4 ms·

Until today I have never heard of a US company forcing employee's to use "forced shutdown" days - which I'm interpreting to mean the company telling people they

Until today I have never heard of a US company forcing employee's to use "forced shutdown" days - which I'm interpreting to mean the company telling people they have off on a certain day - as vacation days, and this is the second time (at least) it's been mentioned in this thread. How common is this exactly? Because this sounds like a company that is really, really screwing it's employees.

awa 15y ago
I think its common during recession period when companies are looking to save costs (better than firing people right) and also reduce inventory
geebee 15y ago
It's pretty common, actually. They do it for the reasons awa pointed out, as well as to reduce the debt burden for the compan. IANAC [1], but I believe this has something to do with unused vacation leave being charged as outstanding debt. It's also a way of saving money by shutting down operations at a time when less gets done anyway. Sun, like most companies, did give the option of taking the leave without pay and preserving your vacation time. Maybe that's one option for US companies - pay for two weeks of vacation time, but culturally allow up to six without pay. Then we'd actually be somewhat more like European countries, but with an option - reduce your salary if you'd like more vacation, but keep working and make more money if that's more your style. I doubt I'll see this happen - first, "leave without pay" is unusual in the US, typically done medical conditions where the employee wants to return to the job, but will be forced to leave for long periods of time (pregnancy leave is often handled this way). Another problem is that it may actually be inefficient - it would create a financial incentive to take minimum vacation time, and a lot of people believe, with some evidence, that workers are less productive this way. [1] IANAAC: I am not an accountant ;)
protomyth 15y ago
I've been at a company where even normal holidays (Christmas) were considered vacation (forced for non-scheduled personal - i.e. most IT). They were also one of those companies that combined sick leave and vacation. They really didn't give enough days to compensate (starting people really only had about a week and a half of vacation if they didn't get sick / stuck in hospital).
enjo 15y ago
These furloughs have become absolutely routine for municipal governments. In the (likely) event of a budget shortfall, they just shutdown for one friday a month (or some variation) and take either vacation days or a day of pay away.
krschultz 15y ago
There are two types. The 'shutdown', or technically in my companies case the 'plant shutdown', and the 'furlough' day. At my company, the factory has 7,000 employees in one location. So many people took vacation between Christmas and New Years that the factory simply can not operate. The solution was either to only give that time off for a select group of people (pissing off most of the factory guys), or to make everyone take that time off (pissing off the few that used to come in that week and goof off). Unfortunately they extended it from the guys in the factory up to the engineers. Which really makes no sense. I'm working on a project that won't hit the factory floor for another year. Why can't I work between Christmas and New Years? I would be amazingly produtive without all the meetings and distractions. Not only do we have to take the time off and use vacation (or not get paid and don't come in), but we are not allowed to come in even if we wanted to. I assume this is all negotiated with the unions, they never want the salaried guys to have perks that they don't have. So for I end up burning 3-5 out of 10 vacation days a year on a week I absolutely do NOT want to take off. But I still get paid for those days at least. And there are ways to get around it (floating holidays, i.e. work 40 hours in 4 days in a week with a holiday gives you the holiday back) which in effect allow you to have your full 2 weeks. If that was not the case I think the salaried engineers would have fought back against the practice more. Although I guess most people with kids like that week off anyway, I just view it as a waste, I like taking my vacation during the times those with kids can't take vacation. Everything is cheaper and less crowded. A 'furlow' is an unpaid day that the company forces you to take. A lot of government employees have these now, you must take 1-5 days off a year and not get paid for those days. In effect it is a pay cut but in exchance you get more vacation days. The most interesting thing about the furlough is that very often you see people given a choice between everyone taking a few days furlough or a bunch of people getting fired. More often than not, everyone votes to have a few people fired.
- geebee 15y ago
  I was very bummed that Sun forced me to take off the week of 4th of july for the same reason. I wanted to take a week in San Diego at the beach. That's crowded any time in the summer, but after labor day, when school resumes, the weather is actually nicer in early fall (they call it "june gloom" in san diego, coastal fog is still common in early-mid summer), rentals are way easier to get, and hotel prices drop dramatically. Instead, Sun was forcing me to take my beach week at the most expensive and slightly less desirable time of year. And when you only get two weeks at all, that's pretty crappy.
rmc 15y ago
I think this kind of thing would almost certainly be illegal in the EU. If the company closes it's doors and you're willing to work, then they cannot take that out of your annual leave. Some countries laws (eg Ireland) explicitly allow forced closure for Christmas, it is also in several contracts (that part of your holidays must be over a certain period). This is the closest it gets in Europe.
- yxhuvud 15y ago
  No. It used to be pretty common here in Sweden that factories shut off for three weeks in the middle of the summer and everyone had vacation. The practice is getting increasingly uncommon nowadays though since factory jobs is a smaller part of the total employment force.

awa 15y ago

I think its common during recession period when companies are looking to save costs (better than firing people right) and also reduce inventory

geebee 15y ago

It's pretty common, actually. They do it for the reasons awa pointed out, as well as to reduce the debt burden for the compan. IANAC [1], but I believe this has something to do with unused vacation leave being charged as outstanding debt. It's also a way of saving money by shutting down operations at a time when less gets done anyway. Sun, like most companies, did give the option of taking the leave without pay and preserving your vacation time. Maybe that's one option for US companies - pay for two weeks of vacation time, but culturally allow up to six without pay. Then we'd actually be somewhat more like European countries, but with an option - reduce your salary if you'd like more vacation, but keep working and make more money if that's more your style. I doubt I'll see this happen - first, "leave without pay" is unusual in the US, typically done medical conditions where the employee wants to return to the job, but will be forced to leave for long periods of time (pregnancy leave is often handled this way). Another problem is that it may actually be inefficient - it would create a financial incentive to take minimum vacation time, and a lot of people believe, with some evidence, that workers are less productive this way. [1] IANAAC: I am not an accountant ;)

protomyth 15y ago

I've been at a company where even normal holidays (Christmas) were considered vacation (forced for non-scheduled personal - i.e. most IT). They were also one of those companies that combined sick leave and vacation. They really didn't give enough days to compensate (starting people really only had about a week and a half of vacation if they didn't get sick / stuck in hospital).

enjo 15y ago

These furloughs have become absolutely routine for municipal governments. In the (likely) event of a budget shortfall, they just shutdown for one friday a month (or some variation) and take either vacation days or a day of pay away.

krschultz 15y ago

There are two types. The 'shutdown', or technically in my companies case the 'plant shutdown', and the 'furlough' day. At my company, the factory has 7,000 employees in one location. So many people took vacation between Christmas and New Years that the factory simply can not operate. The solution was either to only give that time off for a select group of people (pissing off most of the factory guys), or to make everyone take that time off (pissing off the few that used to come in that week and goof off). Unfortunately they extended it from the guys in the factory up to the engineers. Which really makes no sense. I'm working on a project that won't hit the factory floor for another year. Why can't I work between Christmas and New Years? I would be amazingly produtive without all the meetings and distractions. Not only do we have to take the time off and use vacation (or not get paid and don't come in), but we are not allowed to come in even if we wanted to. I assume this is all negotiated with the unions, they never want the salaried guys to have perks that they don't have. So for I end up burning 3-5 out of 10 vacation days a year on a week I absolutely do NOT want to take off. But I still get paid for those days at least. And there are ways to get around it (floating holidays, i.e. work 40 hours in 4 days in a week with a holiday gives you the holiday back) which in effect allow you to have your full 2 weeks. If that was not the case I think the salaried engineers would have fought back against the practice more. Although I guess most people with kids like that week off anyway, I just view it as a waste, I like taking my vacation during the times those with kids can't take vacation. Everything is cheaper and less crowded. A 'furlow' is an unpaid day that the company forces you to take. A lot of government employees have these now, you must take 1-5 days off a year and not get paid for those days. In effect it is a pay cut but in exchance you get more vacation days. The most interesting thing about the furlough is that very often you see people given a choice between everyone taking a few days furlough or a bunch of people getting fired. More often than not, everyone votes to have a few people fired.

geebee 15y ago
I was very bummed that Sun forced me to take off the week of 4th of july for the same reason. I wanted to take a week in San Diego at the beach. That's crowded any time in the summer, but after labor day, when school resumes, the weather is actually nicer in early fall (they call it "june gloom" in san diego, coastal fog is still common in early-mid summer), rentals are way easier to get, and hotel prices drop dramatically. Instead, Sun was forcing me to take my beach week at the most expensive and slightly less desirable time of year. And when you only get two weeks at all, that's pretty crappy.

rmc 15y ago

I think this kind of thing would almost certainly be illegal in the EU. If the company closes it's doors and you're willing to work, then they cannot take that out of your annual leave. Some countries laws (eg Ireland) explicitly allow forced closure for Christmas, it is also in several contracts (that part of your holidays must be over a certain period). This is the closest it gets in Europe.

yxhuvud 15y ago
No. It used to be pretty common here in Sweden that factories shut off for three weeks in the middle of the summer and everyone had vacation. The practice is getting increasingly uncommon nowadays though since factory jobs is a smaller part of the total employment force.