3 ms·

> You vacation days are also reduced by 20%, a typical figure would amount to being deprived of another week of paid time off. When you need only 4 days of vac

> You vacation days are also reduced by 20%, a typical figure would amount to being deprived of another week of paid time off. When you need only 4 days of vacation to take one week off, 20 paid vacation days will let you go on vacation for 5 weeks per year, just like like a full-time employee with 25 vacation days. In fact, if your employer is flexible about which days you work, you could leave on a Friday and return next Monday (4 days) without using any vacation days.

spacedcowboy 5y ago
So my employer has a cap of 240 hours of vacation, and after (I think) 9 years of working there, caps the number of days of vacation to 21. So I accrue 6.5 hours of vacation every two weeks at this point. My intention (which I'll reach in October) is to get sufficiently close to that 240-hours cap that I will have to take off one day every fortnight to keep under it, for almost every fortnight in the year. My wife was offered a 9/80 schedule at her job, where she worked 10 hours per day for 9 days, and got the 2nd Friday off. I'm looking forward to my own version, except it'll only be the 8-hour nominal work day...
acituan 5y ago
> When you need only 4 days of vacation to take one week off, 20 paid vacation days will let you go on vacation for 5 weeks per year, just like like a full-time employee with 25 vacation days. Sure, but it is contingent on using your vacation allotments at full week increments, which is not the only way vacation days are used. In your hypothetical scenario, since we're in the realm of managerial approvals, you could as well ask for a 1 month unpaid time off which amounts to a nominal %8 pay cut for 20 some days (which is actually less because stock vesting tend not to stop), whereas a 20% time cut only gets you 45 extra non-workdays with more than 20% paycut due to the non-linearities I explained above. Marginal cost of non-workdays are much higher in the latter scenario. > In fact, if your employer is flexible about which days you work, you could leave on a Friday and return next Monday (4 days) without using any vacation days. If your employer is flexible you could work 5 days for 4 weeks and take the next week off without vacation days too. It runs through every person's own objective function for sure. I am not saying costs can never outweigh the benefits, but I am trying to draw attention to the cost function which is not usually as well thought through.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  Of course, everyone will differ. And while Americans don't get the same vacation allotment as Europeans, reducing vacation but 20% isn't the worst. Some cases you will lose and in some cases you will gain. You don't have to use any vacation days to have a three day weekend. If you wanted a four day weekend you now only have to take one day off instead of two. That is a huge win. About the only time you lose is if you want to take a day off in the middle of the week. I'm sure there are a couple of other examples were you are worse off. But I think generally things will pretty much even out. Now, reducing pay by 20% is a different story

spacedcowboy 5y ago

So my employer has a cap of 240 hours of vacation, and after (I think) 9 years of working there, caps the number of days of vacation to 21. So I accrue 6.5 hours of vacation every two weeks at this point. My intention (which I'll reach in October) is to get sufficiently close to that 240-hours cap that I will have to take off one day every fortnight to keep under it, for almost every fortnight in the year. My wife was offered a 9/80 schedule at her job, where she worked 10 hours per day for 9 days, and got the 2nd Friday off. I'm looking forward to my own version, except it'll only be the 8-hour nominal work day...

acituan 5y ago

> When you need only 4 days of vacation to take one week off, 20 paid vacation days will let you go on vacation for 5 weeks per year, just like like a full-time employee with 25 vacation days. Sure, but it is contingent on using your vacation allotments at full week increments, which is not the only way vacation days are used. In your hypothetical scenario, since we're in the realm of managerial approvals, you could as well ask for a 1 month unpaid time off which amounts to a nominal %8 pay cut for 20 some days (which is actually less because stock vesting tend not to stop), whereas a 20% time cut only gets you 45 extra non-workdays with more than 20% paycut due to the non-linearities I explained above. Marginal cost of non-workdays are much higher in the latter scenario. > In fact, if your employer is flexible about which days you work, you could leave on a Friday and return next Monday (4 days) without using any vacation days. If your employer is flexible you could work 5 days for 4 weeks and take the next week off without vacation days too. It runs through every person's own objective function for sure. I am not saying costs can never outweigh the benefits, but I am trying to draw attention to the cost function which is not usually as well thought through.

chrismcb 5y ago
Of course, everyone will differ. And while Americans don't get the same vacation allotment as Europeans, reducing vacation but 20% isn't the worst. Some cases you will lose and in some cases you will gain. You don't have to use any vacation days to have a three day weekend. If you wanted a four day weekend you now only have to take one day off instead of two. That is a huge win. About the only time you lose is if you want to take a day off in the middle of the week. I'm sure there are a couple of other examples were you are worse off. But I think generally things will pretty much even out. Now, reducing pay by 20% is a different story