3 ms·

It's good to hear the opposite arguments, and they're good ones, though those all seem to be specific to employees. From the company viewpoint often having empl

by ojbyrne 17y ago

It's good to hear the opposite arguments, and they're good ones, though those all seem to be specific to employees. From the company viewpoint often having employees leave for vacation individually is disruptive. Especially in so called knowledge based industries. I'm not really wedded to my theory, just kibitzing.

davidw 17y ago
> having employees leave for vacation individually is disruptive. Yes, but less so than closing the company down for a month.
- andreyf 17y ago
  The fair comparison would be 12 months of ~1/12th of the company team not being there, or 1 month of the entire team not being there. I think it's pretty obvious that in a workplace where each member adds more than a constant value, the latter is favorable. Edit: woah, I can't respond to your post, probably to prevent those back-and-forth chains. But you're right, it's only obvious in a simplified model of a workplace I had in my head when writing it. In real life, nothing is obvious :)
  - davidw 17y ago
    I don't think it's "obvious". If the company's completely closed, nothing at all is happening, no work is getting done, no one is available to cover emergencies. A better comparison might be to look at 1/3 of the company being gone in July, August and September, which, if you work with people to plan things just a bit, means that things keep running during those months. Also, what starts to happen here (Italy) in practice, is that in July not a lot gets done because everything is going to shut down soon, so no one starts anything new (no new projects, no hires). Things already start to slow down in June. September is reasonably productive, but it takes a bit to get things turning over again. Staying open conserves momentum and provides some continuity.
edu 17y ago
I don't think it is that disruptive, in my company each team agrees when people will take their vacations so there's always a minimum of junior/senior people working in all depts.

by ojbyrne 17y ago

davidw 17y ago

> having employees leave for vacation individually is disruptive. Yes, but less so than closing the company down for a month.

andreyf 17y ago
The fair comparison would be 12 months of ~1/12th of the company team not being there, or 1 month of the entire team not being there. I think it's pretty obvious that in a workplace where each member adds more than a constant value, the latter is favorable. Edit: woah, I can't respond to your post, probably to prevent those back-and-forth chains. But you're right, it's only obvious in a simplified model of a workplace I had in my head when writing it. In real life, nothing is obvious :)
- davidw 17y ago
  I don't think it's "obvious". If the company's completely closed, nothing at all is happening, no work is getting done, no one is available to cover emergencies. A better comparison might be to look at 1/3 of the company being gone in July, August and September, which, if you work with people to plan things just a bit, means that things keep running during those months. Also, what starts to happen here (Italy) in practice, is that in July not a lot gets done because everything is going to shut down soon, so no one starts anything new (no new projects, no hires). Things already start to slow down in June. September is reasonably productive, but it takes a bit to get things turning over again. Staying open conserves momentum and provides some continuity.

edu 17y ago

I don't think it is that disruptive, in my company each team agrees when people will take their vacations so there's always a minimum of junior/senior people working in all depts.