companies are all going for those because it saves on costs. "Unlimited" vacation is the same: in practice, I think people are going to take less vacation because there are no clear rules about what's appropriate, and "unlimited" vacation isn't accrued so it's not a payable benefit like set vacation hours. That second one is a big one. If I get fired or quit or roll over more vacation hours than my policy allows, CA requires that those hours be paid out. There's no such cost associated with "unlimited" hours.
- sjg007 7y ago
  It’s like unlimited* data! Aka not unlimited and has to be with VP approval for more than 2 weeks etc...
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > If I [...] roll over more vacation hours than my policy allows, CA requires that those hours be paid out. Now I understand the real purpose of Raytheon's policy of letting people roll over all of their vacation time, but docking next year-s allocation if the total is more than 40 hours.
- aczerepinski 7y ago
  But isn’t CA eventually going to go after companies who are obviously just trying to circumvent payouts when it becomes clear that they block employees from taking off as much time as they want? There are bound to be employees who want 3 months vacation and will get fired for taking it.
  - el_benhameen 7y ago
    Maybe, but given that there’s no requirement that companies offer any vacation time, it seems unlikely to me (a non-lawyer) that a case like that would succeed. “Unlimited” is probably couched in “subject to your team and manager’s requirements” language in employment contracts.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pseudoramble 7y ago

My current job also offers unlimited time off, and this is a similar approach that I took when evaluating. I basically wrote it off as break-even with my last job's time offering, as it seemed reasonable to assume I shouldn't get less. Reflecting back though, I think much of this has to be determined by the manager who looks at these things. I've been fortunate to have good circumstances with a very understanding boss who seems to be content with whatever time off is needed as long as things are moving forward. I worry many others won't have the same luck.

drstewart 7y ago

Yeah, it's the best when you can't take a day off because you haven't accrued it yet. I love dictating my life around arbitrary days in some HR system's log books.

el_benhameen 7y ago

I don't know. I agree that everyone thinks, or ought to think, it's BS. But everyone thinks, or ought to think, that open offices are BS and companies are all going for those because it saves on costs. "Unlimited" vacation is the same: in practice, I think people are going to take less vacation because there are no clear rules about what's appropriate, and "unlimited" vacation isn't accrued so it's not a payable benefit like set vacation hours. That second one is a big one. If I get fired or quit or roll over more vacation hours than my policy allows, CA requires that those hours be paid out. There's no such cost associated with "unlimited" hours.

sjg007 7y ago
It’s like unlimited* data! Aka not unlimited and has to be with VP approval for more than 2 weeks etc...
vonmoltke 7y ago
> If I [...] roll over more vacation hours than my policy allows, CA requires that those hours be paid out. Now I understand the real purpose of Raytheon's policy of letting people roll over all of their vacation time, but docking next year-s allocation if the total is more than 40 hours.
aczerepinski 7y ago
But isn’t CA eventually going to go after companies who are obviously just trying to circumvent payouts when it becomes clear that they block employees from taking off as much time as they want? There are bound to be employees who want 3 months vacation and will get fired for taking it.
- el_benhameen 7y ago
  Maybe, but given that there’s no requirement that companies offer any vacation time, it seems unlikely to me (a non-lawyer) that a case like that would succeed. “Unlimited” is probably couched in “subject to your team and manager’s requirements” language in employment contracts.