But at worst, companies don't pay attention to the psychological impact.
If you're a manager or leader in this sort of environment, I suggest telling your teams something like "I consider 4-6 weeks of PTO to be a healthy amount. You should take somewhere around that. If you need to take more, I'd appreciate it if we talked about that. And if you still feel pressure to take less, let's talk about that too so I can help you feel more comfortable."
taking no PTO isn't mentally healthy. I've never felt like we got "more done" over the course of a year because no one took PTO. Eventually it was just burnt out employees grinding through the days.
Best case: unlimited/flexible PTO policy simply reflects a company taking the attitude of "you are a responsible adult and we trust you," and skipping the need for a cumbersome tracking system.
Worst case: constant pressure + an unclear PTO policy induces workers to take less vacation than the norm.
With unlimited PTO the biggest challenge is to define (both ways) what qualifies for a good reason to go on a leave.
I have enjoyed unlimited PTO wherever I had. But I tried to have my own benchmark of about four weeks in a year. Of course, there have been times when I needed more, and it was fine. There have been times when I didn't need four weeks either, and I was okay with that too!
One of the reasons that this can be so much of a problem is that a lot of states treat the PTO as essentially a liability to the company. It's something that needs to be paid out to an employee leaving (barring being fired for cause or other situations where it'd be forfeit). I've worked in a number of start-ups or early companies that ran with unlimited pto for this reason alone since it makes the balance sheets easier to deal with when reporting to investors because now there's not this extra lingering liability that can be difficult to deal with if things go awry.
The pressure to take less almost certainly is another benefit to those early companies but it's not the one that I've heard being primarily discussed for keeping the unlimited PTO like that.
I’ve worked at a company with unlimited PTO since 2012.
It was the founder’s preference, as was allowing us all to work from home, because he didn’t want to babysit adults who all agreed to work towards a goal.
It’s never felt like a trap. Employees absolutely take a week+ off work, multiple times a year, and I’ve never heard of anyone ever being reprimanded.
The same founder also continued to pay an employee who was struggling with life in general, encouraging them to take off for a couple weeks and when they were ready, chat about whether they’d continue to work here.
There certainly can be scammy, predatory “unlimited PTO” policies, and maybe my experience is the exception, but I definitely prefer it over having to submit paperwork any time I have to miss working hours to take my kid to doctor, or just to take half a day to with the family on a Friday afternoon.
Shortly after leaving that job for one that did have limited PTO, both my mother and sister had some health issues (they are both doing better now), and I found myself looking at my PTO balance when deciding if I take time off for this or that, and I really missed the cognitive freedom that came with "unlimited".
> Instead of bringing freedom, the fall of the oppressive authority thus gives rise to new and more severe prohibitions. How are we to account for this paradox? Think of the situation known to most of us from our youth: the unfortunate child who, on Sunday afternoon, has to visit his grandmother instead of being allowed to play with friends. The old-fashioned authoritarian father’s message to the reluctant boy would have been: “I don’t care how you feel. Just do your duty, go to grandmother and behave there properly!” In this case, the child’s predicament is not bad at all: although forced to do something he clearly doesn’t want to, he will retain his inner freedom and the ability to (later) rebel against the paternal authority. Much more tricky would have been the message of a “postmodern” non-authoritarian father: “You know how much your grandmother loves you! But, nonetheless, I do not want to force you to visit her – go there only if you really want to!” Every child who is not stupid (and as a rule they are definitely not stupid) will immediately recognize the trap of this permissive attitude: beneath the appearance of a free choice there is an even more oppressive demand than the one formulated by the traditional authoritarian father, namely an implicit injunction not only to visit the grandmother, but to do it voluntarily, out of the child’s own free will. Such a false free choice is the obscene superego injunction: it deprives the child even of his inner freedom, ordering him not only what to do, but what to want to do.
You are "free" to take all the PTO you want, as long as your boss feels it is the appropriate amount, but they won't tell you up front how much is appropriate.
You could easily find a middle ground (call it “Confucian freedom”) where you aren’t expected to want to visit grandma, but you are expected to want to do your familial duty. This is a more general and socially-useful “want” that has been at the core of Western (“honor thy parents”) and Eastern (xiào, or “filial piety”) social organization for millennia.
I don’t think it’s “authoritarian” to teach deontological ethics that have a several-thousand-year track record of holding civil society together.
In a previous job I asked my manager if 6 weeks was reasonably in his mind. He said yes. I never had any issues taking time off in that job, and averaged 6+ weeks. I suppose it's true, he didn't establish a clear upper bound, but I doubt there was one. A "reasonable" upper bound could no doubt vary based on the situation.
It's definitely a good idea to establish a common ground up-front about what's reasonable, but I've never had any issues doing so.
One thing that's rarely mentioned is that for employees who accrue fixed vacation time, the monetary value of this time tends to be legally required in most US states to be paid out upon the employee's termination. I'd guess that with unlimited vacation time, $0 is paid out.
Yes and I believe this policy started at Netflix where they have (had?) higher relative salaries to compensate for this, but most companies that implement unlimited PTO skip that part.
The curious thing is that it's unlimited in much the way my unlimited data plan is. With an asterisk. If you take enough time, you get flagged and it will be denied. Something around the 25 day point is my understanding from folks I know who have experienced it.
Edit: I'm referring to the US with my comment
Obviously, if there is a minimum and rule that that minimum accrues if not used, it doesn't eliminate that, but it would avoid having an allotment above the legal minimum that accrues.
Obviously, though, it works best in places like the US that have no minimum (though the benefit is mitigated in those US states that don't even require paying out accrued time off in all cases to start with; the sweet spot for maximum employer advantage compared to alternatives from an unlimited PTO policy is situations like US states that do require paying out accrued vacation at the end of employment.)
Is this legally required? I worked at one place where this was the case and I was paid out for unused time upon leaving, but at another I was told I’d have to use it all up or lose it.
It’s also worth noting that employers are required to pay final wages — including unused PTO — within 72-hours of your final final shift.
So, the power move in response to such an employer would be to say you are quitting effective immediately and you expect your final check, including unused PTO, to be mailed out within 72-hours.
“Fuck me? No, fuck you.”
The best thing about unlimited vacation is that it adds flexibility, but you have to seize that flexibility. If you find yourself in a culture that "offers" unlimited vacation but, in practice, rewards employees who take very few days off, polish your resume and find a better place to work.
Most "unlimited PTO" is, I would argue a fraud. It's obviously not unlimited for real. And it serves as a way for companies to not have to pay out unused PTO when someone leaves.
And "unlimited PTO" starts the whole 'how much time is too much?' and a whole lot of angst on requesting days off. And that leads to studies showing "unlimited PTO folks" take 13 days off per year, and non-unlimited take 15 days off. https://lifehacker.com/why-unlimited-vacation-days-is-a-scam...
Contractual minimum PTO with unlimited policy fixes that problem.
My company (only 1 employee, myself) has a minimum vacation policy of 6 weeks per year. This year, I’ll be using something like 8 weeks in total. Last year, I used 12 weeks. The year before, 7 weeks.
It literally doesn’t matter if someone takes a day off here or there because they don’t feel well (and it doesn’t matter whether it’s mental, physical, whatever). They wouldn’t be producing any meaningful value anyway. Likewise, if we’re talking about a longer period, like a burn out, forcing someone to stay and work is not going to generate happy clients.
I’ve seen companies force someone to work while they were grieving because they weren’t _technically_ related to the person who passed. End result? Depression, poor performance, and the employee was let go a few months later.
In Denmark, you can easily go to your GP and get a few months off for “stress” anyway (that’s Danish lingo for burn out). The company can still let you go I guess, and that’s fine.
In many places, Denmark included, whether you have an unlimited vacation policy or not, you need to keep track of the holidays and whatever. The accounting needs to be done in either case. “Minimum vacation” just improves on this because the accounting is done for a reason: to make sure people get enough rest and time off. People not taking enough time off should be a red flag. And this belief must be espoused across the entire organisation.
It's one of those things that sounds great, but in practice kind of sucks. If you took PTO every day, that's obviously abusing the system, and so is taking 6 months off, and so is taking 2, etc. The ambiguity makes people not take advantage of the policy because of worries about how it'll be perceived. Plus, other people also don't take PTO, so the collective pressure is self-reinforcing.
In other places, management mean well but are not aware that people tend not to take enough holiday with unlimited PTO.
Finally, some places are aware of the issue and try to do something about it. My girlfriend is being forced to take two weeks off next month for this reason.
If you are interviewing somewhere with unlimited PTO, it is vital that you ask them how they ensure that people take enough holiday, and reject them if you’re not happy with the answer.
My previous employer had unlimited PTO, and it was great. My team's manager lead by example, and would take arbitrary days off just to go do something fun, and would tell us about it. We could take time off, and I can't remember a single time when a request was denied. (Obviously, the whole team can't take off for weeks on end, and there must be someone on-call, but we mostly managed it well.)
But I've definitely heard of companies where in practice, unlimited PTO is just a way to avoid paying out that money yearly/when you leave, and where the company culture looks down on anyone taking any time off.
You mentioned it yourself - you don't feel safe to take time off. So either your company is one of the latter, or you're psyching yourself out.
-------
Generic advice for anyone interviewing with a company that offers unlimited PTO: ask everyone you interview how much time they've taken off in the past year - that'll be your barometer for how the company treats unlimited PTO and its employees.
> This system provides unlimited vacation as long as everyone agrees that unlimited has another definition, a secret definition, and it is going to be discovered by the team.
> On paper, unlimited vacation means that you can work be employed for 90 days, and then retire, never to be heard from again. Obviously, you can’t do this or take a month off every quarter, even though this would fall under the unlimited definition.
> But what you actually can do without angering people becomes less clear. ... And when work gets really busy they can guilt you into not taking any time off because you can’t file PTO and feel morally
https://badsoftwareadvice.substack.com/p/how-to-create-a-pas...
https://www.charliehr.com/blog/we-tried-unlimited-holiday-he...
But the unlimited PTO isn't really the root cause: the safety is. If you're working in a job where you don't have psychological safety but you're banking a fixed rate of PTO, you'll take more vacation and your job will still be draining and stressful.
You're better off aiming for a role/company/etc that gives you that safety, and then using whatever PTO mechanism they have there.
That said, I've found it insanely beneficial after having kids and feel really fortunate that I'm able to utilize it.
Between Thanksgiving break (1 week), Christmas / winter break (2 weeks), ski week in February (1 week, I live in California and have no idea why we have this), spring break (1 week), various gaps in summer camp coverage (~2 weeks), we're looking at like a month and a half of time off per year right now. It's crazy.
(I wish it were all fun and relaxing. It isn't!)
If you draw a curve (likely bell shaped) of employee performance, there is high probability that those on lower half will be severely pressured into to taking PTOs (if they are self aware that is). this wont be compensated by employees on performing half.
In fact likely the way this would be used is most people will be overloaded with work under the pretense that its normal amount of work (i.e.. counting in PTO time) & those who fail to meet obligations and take PTOs will be dinged/let-go in reviews. the fact the you get accounting & tracking benefits is just a nice icing on cake.
its time to call a spade a spade.
There are numerous posts from people with differing experiences than yours, none of which boil down to “authority good”.
truly ask yourself this, given an anonymous choice with offer, how many people will have the 'unlimited pto' vs good old 4-6 weeks concrete time off that you have to inform your manager not 'discuss & work out'. its BS and you know it. oh and in case you are wondering, I am not some hothead fresh boot out of college, I have spent over 2 decades in valley with multiple startups and FANNGs. so this is not a casual remark.
But hey, we aren't face to face so I guess my experience doesn't count.
You’re using divisive, hyperbolic language to describe people who simply disagree with you or who have worked in places where unlimited felt, to them, like a better deal. Places you have not worked.
The entire point is that people use name-calling, specifically “bootlicker”, when they have nothing of value to say, and just want to punch anyone they disagree with in the metaphoric face.
I have worked places where five weeks was the minimum time you had to take off, with ability to take more, and places where you had limited PTO you were effectively prevented from using and which expired at the end of the year. That you have not had those experiences doesn’t make you the ultimate moral arbiter of truth.
In short, stop calling people names just because you think you have the only possible correct interpretation of something you clearly do not have universal experience in. It’s tacky and ugly.
With unlimited PTO every time I ask for days off I feel like I am asking for a favor.
I’ve always felt like the unlimited thing gained popularity partially because it’s a way for the company to avoid having a liability on the books. So not a “scam”, but not done out of total benevolence.
I take roughly 4-5 weeks off per year. If you're not using your PTO, that's on you, and it's not the company's fault or the policy's fault.
That said, we did have discussions about implementing a forced minimum time off that people were required to take in an attempt to eliminate the issue you're describing. Some people seem to need to be told to take the time off.
The super legit places will actually account for the liability on their books and pay out at the end of the fiscal year if for some reason you never took the minimums, which gives middle management no choice but to acquiesce or budget for it.
I did ask about this when I interviewed and was told that 5-6 weeks was considered normal. Obviously, it's not really unlimited. If I tried to take 20 weeks off I'm sure that would be a problem.
Here's it working: As a manager, my reports know they don't even need to give me a reason why they need PTO – indeed, I ask them not to tell me. We have sufficient trust that I know they're going to do their jobs and won't take PTO at, say, a critical juncture. Likewise, they know this about me, and so don't abuse the unlimited PTO.
Here's it not working: when reports take advantage of it, which manifests in regular weekly "I'm taking the day" over and over, often in excess, and at times when it impacts their co-workers. Likewise, when managers say "I know we have unlimited PTO buuuuuut I need you come in..." and the reason given is a bullshit one.
Trust is reciprocal.
In particular, in California (where many startups with "unlimited" PTO are located), the laws are such that employees accrue PTO, and that PTO must be paid out upon termination or leaving the company. By having "unlimited" PTO, the company no longer has PTO on the books that must be paid out, which affects their balance sheets.
The other thing, of course, is that it's unlimited until they fire you. Which at a high-paced startup that very much notices your absence (low bus factor), is going to be low.
As you've noticed, you often take less time off with unlimited PTO. That's a feature (for the company) not a bug. Some more advanced places with unlimited PTO have a minimum PTO of 2 weeks for this reason.
Most important is to do right by you, and take more vacation!
On the plus side, if I book out the family holidays and school holidays and and some time at Christmas and a few days for gigs or whatever, then as soon as something unexpected comes up I need to start horse-trading my days off to "balance" if I have a hard limit. With unlimited, I can just take the time for the unexpected thing without worrying about really accounting for it.
On the down side, it's clearly not _umlimited_. Managers talk about it in an unwritten "code" of what's reasonable. 35 days max, basically. Most roles in my industry in the UK will give you about 28 by default. So on that basis it's an extra week off.
This is my first year with it. I expect I'll be somewhere between 35 and 40 days by the end of the holiday year. I'm interested to hear what comes back as a result of that.
1. If you are not taking enough PTO your manager should intervene and make you take some time off.
2. If you are taking too much time off your manager should intervene and refuse the time off.
3. The unwritten rule is that unless you booked it six months before, upcoming critical deliveries are not a good time to take time. Again however, this should have been mitigated by the fact it WAS booked six months ago by management.
That said. no-one is PTO clock watching unless its abused. It should be a self-regulating idea. You are getting work done, you and your efforts are successful then sure take the time.
It can also look attractive to employees, but I recall studies showing that employees take less time under these plans
My spouse’s company has an officially unlimited PTO policy. In their experience, they’ve only ever been spoken to for not taking enough, and %%Current Management%% has spoken on the record about expecting employees to take a minimum of weeks off per year.
Unlimited PTO seems to be squarely in the YMMV arena. I am sure some organizations have used it as a bait and switch hook, but I do not think it’s generally a scam.
YMMV -- other places I've been told are not so good about it.
For example all you can eat restaurants. Put a limit on how long someone can sit at a table and slow walk the food and you effectively have a limit on how much can be served.
Employers can find all kinds of way to do this with unlimited PTO.
My last private industry employer gave 30 days of pto in addition to holidays and sick and disability. Since it was an accrued benefit, when I left I was paid out about 5 weeks.
Unlimited pto is not accrued and is not a benefit so it’s not nearly as good unless they have lots of usage.
1. Place is predatory and unlimited pto is used as a way to minimize pto employees are taking 2. Place has healthy work life balance and unlimited pto is a way to give responsibility to adults who agreed on working towards a common goal
Figure out which of the two your place is and act accordingly.
I've been at 2 places with healthy unlimited pto, so my opinion is skewed
If they don’t give an answer just say “my prior employer was unlimited and 4 weeks a year was typical, does that sound similar? Also do you need manager approval?”
current place unlimited = 4 weeks or more
That's my main takeaway from this discussion. All the other points became secondary.