Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaroth | Hacker News Reader

There’s just one paragraph missing.

If PTO isn’t paid out on termination, then PTO cannot be safely accrued.

The undersigned should state that this behavior leaves them with no choice but to draw down their PTO balance, perhaps starting a specific day next week.

But I wonder if the employees that weren’t in a state which requires paying out PTO balances had expected to be paid their PTO balance? Usually this is one of those things that’s addressed in the employment contract.

View on HN

The US is just nuts. Are you saying that your earned but unused PTO doesn't have to be paid out to you when you're laid off but is rather at the discretion of the employer? How is that justifiable in any way? Does the bank owe you accrued interest when you close your account or is it up to them to pay it? Why would it be different for PTO?

It's state by state. New York allows it based on the contract. California is explicit that earned PTO must be paid.

> How is that justifiable in any way?

My understanding is that it is stated in the contract.

Non-salary benefits used to be extremely uncommon in the USA. During WW2, price and wage controls were enacted that made it illegal to increase prices for many types of goods, or salaries for many types of employees. This made it almost impossible for employers to find enough employees, so they started finding creative ways to sweeten the deal besides just increasing salary. Thus, virtually everyone now gets health insurance from an insurance company chosen by their employer rather than one they choose themselves, we tip workers that do certain jobs rather than paying them a normal wage, time off is negotiated ahead of time, etc.

> How is that justifiable in any way?

Simply: Corporate greed.

Or, executives trying to save any penny they can, so if the company is ever gobbled up by a large conglomerate, such as NBC or Combast, or merged with another media company, people like Jonah Peretti, Lenke Taylor and Ben Smith can laugh their way to the bank.

At my first job in US I had about a year and a half of unused PTO accumulated. I gave my two week notice like a good team player I was and then left on the agreed upon date.

I obviously didn't get any of the PTO paid to me and in retrospect realize that I could have just taken my last two weeks off with the same outcome.

I was so sure that there must be some law that would force employer to pay out unused PTO, that I haven't even thought about researching it in advance. This was a rude "welcome to United States, bitch" awakening for me.

How does one accrue a year and a half of paid time off?

Don't most companies cap it at 5 days or something?

Presumably what is meant is PTO accrued over a year and a half of working, which would most likely mean a couple of weeks of PTO.

A place I used to work set it at 160 hours, got bought, then changed it to 80 hours, everyone made a big enough stink by threatening to take off during critical times. They changed it the cap to two times your yearly accrual rate which put the cap somewhere between 240 and 400 hours depending on your seniority. The cap was nice but it was almost impossible to use that much leave with the amount of job responsibility you had. You could sell your hours but it had to be agreed on at the beginning of the year and the payout spread out across the year so there was no way you could get a quick influx of cash.

Sorry, didn't make it clear enough. I meant I worked for a company for a year and a half without ever taking time off.

I am guessing they didn't expect to get laid off. Employment contracts can be tricky to negotiate, since at that point you usually want the job. It also isn't something most people do regularly or even know much about. Especially not if they are relatively young.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com