4 ms·
It's also a nasty trap if your burned out. You need the time off but don't know if you have the political capital to safely take it. I struggle to find a char
by CoastalCoder 2y ago
It's also a nasty trap if your burned out. You need the time off but don't know if you have the political capital to safely take it.
I struggle to find a charitable guess about the intent behind these policies.
- crooked-v 2y agoThe intent is "because there isn't a specifically accrued amount of time off, we don't have to pay it out when they quit or are fired".
- mulmen 2y agoThe charitable take is Hanlon’s Razor. Leadership at these companies is simply incompetent and honestly believes it’s a good policy. It’s an immediately disqualifying policy for me.
- skywhopper 2y agoLess time spent dealing with the paperwork of tracking it and accounting for the termination liability of paying out vacation. Those are the two main reasons. I’ve always preferred it because the alternative is usually some too small fixed amount of vacation that I don’t have access to for the first year. It still takes just as much political capital to take time off as long as your boss has to approve, regardless of whether it’s “unlimited” or not.
- CobrastanJorji 2y agoI imagine the charitable story goes "if we have a good way of measuring your contributions, we don't need to bother counting your hours and days because we'll know whether you're effective without doing that, and if we don't have a good way of measuring your performance, we have bigger problems that vacation policies won't fix." But that's kind of bullshit.
- tbrownaw 2y ago> I struggle to find a charitable guess about the intent behind these policies. We're all friends here, who needs the overhead from all these silly rules about counting beans?
- outside1234 2y agoEspecially when counting those beans would mean I would have to make a payout if you left.