This has about as much truth to it as people who say "perks are just to make you stay at the office longer!".
i.e. it's typically not a problem and can be very beneficial to the worker.
i.e. it's typically not a problem and can be very beneficial to the worker.
> "It's always been important to us to ensure that our team is able to enjoy a quality work/life balance," the Kickstarter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. "What we found was that by setting specific parameters around the number of days, there was no question about how much time was appropriate to take from work to engage in personal, creative, and family activities."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/at-kic...
Invitations to "casual chats" over breakfast or dinner in the office cafeteria are IME quite common in the latter, especially if you're seeking access to senior leadership or flagged as someone whose opinion/buy-off is important to a project.
Even without an explicit invitation, if you're at the office already there's no real barrier to someone pulling you in to a project-related discussion. At that point you're effectively on the clock whether you intended/wanted to be or not.
It really comes down to the fact that commitments, decisions, and requests for assistance made across a cafeteria table are not considered any less binding, which means you can't just "relax and enjoy the free food" when it's provided at work by your employer.
(Conversely, if you're someone who tries to protect your personal time and set clear boundaries between work and non-work hours, you miss out on a lot of these ad-hoc meetings, which can result in a persistent lack of access and influence compared to your colleagues who spend 12+ hours a day on-site.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you were forced to go to a local restaurant or bar to talk shop with your company culture if the free food didn't exist.
> i.e. it's typically not a problem and can be very beneficial to the worker.
Many states require payout of vacation time accrued at time of separation. How does that work for unlimited vacation?
I've had unlimited policies before and I'm much happier having a specific number of days now that I use every year.
Banks often require that employees take vacation, typically around 2 weeks a year. An employee-focused software company should implement a similar policy of "required minimum vacation" [1].
The connections I have in Germany working in relatively "low-skill" fields are taking over 5 weeks a year of PTO. Even the most generous companies in the US are a joke by comparison to the most barebones companies in many EU nations. Without collective bargaining, we will always be far behind in benefits.
From my perspective, unlimited policies have a lot of upside on the financial front — they don't have to keep accrued PTO cash on the books. Of course, it has a benefit to workers, but only to those who take advantage of it and don't feel pressured by management or their peers to meet a certain number. It's been my experience so far that my peers at unlimited PTO companies take less time off, and that their "time off" is less valuable (meaning they are not completely logged out/tuned out of work) because it's coming from an infinite pool. At the end of the day, I think the balance of these policies shifts towards the financial side of the business rather than the employee's side.
[0]: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-rules-vac...