9 ms·

I've known people who've worked at Netflix and have complained about some toxic policies. Some highlights I can recall: Unlimited ESPP rewards already wealthy

I've known people who've worked at Netflix and have complained about some toxic policies. Some highlights I can recall: Unlimited ESPP rewards already wealthy employees. If you can afford to not take any pay for six months, you basically get a big bonus. I was told there was (and may still be) some kind of stack ranking system. Employees are fired if they're in the bottom x percent of performance reviews, even if they did a good job. In a company that's obsessed with everyone being exceptional, merely being adequate is considered failure. Unlimited vacation time is like an Orwellian joke. What it really means is you don't accrue PTO, can't cash it out like at other companies, and how much vacation you really get to take is a constant negotiation with management. The net effect is nobody takes any because nobody wants to be the guy who takes too much vacation, for fear of being perceived as one of those lower performing employees that gets let go each year. The whole thing sounded icky to me.

eddiezane 11y ago
I really like Travis CI's take on unlimited vacation time [0]. Probably won't ever catch on in the US though. 0: http://www.paperplanes.de/2014/12/10/from-open-to-minimum-vacation-policy.html http://www.paperplanes.de/2014/12/10/from-open-to-minimum-va...
- nchelluri 11y ago
  That was a great article and I now have a good deal more respect for Travis CI. Thanks for posting. Seems like a very healthy way to look at things.
- cnp 11y ago
  I very much hope that this article gets around more. Unlimited vacation is a very (very) deceptive practice.
hamburglar 11y ago
I've worked for a company with "unlimited" vacation time, and "Orwellian joke" really is a great way to put it. In addition to everyone being careful not to be the guy who takes too much vacation (oh, except the slackers, of course), the value of an individual vacation day drops in everyone's eyes (no scarcity) and the result is that management develops an attitude that it's more acceptable to veto specific vacation dates. I've never had a proposed vacation denied at any other job but I saw it all the time at the "unlimited" vacation company (not only for myself but I heard coworkers complain about it).
- CrankyFool 11y ago
  You can't just implement "unmetered vacation" and have it all work out -- it has to be part of a set of practices. For example, at Netflix as a manager I don't "veto" any proposed vacations, because my engineers do not propose vacations -- they tell me what time they're taking off. It's their job to make sure that's not going to be a surprise to anyone covering for them, and it's not my job to check that they've done that work. As for being careful not to be the guy who takes too much vacation ... putting aside the fact I have people reporting to me who aren't guys, there are people on my team who take two days of vacation a year; there are people on my team who take ~6 weeks of vacation per year. Nobody here seems to care much.
  - hamburglar 11y ago
    It sounds to me like Netflix has this policy implemented better than the one I experienced and the ones I've heard nightmare stories about.
sokoloff 11y ago
Why would an unlimited ESPP be a bad thing, especially to the point of being a "toxic policy"? Does it really matter if someone else takes more advantage of that than you? I'd love that as a perk, even if it made someone else even more money. I care about me and my family, not how much someone else gets...
- kethinov 11y ago
  Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Yes, but are they poorer than if they worked at a different company doing a similar job? I probably would not work for this kind of company, but I don't see it as 'wrong' just not the kind of company _I_ would work for.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. (Absent of course a decline in value of stock they bought under the ESPP and then held for the decline, but that's a risk inherent to investing, not a policy problem.) At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to take more advantage of it. Doesn't meet my bar for toxic.
    - kethinov 11y ago
      > But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. That isn't the point. The point is it's immoral to pay people more simply because they are already wealthy.
      - 11y ago

eddiezane 11y ago

I really like Travis CI's take on unlimited vacation time [0]. Probably won't ever catch on in the US though. 0: http://www.paperplanes.de/2014/12/10/from-open-to-minimum-vacation-policy.html http://www.paperplanes.de/2014/12/10/from-open-to-minimum-va...

nchelluri 11y ago
That was a great article and I now have a good deal more respect for Travis CI. Thanks for posting. Seems like a very healthy way to look at things.
cnp 11y ago
I very much hope that this article gets around more. Unlimited vacation is a very (very) deceptive practice.

hamburglar 11y ago

I've worked for a company with "unlimited" vacation time, and "Orwellian joke" really is a great way to put it. In addition to everyone being careful not to be the guy who takes too much vacation (oh, except the slackers, of course), the value of an individual vacation day drops in everyone's eyes (no scarcity) and the result is that management develops an attitude that it's more acceptable to veto specific vacation dates. I've never had a proposed vacation denied at any other job but I saw it all the time at the "unlimited" vacation company (not only for myself but I heard coworkers complain about it).

CrankyFool 11y ago
You can't just implement "unmetered vacation" and have it all work out -- it has to be part of a set of practices. For example, at Netflix as a manager I don't "veto" any proposed vacations, because my engineers do not propose vacations -- they tell me what time they're taking off. It's their job to make sure that's not going to be a surprise to anyone covering for them, and it's not my job to check that they've done that work. As for being careful not to be the guy who takes too much vacation ... putting aside the fact I have people reporting to me who aren't guys, there are people on my team who take two days of vacation a year; there are people on my team who take ~6 weeks of vacation per year. Nobody here seems to care much.
- hamburglar 11y ago
  It sounds to me like Netflix has this policy implemented better than the one I experienced and the ones I've heard nightmare stories about.

sokoloff 11y ago

Why would an unlimited ESPP be a bad thing, especially to the point of being a "toxic policy"? Does it really matter if someone else takes more advantage of that than you? I'd love that as a perk, even if it made someone else even more money. I care about me and my family, not how much someone else gets...

kethinov 11y ago
Because any company which rewards people with extra money for deferring 100% of their comp for six months is elitist. The vast majority of their staff can't afford that and are therefore paid less for being poorer.
- mc32 11y ago
  Yes, but are they poorer than if they worked at a different company doing a similar job? I probably would not work for this kind of company, but I don't see it as 'wrong' just not the kind of company _I_ would work for.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. (Absent of course a decline in value of stock they bought under the ESPP and then held for the decline, but that's a risk inherent to investing, not a policy problem.) At worst it seems to be a policy that's beneficial to all, and some people choose to/are able to take more advantage of it. Doesn't meet my bar for toxic.
  - kethinov 11y ago
    > But I can't think of any situation where an employee makes less money because the policy is available to them than if the policy weren't available to them. That isn't the point. The point is it's immoral to pay people more simply because they are already wealthy.
    - 11y ago