4 ms·
I have no doubt it's meant in good faith at many companies, but it's almost sure to be used unfairly. A lot of people, especially folks who don't feel safely pa
by CobrastanJorji 5y ago
I have no doubt it's meant in good faith at many companies, but it's almost sure to be used unfairly. A lot of people, especially folks who don't feel safely part of whatever in-group, are going to be hesitant to push that policy, especially because being on vacation can be an imposition on your coworkers.
I suspect you could implement the same policy in practice with less social anxiety by mandating N weeks of vacation and allowing additional time off upon request.
- 8ytecoder 5y agoTruth is it could be hard to take vacation in a toxic company irrespective of whether it's clearly laid out or not. A lot of startups are toxic - intentionally or unintentionally. Mandating vacation is a good idea when they really mean it. Use it or lose might work. Fixed days with payout if you quit or an option to cash out works too - companies carry it in their balance sheet and encourage days off as a result.
- xmprt 5y agoIn my experience limited PTO leads to burnout more often because employees could get paid more by taking fewer days off since their PTO is paid out when they leave. So some employees choose to continue working because they feel bad taking time off that technically decreases their potential pay.