5 ms·

I'm not sure about this article, I think we're getting trolled here. Some of the quotes are questionable, but some of them seemed to sound like they came from

by iigs 18y ago

I'm not sure about this article, I think we're getting trolled here. Some of the quotes are questionable, but some of them seemed to sound like they came from larger "employees are people too" interviews. I don't think all of the people interviewed share the opinion of the author. The "We keep treating them like crap but they keep LEAVING! What is going ON HERE?!?" temper tantrum is pretty bizarre. If you can legitimately hold that opinion and be an HR executive, it certainly implies to me that the problem has existed at least as long as that person has been in the business. Your feeling of entitlement isn't all that different from mine if you stand back a step. If we're so dispensable give us another week off, what's it going to hurt? This is a pretty green field for any big company that would like to improve retention. A fun business hack would be structuring a company so you could dial-a-salary: your salary assumes you work 95% of the year (2w PTO + 5 holidays), and you tell HR how much you actually want to work (down to say 80% of the year -- 9wk + 5 holidays, as a lower bound for benefits). I bet your retention would be invincible. Screw the money, I'd probably be at 85%.

niels_olson 18y ago
agreed, and the troll's name is Ruppert Murdoch. Either that, or the WSJ is trying to retain it's old people readership with some emotional bonding article.
- iigs 18y ago
  That thought crossed my mind as well. I guess there's no point in trying to retain our demographic since none of us read the paper anyway. I don't see how it would really help them, but they've got to do something, and this is something, so yay!
  - dla2000 18y ago
    Newspapers are supposed to print news, not print platitudes. :) I recommend you take at least a moment to wonder why your generation is coming under fire so much.
    - dla2000 18y ago
      Well I'm replying to my own reply, because it was rude and I didn't intend it that way. Apologies.
lliiffee 18y ago
Your last paragraph seems like such a good idea, its tough to understand why it hasn't happened. (I would definitely be at 85%, and I would accept a lower "base" to have to option!) I think the biggest reason is that time off is fairly disruptive. You need to coordinate that not everyone is off at the same time. If someone is waiting for you, your time off will prevent them from working. It takes time to "recover" from time off, etc. I'm not sure how significant these issues are, but I bet they get you to the point that you might have second thoughts. (Would you work 85% the hours for 60% the pay?) That said, you'd think there are some fields where the above isn't an issue, and they would implement it. I don't know any examples.
- time_management 18y ago
  Here's the real reason Americans don't get more vacation: although large companies allowed to be notoriously uneven in terms of compensation, they still attempt to maintain a veneer of bureaucratic fairness. For example, each employee gets the same health package (although the CEO is paid well enough to self-insure, but never mind that) and all are treated as "equal" (sort of) in internal mediation/discipline matters. This also applies to vacation allotments, which are generally a single-variable function of seniority, with a few special cases that can be negotiated. The problem is that every corporation has some component that is perennially understaffed, wearing its people down to the felt, and the VP representing it realizes that his division cannot tolerate the prospect of employees having a week or two more off. So any time an officer suggests increasing vacation instead of salaries, the VP vetoes it. At and above this VP's level, vacation allotments are irrelevant (they're either high enough that they can take time off whenever they want... or in pressure-cooker companies, high enough that they never get time off), so there's no personal push from above on this issue. Occasionally the VP of R&D will point out that the company's meager vacation allowance is preventing him from getting top talent, especially from overseas; the CEO will quietly pull him aside and tell him that he can make some exceptions to "the policy" and no one will know.
  - taw 18y ago
    In Europe minimum vacation time is simply legislated, just like minimum wages, minimum notice periods, and so on. It's in public interest to require that people are treated well, even if it reduces economic efficiency by a tiny bit. Not treating people well has a much higher cost in social capital.
jcromartie 18y ago
The "dial-a-salary" idea would be great. I wish I could work less sometimes, but I have always worked at companies that have a limited amount of "unpaid time off." If you take off more than X days during a year, you are fired. Period. Firing someone for requesting a voluntary pay cut? Ridiculous. I guess it's probably related to the reluctance to let people work from home. It's about keeping up the image. A corporation doesn't want people to let on to the fact that sometimes there isn't as much work to do, or sometimes there is really no need to physically be in an office building.

by iigs 18y ago

niels_olson 18y ago

agreed, and the troll's name is Ruppert Murdoch. Either that, or the WSJ is trying to retain it's old people readership with some emotional bonding article.

iigs 18y ago
That thought crossed my mind as well. I guess there's no point in trying to retain our demographic since none of us read the paper anyway. I don't see how it would really help them, but they've got to do something, and this is something, so yay!
- dla2000 18y ago
  Newspapers are supposed to print news, not print platitudes. :) I recommend you take at least a moment to wonder why your generation is coming under fire so much.
  - dla2000 18y ago
    Well I'm replying to my own reply, because it was rude and I didn't intend it that way. Apologies.

lliiffee 18y ago

Your last paragraph seems like such a good idea, its tough to understand why it hasn't happened. (I would definitely be at 85%, and I would accept a lower "base" to have to option!) I think the biggest reason is that time off is fairly disruptive. You need to coordinate that not everyone is off at the same time. If someone is waiting for you, your time off will prevent them from working. It takes time to "recover" from time off, etc. I'm not sure how significant these issues are, but I bet they get you to the point that you might have second thoughts. (Would you work 85% the hours for 60% the pay?) That said, you'd think there are some fields where the above isn't an issue, and they would implement it. I don't know any examples.

time_management 18y ago
Here's the real reason Americans don't get more vacation: although large companies allowed to be notoriously uneven in terms of compensation, they still attempt to maintain a veneer of bureaucratic fairness. For example, each employee gets the same health package (although the CEO is paid well enough to self-insure, but never mind that) and all are treated as "equal" (sort of) in internal mediation/discipline matters. This also applies to vacation allotments, which are generally a single-variable function of seniority, with a few special cases that can be negotiated. The problem is that every corporation has some component that is perennially understaffed, wearing its people down to the felt, and the VP representing it realizes that his division cannot tolerate the prospect of employees having a week or two more off. So any time an officer suggests increasing vacation instead of salaries, the VP vetoes it. At and above this VP's level, vacation allotments are irrelevant (they're either high enough that they can take time off whenever they want... or in pressure-cooker companies, high enough that they never get time off), so there's no personal push from above on this issue. Occasionally the VP of R&D will point out that the company's meager vacation allowance is preventing him from getting top talent, especially from overseas; the CEO will quietly pull him aside and tell him that he can make some exceptions to "the policy" and no one will know.
- taw 18y ago
  In Europe minimum vacation time is simply legislated, just like minimum wages, minimum notice periods, and so on. It's in public interest to require that people are treated well, even if it reduces economic efficiency by a tiny bit. Not treating people well has a much higher cost in social capital.

jcromartie 18y ago

The "dial-a-salary" idea would be great. I wish I could work less sometimes, but I have always worked at companies that have a limited amount of "unpaid time off." If you take off more than X days during a year, you are fired. Period. Firing someone for requesting a voluntary pay cut? Ridiculous. I guess it's probably related to the reluctance to let people work from home. It's about keeping up the image. A corporation doesn't want people to let on to the fact that sometimes there isn't as much work to do, or sometimes there is really no need to physically be in an office building.