3 ms·
True, but that's not entirely bad. It even further encourages you to actually take your vacation. Since there's a checkpoint at the end of the year, you should
by jackowayed 15y ago
True, but that's not entirely bad. It even further encourages you to actually take your vacation. Since there's a checkpoint at the end of the year, you should never have more than a year's worth of vacation "saved up", and really, a policy like this wants you to take vacation slowly and steadily and never burn out.
Also, if you're a US worker and your employer is yelling at you for taking fewer than 5 weeks off, not including public holidays, you're in a pretty awesome situation.
- epoxyhockey 15y agoMost years, I schedule a solid 2 or 3 week vacation to completely unplug from the office. For US people, that would consume most of your "socially acceptable" vacation time allotment during a calendar year. That particular year, my 3 week vacation was scheduled for September and I get laid off in July, so yes, it was entirely bad. At my next job there was an annual allotment of 3 weeks of vacation that accrued little by little every pay period. I was able to "borrow" time from the next year so that I could take my already-booked vacation. And, for the duration of that job, I maintained a negative vacation-time balance vowing to not get screwed again. Unfortunately, whenever I hear of the "fantastic unlimited vacation time benefit," I can only view it as a way for the CEO to milk an extra month of work out of employees before laying them off at no cost.