Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We had sick/personal days(between 0 and 6 a year) and we had sick leave. If you were off for an extended period, you went on sick leave and got 60% of your pay.
We could only accumulate 14 sick/personal days before we lost them. We could not use a personal day the day before or after a holiday.
We also shut down for vacation. The first 3 weeks or less and you took it during the shutdown. If you had 4, 5, or 6, weeks you could take those extra weeks when you wanted.
12 unpaid days off in a calendar year and you were terminated.
Most people stayed for 30+ years. Happy they did every first of the month when that check is deposited.
There is a simple solution to this issue - delay the raise by the amount of excess PTO time the employee has. If they have banked 2 weeks more, then you delay the raise by 2 weeks. Mathematically, this exactly equals the value of the "more expensive" PTO.
ETA: If this is too administratively difficult, they could simply dock the corresponding amount from the next year's pay. Using your numbers, this would only have to be a ~0.4% pay cut. I would be willing to accept a 0.4% pay cut in exchange for the work/life balance benefit of being able to take unpaid time off.
In general, why do so many people make such a big deal about location flexibility but no one talks about this sort of thing?
Get a job with more PTO next time? IDK. More would be better but i had plenty when working.
The FIRE movement is not about never working again, but about having the ability to stop working without fiscal constraint. In other words, you may choose to work, but not because it is the only way to pay the bills. Since it is off-topic I will recommend that you try reading one of the numerous blogs written on the topic by someone who has been doing it for a while.
I'm very familiar with the movement; I was FIRE before there was FIRE (seeking to be financially independent at a young age)... I was just surprised to hear talk of an early retirement coming from you!
Get a job with more PTO next time? IDK. More would be better but i had plenty when working.
I am fine for now, but the concern is more about the future. I have the personality type that very much strongly prefers to plan ahead rather than to take life as it comes.
Is negotiating leave (let's say by a week or two extra per year) usually doable, if I am willing to take a slightly lower salary to "fund" it? I am still relatively young and have only gotten a job twice in my life (not counting odd jobs in my teens, or part time grad assistant work).
Some employers appear to have policies that try to discourage employees from taking unpaid time off, or to force them to use up all their paid time off before they can access unpaid time off. What is going on here - it seems that the employee has more to lose since they aren't getting paid. How common is this "taboo-ness" of unpaid time off, and how negotiable is it with your employer? For example, if you burned through all your leave due to a medical issue and wanted to go on a vacation next month. Would you just ask for it, or would there be a massive bureaucratic approval process (or, worse yet, would you have to threaten to leave the company to get it)?
If your company pays out earned and unused vacation/PTO then it's a liability for them to let you take unpaid days off and then you turn around and quit and get money for that.
If your company pays out earned and unused vacation/PTO then it's a liability for them to let you take unpaid days off and then you turn around and quit and get money for that.
But they'd be paying it out either way, right? Either as paid leave, or as a payout at the end. Why do they refuse to hold onto the money temporarily?
Most companies don't even give raises that outpace inflation, so it isn't like they'd be paying out a huge amount extra over time, and in any case I would be willing to take an extremely small pay cut to compensate for the cost differential if that's what it took. If this was arranged as a salary reduction in exchange for the flexibility, then it wouldn't raise any FLSA compliance issues for them. So, what are they so afraid of?
I suppose what I am really after is "insurance for my time". Most of us have car, health, home, life, insurance to cover losses of money. But there isn't any insurance to cover time.
Being able to take unpaid leave without excessive restrictions would fill that gap and give me more peace of mind. Just as insurance covers unexpected losses of money, that type of flexibility would cover against unexpected scenarios such as having to take multiple days off work to fight a legal battle, or to care for a family member that is having difficulties of any sort that isn't already covered. While I did mention the FIRE movement, what I most want is not so much to retire early but to be able to have "insurance" for my time, and not just my money. Did I explain it better?
I suppose what I am really after is "insurance for my time". Most of us have car, health, home, life, insurance to cover losses of money. But there isn't any insurance to cover time.
Being able to take unpaid leave without excessive restrictions would fill that gap and give me more peace of mind. Just as insurance covers unexpected losses of money, that type of flexibility would cover against unexpected scenarios such as having to take multiple days off work to fight a legal battle, or to care for a family member that is having difficulties of any sort that isn't already covered. While I did mention the FIRE movement, what I most want is not so much to retire early but to be able to have "insurance" for my time, and not just my money. Did I explain it better?
Why do you feel that it is the employer's obligation to grant you what you want? You were hired because they have work to be done. They hire lots of employees because there is lots of work to be done, which is often interconnected. Multiple people may be playing a part in one project, one person's output is the next person's input, etc. They have to "budget" employee resources. You can't just show up when you want, work as much as you want. Some absences are unavoidable and vacay is expected but these absences DO cause problems for the business and affect the work output. They want to limit it as much as possible.
Why do you feel that it is the employer's obligation to grant you what you want? You were hired because they have work to be done. They hire lots of employees because there is lots of work to be done, which is often interconnected. Multiple people may be playing a part in one project, one person's output is the next person's input, etc. They have to "budget" employee resources. You can't just show up when you want, work as much as you want. Some absences are unavoidable and vacay is expected but these absences DO cause problems for the business and affect the work output. They want to limit it as much as possible.
The labor market is competitive. While everyone knows that a business' objective is to make a profit, good workers aren't going to necessarily flock to a company that treats them with contempt and like nothing more than a meaningless cog in a machine. If you want disloyal, unreliable, low quality workers, then treat them like the way you talk about them on this forum.
The labor market is competitive. While everyone knows that a business' objective is to make a profit, good workers aren't going to necessarily flock to a company that treats them with contempt and like nothing more than a meaningless cog in a machine. If you want disloyal, unreliable, low quality workers, then treat them like the way you talk about them on this forum.
What contempt are you talking about? Businesses are not social support entities. They don't exist for the purpose of giving people money to pay their bills. Businesses hire workers because they have work to be done and they are trading money for labor. Expecting employees to actually show up and do the work is not contempt. In the case we are discussing, the company does not offer sub-market benefits. They provide PTO. But for some that is not enough, they want unlimited time off as they see fit and have the employer just work around it.
If you hire some plumbers, electrician and carpenters to remodel your house, are you holding them in contempt by requiring them to show up and do the work else you'll find someone who will? Is it your responsibility that they be 'fulfilled" and have a happy life? And if you're generous enough to build paid time off into the project because you understand that life happens and people are not machines, are you onerous if you expect it to be limited to that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
