4 ms·
Some companies have this horrible "PTO" pogrom (typo intentional) in which sick days and vacation days are pooled. It wouldn't be so bad if there were a sizable
by michaelochurch 13y ago
Some companies have this horrible "PTO" pogrom (typo intentional) in which sick days and vacation days are pooled. It wouldn't be so bad if there were a sizable pool (say, 30 days) but usually, it's an excuse to present the company as having ample vacation (15-20 days) while actually deducting sick days from it. It means that a week-long illness will cut into your vacation.
Then you have this arrangement where people "work from home" (WFH) while actually ill, just to avoid losing a PTO day. Then you need a manager who understands the difference between sick WFH (don't hit him up, he might read emails and type out a few replies and that's it) and real WFH (you can actually expect that person to be working)-- and who, in addition, cares about that distinction.
- aestra 13y ago> ample vacation (15-20 days) 15-20 days is hardly "ample" vacation time.
- michaelochurch 13y agoI agree but, by US standards, it's generous. We are not a first world country anymore.
- dllthomas 13y agoAll of that said, I'd much rather people work poorly from home with awkward expectations than come into the office and infect the rest of us! Realistic expectations or real sick days are better still, of course.
- jsight 13y agoAs a US worker, I greatly prefer pooled vacation days. The companies that I have worked for that don't have this have _at most_ 15 days of paid vacation (usually either 10 or 12 until I had a few years of work there and had it increased). They had separate sick time, but only ~5 days of it. The pooled vacations one have 16-20 with sick bundled in. It's about the same if you are sick for more than 5 days (you'd lose either way). If you are sick for less than 5 days, pooled is clearly better.