Hacker News Reader

Comment by zheng | Hacker News Reader

You're missing the point. I would like it if they just paid me an extra $7500 a year as well. Then I would end up taking a 7-day working vacation. I know it's not good for me, but I do it anyways. I sure as hell wouldn't spend $7500 on vacation (that's over double what I've ever spent for my wife and I).

By forcing me to only get the money if I use it for vacation, I will have a better time, and I will relax more, both of which will improve my stress levels, etc. Also, the fact that they are pushing this into their culture shows that they truly value some sense of work/life balance, which is a big turn on for a company. So many companies say they want work/life balance, then you see that working <60hr weeks is seen as not pulling your weight.

View on HN

As an employee of FullContact, I very much appreciate that the $7500 is special-purpose fun money. I'd otherwise just squirrel it away and feel bad about spending money on a fun vacation. Everyone else in the office feels the same, and feels valued as a human being not just a ROI.

I'm sure the end goal for FullContact is ROI. Or at least, it should be if they want to stay in business. They are making the bet that true, off-grid vacation each year will help their employees be more productive, efficient, loyal, etc, which certainly is a return on the $7,500 (+ time) investment.

Agreed, and we're aware of it. It's a tradeoff I'm personally willing to make. It's symbiotic and very friendly to us.

Agreed -- the $7500 would be a nice raise, but... it likely would end up in savings or something of the sort, as opposed to really taking the opportunity to take a fantastic vacation that I would likely feel guilty spending my own money. The psychological aspect of spending a budget set by my employer for vacation would make it all the more relaxing.

I also imagine, as $7500 is higher than most people spend on vacation, that it can lead to broader life/world experiences by employees on vacation that hopefully can lead to great new ideas. It never hurts to have employees with wide world views and experiences.

I worked at a company that tried this in 1993.

People hated it. They resented being told how they had to spend their time off. Some just wanted to veg at home or visit family or do any number of other activities. They didn't want to be forced to go some place that the company would spend $7500 on and they felt that those who did go were getting a $7.5k bonus that they weren't

Suppose one company offered you an extra $7500 vacation, and one just offered you an extra $7500. Which company would you work for?

Like I said in my OP, the one who gives it to me for vacation. Otherwise my savings account grows by $7500 and I take a very modest vacation, which is probably worse for me in the long run. Also, I'm not the only one who makes decisions, and I know that if I told my wife we had to spend $7500 on vacation she would be much happier than if I told her I got a $7500 raise that was going in the bank.

There's nothing stopping the company from letting you take a vacation that is not a working vacation. The $7,500 is irrelevant to the conversation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com