4 ms·

> One of the biggest reasons for going "unlimited PTO" is that there's no accrual, therefore they owe you nothing. IMO that's the only reason for employers to

• pph 4y ago
  > unlimited > up to 5 weeks This seems surreal to me, given that here (Germany) that is just above the legal minimum and every decent job gives 25-30 days. If someone offered "unlimited" here, I'd expect at least 40-50 days to be acceptable.
  • cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Legal minimum for salaried work in Canada is 2 weeks I believe, and I doubt there's a minimum at all in the US. Google Canada capped us out at 5 weeks and that was after years of lobbying. But we could take copious unpaid time, and we were well paid, so.
  • pvinis 4y ago
    I got 40 last year. talking with people, I understood that this is an acceptable amount. on the high side, but acceptable.
• dbrueck 4y ago
  >> One of the biggest reasons for going "unlimited PTO" is that there's no accrual, therefore they owe you nothing. > IMO that's the only reason for employers to offer "unlimited PTO" schemes. I think that's generally true, but at my company (which is a very small startup of about a dozen people) we have unlimited PTO because we just really don't want to bother with tracking it.
  • jeromegv 4y ago
    Yeah, that’s a lie people tell themselves. If someone was gone for 2 months, suddenly someone would start counting and tracking. But nobody does because of course, it’s not truly unlimited.
    • armadsen 4y ago
      I have had two separate unlimited PTO jobs where I was gone on an extended vacation for ~2 months and no one batted an eye. The time off was discussed beforehand of course, I didn’t just not show up one day. But I got no complaints from anyone about it, just people asking to see photos from my trip.
    • dbrueck 4y ago
      Pretty sure I'm not lying to myself, thanks.
• joezydeco 4y ago
  IMO that's the only reason for employers to offer "unlimited PTO" schemes. A lot of companies also have continual headaches about requests for unused time to roll over into the next fiscal year. So not only is the accrual a problem in regards to terminated employees but it's a debt on the books that has to be tracked and serviced. My fun story about that is the large company I worked for a couple of decades ago - they still had a policy that allowed you to bank up to a year's worth of vacation time. After a few employees decided to retire a year early by taking a 52-week vacation and then retiring, the whole policy was trashed. Imagine having a coworker retire and you can't fill the headcount for an entire year because they're still an active employee.
  • jeromegv 4y ago
    They could fill the headcount. It’s another dumb policy that prevent them from filling it. Works needs to be done and there’s no one to do it, the fact you can’t hire is a problem.
  • solarkraft 4y ago
    > you can't fill the headcount for an entire year Why couldn't you?
    • joezydeco 4y ago
      Because, as mentioned above, this was an old-school company. Departments had budgets, and your labor budget was fixed and pretty much determined how many people you could have. That retiree on 'vacation' was drawing a paycheck and was still part of your yearly budget. Asking for a replacement meant increasing the budget by that extra person's salary, and that was a bureaucratic problem. Oh, and here's the fun conclusion to the story I forgot to mention. When the policy was cancelled and rollover was taken away, every employee got paid a one-time lump sum for their accrued rollover time. Some people got 30-40 weeks of pay in a single check. And that launched many employees into a higher tax bracket for that year. Lots of fun all around.