5 ms·

Of course I would be willing to reduce my yearly salary for 2 or 3 weeks of extra time. Should not be that hard. It’s worth more than the proportional time I w

Of course I would be willing to reduce my yearly salary for 2 or 3 weeks of extra time. Should not be that hard. It’s worth more than the proportional time I would take off. It’s very valuable to me. Like 5k / week would be a good price tag. I have no debt and more stuff than I need. Now let’s me enjoy life while I still can ( and keep working on that job that I actually enjoy ) I’m not sure to understand about the net positive. The response I got was that taking time off without pay would 1) set a bad « example » or something of that sort and 2) make it hard to plan for resource availability. Does that answer your question?

nickff 5y ago
By ‘net positive’ I mean willing to take a cut larger than is directly proportional to the reduction in hours worked. The reality is that reducing each person’s annual work will increase costs for the company overall, as it needs to pay additional overhead and benefits, which are related to employee count, rather than hours worked. I think that everyone is a bit wary of setting difficult precedents in employment situations, as well as the possibility of creating rifts between people with different ‘deals’. That said, I think we should all place a higher priority on coming up with mutually beneficial arrangements.
- jobigoud 5y ago
  Except that it increases employees morale and motivation and thus productivity, and reduces chances of burnout. There are benefits for the company too.
  - dopidopHN 5y ago
    Exactly. I stay longer in a previous company with unlimited PTO ( real one ) for that reason. It’s crazy how they don’t realize it’s just alienate workers.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  I see : yes, I’m compensated roughly $3000 / week. I don’t know how much I do cost per week but probably around $4000 ? Idk. As I stated it’s easily worth 5k for me. ( 7 days, 5 days would be $3500 ) That négociation did not go well. I got 2 extra day off and was told to stop making noise. Oh. well.
prawn 5y ago
This blows my mind. Throwing your prime (or prime-st remaining years) at an office. Can you put your foot down and take unpaid leave whether they like it or not? Come up with an excuse if you have to. They will always try to push you to follow their line but will you regret that later in life?
jstummbillig 5y ago
The crux here is, of course, that one week of your time is a lot more valuable than 5k to your employer if they pay you 3.7k per week, and probably a lot more than you would be willing to part with or find reasonable (think 20k+ a week) It's a pretty infuriating setup. From the employers perspective, the amount of money you lose by having someone not work is so obscene, so quickly, that you have to fight your monkey brain pretty hard to not be a total asshole about it. Even in this well paying industry, you could give everyone obscene raises, before time off makes any financial sense for the average employer. I don't think enough employees realise this.
- egman_ekki 5y ago
  Even if their time was 5 times as valuable to the company as their pay, it seems very unfair to pay someone 3.7k per week, but require 20k from them if they want to take a week off? That basically means that if you took 3 months sabbatical, and worked the rest of the year, you would actually pay your employer 100k for working those 9 months...
  - jstummbillig 5y ago
    A system, where other people make more off your work than you do has pretty intrinsic problems.
    - nickff 5y ago
      Customers and clients of all sorts obtain consumer surpluses; if they were indifferent, they would not make purchases... Employers are just a different sort of customer.
- andyferris 5y ago
  Honest question: why does it “cost” the employer so much to have you on leave? I heard this argument in North America but not here in Australia. I mean, small businesses might require critical people at critical times, but generally in larger orgs this shouldn’t be too hard.

nickff 5y ago

By ‘net positive’ I mean willing to take a cut larger than is directly proportional to the reduction in hours worked. The reality is that reducing each person’s annual work will increase costs for the company overall, as it needs to pay additional overhead and benefits, which are related to employee count, rather than hours worked. I think that everyone is a bit wary of setting difficult precedents in employment situations, as well as the possibility of creating rifts between people with different ‘deals’. That said, I think we should all place a higher priority on coming up with mutually beneficial arrangements.

jobigoud 5y ago
Except that it increases employees morale and motivation and thus productivity, and reduces chances of burnout. There are benefits for the company too.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Exactly. I stay longer in a previous company with unlimited PTO ( real one ) for that reason. It’s crazy how they don’t realize it’s just alienate workers.
dopidopHN 5y ago
I see : yes, I’m compensated roughly $3000 / week. I don’t know how much I do cost per week but probably around $4000 ? Idk. As I stated it’s easily worth 5k for me. ( 7 days, 5 days would be $3500 ) That négociation did not go well. I got 2 extra day off and was told to stop making noise. Oh. well.

prawn 5y ago

This blows my mind. Throwing your prime (or prime-st remaining years) at an office. Can you put your foot down and take unpaid leave whether they like it or not? Come up with an excuse if you have to. They will always try to push you to follow their line but will you regret that later in life?

jstummbillig 5y ago

The crux here is, of course, that one week of your time is a lot more valuable than 5k to your employer if they pay you 3.7k per week, and probably a lot more than you would be willing to part with or find reasonable (think 20k+ a week) It's a pretty infuriating setup. From the employers perspective, the amount of money you lose by having someone not work is so obscene, so quickly, that you have to fight your monkey brain pretty hard to not be a total asshole about it. Even in this well paying industry, you could give everyone obscene raises, before time off makes any financial sense for the average employer. I don't think enough employees realise this.

egman_ekki 5y ago
Even if their time was 5 times as valuable to the company as their pay, it seems very unfair to pay someone 3.7k per week, but require 20k from them if they want to take a week off? That basically means that if you took 3 months sabbatical, and worked the rest of the year, you would actually pay your employer 100k for working those 9 months...
- jstummbillig 5y ago
  A system, where other people make more off your work than you do has pretty intrinsic problems.
  - nickff 5y ago
    Customers and clients of all sorts obtain consumer surpluses; if they were indifferent, they would not make purchases... Employers are just a different sort of customer.
andyferris 5y ago
Honest question: why does it “cost” the employer so much to have you on leave? I heard this argument in North America but not here in Australia. I mean, small businesses might require critical people at critical times, but generally in larger orgs this shouldn’t be too hard.