The big announcement is they are giving everyone one extra day off around a national holiday as a reward. We already have "unlimited" PTO but of course can't really use it. So their reward is letting us use a benefit we already supposedly had.
You're right that there can be a problem at small companies when you hire someone out of a toxic company. Some people love the fresh start and are so happy to finally be in a healthy environment that they thrive.
Some people are so broken from toxic previous employers that they can't adapt. We hired a lot of people out of a competitive Big Tech office and it was probably a 50/50 flip of the coin if they were going to be great to work with or toxic political monsters. I had to have so many difficult conversations with people who could only see their coworkers and other teams as competitors who had to be defeated that I nearly had a prepared speech on the topic. The politics and attempted backstabbing was insane. It was also weird that they thought it was going to work at a small company where we knew the people they were trying to backstab for years.
These companies are not monoliths though. Statistics really matter.
Because there's no such thing. Or rather, there are until it's unprofitable enough that caring seriously threatens the bottom line, or the nice owners sell off to someone less nice.
>All employees want, in theory, to take as much vacation as possible. But they also all want to take just slightly less vacation than each other, to be perceived as more loyal, more committed, and more dedicated (hence more promotion-worthy). Everyone looks to the others for a baseline, and will take just slightly less than that. The Nash equilibrium of this game is zero.Relevant for big companies where people intend to have decade spanning careers with multiple promotions.
But for the tech worker who is going to have a series of 1-3 year stints at different companies, their promotions are more likely to come from switching companies than from showing loyalty or commitment to their current employer.
https://www.businessinsider.com/unlimited-pto-vacation-scam-...
It also means that employees don't accrue PTO days, and therefore don't have to be paid out for that time when they're fired.
The origin story is that "discretionary PTO" was created to enable people to take longer vacations than was feasible within the regulatory constraints of accrual-based PTO. It can be abused in other ways but the intent of the people that invented it were employee-friendly.
It's just so slimy.
It started as a positive thing, intending to trust the employees and give flexibility. Unfortunately, like a lot of things, sleazy leaders turn flexibility into manipulation.
Anytime something is marketed as unlimited, it's not.
Accountants like it because guaranteed time-off is a liability that appears on the company's books as a debt, especially in California where the company is required to pay it out when you leave (whether fired or voluntary).
But what happens in practice is no one feels like they are entitled to the time they should be entitled to, and negotiations from the employee side always come from a place of weakness. It's a terrible system.
Undoubtedly someone will respond to this post with just how amazing their manager is and that they have never had a problem. But you know when I have never had a problem taking time off, even a long time off? When I could point to the corporate policy that says I have X days, and I was taking those days.
And now I'm not playing manager roulette on whether or not I have the time, or how kind they are feeling. Or how buddy-buddy we are.
It's one of those things that are great in theory, and terrible in real life.
Seems much more likely companies just trying to squeeze employees into taking less PTO.
A somewhat random example:
https://www.higginbotham.com/blog/unlimited-pto-pros-cons/
"Cost efficiency. Traditional PTO policies can result in financial liabilities due to unused vacation payouts when employees leave the company. With unlimited PTO, these liabilities are eliminated. This can be particularly advantageous for companies looking to manage their finances more effectively."
But surely it can't be a significant amount of make sense to implement this kind of police only for this unless the company has insane turnover (so "unpaid" PTO is not paid out as cash). The reduced amount of PTO staff takes must be the main reason.
Unpaid PTO is (assuming that the employee _doesn't_ leave the company) essentially debt in the company books with 0% interest rate.
> Undoubtedly someone will respond to this post with just how amazing their manager is and that they have never had a problem.
That me! Except I don't think it has anything to do with my manager or company.
I've worked 5 different jobs over the last 12 years with 8 or 9 different managers and literally never had an issue with taking the time I want while taking 6-8 weeks of PTO a year. I've hit the point where when I'm looking for a new job unlimited PTO is kind of table stakes.
I manage a few teams now with some people in the US where my company does unlimited PTO and others in Canada where our company cannot give unlimited PTO. Looking at my teams, the amount of PTO people take has almost no correlation to whether they have unlimited PTO or a set number of days. I have US employees who take a ton of PTO and Canadian employees who have burned through their entire balance and then some and I have employees in both places who take essentially none.
I get that if you're in that second group it's preferable to be in a place where you'll get paid out for the days you didn't take, but I'm pretty convinced that unlimited vs set days has almost no bearing on how many PTO days someone will actually take.
But adding all that manager and corporate discretion sets one up for abuse when things go wrong at either the manager or corporate level. For some, I suppose the benefit is worth it--but if "unlimited vs set days has almost no bearing on how many PTO days someone will actually take", then people are giving up a lot of guarantees for very little benefit on their side. Especially the payout when you leave.
I have never worked at a place where I didn't need manager approval for my PTO. That includes places where I had a set PTO balance.
In my experience, having banked PTO days doesn't actually give you any real protection from abuse. A manager can still deny every single PTO request or load you up with so much work that taking any PTO will result in you falling behind. The only difference is that the company then needs to pay you out for those days, which isn't nothing, but it's also not a ton of protection from abuse.
I was once on a team where the manager thought he was being tough by really discouraging PTO taking in their team, and it was all great until we got to the end of the year with pretty much everyone on the team still having 20+ days of PTO left. HR just made everyone take the entire december off to use those days up, after that once incident no one had any issues booking PTO the following year.
If the number of PTO days taken is the same between the groups, isn't it CLEARLY superior from an employee perspective to have a set amount? That way, you get paid out if you leave or are fired.
I know quite a few people who use their PTO as a sort of emergency fund if they are laid off... they will at least get paid that amount to hold them over until the next job.
For me, no. I take more PTO than most companies with limited PTO offer. Most big tech companies offer 20-25 days and I'm taking 30 minimum. I take 6-8 weeks a year and the year I got married, I took 10. A normal year of PTO for me is 2 weeks during the summer for a vacation, a week at Thanksgiving, a week in April or May since my family has multiple birthdays in that window, 2-3 weeks in the Christmas/NYE period, and then random days here and there for the rest of the year.
For my team, for the people on the low end banked PTO is probably better. For the people on the high end they often take more than the allotment for CA employees, so no.
Everyone's experience will be different, but in my career I've always found that unlimited PTO often means no one cares how much PTO you take as long as you're getting your work done. I value that freedom. I know it's not for everyone and I'm not saying that every company should be unlimited PTO, but I just hate this narrative that it's a scam.
Why not take 10 weeks or 12 weeks? If it's unlimited?
And how many other employees are only taking half of what they would be taking because they feel silently pressured to - and do all of those missing weeks make up for the single extra week you're taking?
He was taking roughly a third of his time off.
Fired inside 6 months, and amazed it took this long.
At some companies, the directive from the top to management was to make sure people took at least 3-5 weeks of PTO every year. For legal reasons you can't keep official track of this (it will be imputed as accrual) but managers would actively nudge people to take more PTO.
If you proactively manage it, it works pretty well.
The management culture in the US (other places too, but I'm most familiar with the US) is such that any time the employee (particularly ICs/line employees) wants to spend outside of work is automatically considered suspect.
This is because non-management employees are considered to be inherently lazy and constantly seeking to get as much out of the organization as possible for as little work as possible. And when they do work, they're considered to be incompetent and malicious (requiring constant supervision).
I wondered how real those stories were, but that is probably what companies are thinking everyone is like.
Of course, it’s well in advance, and nearly always avoids big company plans.
In other words, it is roughly the same way as regular PTO except "unused" PTO doesn't accumulate, and you won't get paid for any unused PTO at the end of your employment - which is the the whole point of "unlimited PTO"
Different people have different temperaments. Unlimited PTO works great for me because I am more likely to actually take time off when I don't have to meter it. When vacation days are limited, they feel scarce and precious, so I avoid using them if at all possible - what if something more important were to come up later in the year, after I'd run out? It's stressful. There are never enough PTO days.
When I don't have to count days or worry about whether I have enough left, I'll just take time off, whenever the occasion arises. Taking all the time I want doesn't actually end up being much more than I'd be allowed if I had to ration it out.
This creates some complications for the company where the accumulated PTO can be a liability on the books. It's a number that represents something they have to pay out with no labor in return. Depending on laws and circumstances they may also have to pay out the PTO balance when someone departs the company.
Some companies skip all of this by switching to untracked PTO, which is often sold as unlimited PTO. Employees don't accumulate a PTO balance and when they go on vacation they get paid normally, not out of a separate bucket. No extra liabilities on the book.
The trick is that PTO is now up to your manager's approval and judgment. At good companies you can actually take advantage of this for a more relaxed and flexible PTO schedule if you get your work done. I have done it and it's great when the company is good.
At bad companies, it becomes a trick where your manager always says "I don't know, now isn't really a good time to take that much time off" and then everyone gets less vacation time than they had before. I have also experienced this and it's very depressing.
It's uncomfortable for employees but employers tout how comfortable it is.
I’ve heard horror stories about unlimited equating to zero. But I’ve also heard plenty of horror stories about PTO and unpaid time off getting denied as well. There is not much for employee protections in the states.
Maybe the hate for DTO in well compensated circles like this comes from people who were already getting 6 weeks of PTO. I would imagine they’re not comparing DTO against the 4 weeks my sister has as a senior dev in a marketing firm with an extra day per year of service or the _3_ weeks my mother had at 65 working as a data analyst for a healthcare company. Or maybe my company is just a unicorn in a sea of companies abusing it with people not being able to get any time off at all.
People are talking about how it’s always busy, there’s never enough time etc. That’s true almost everywhere. The work never stops. There’s always a project, always a critical bug, always a new initiative, always the next sprint. There’s more work than could ever be done with twice the employees. Good culture just mandates that you work around peoples absence and so is fine if people are out. Likewise as a good employee you don’t abuse unlimited and take off half the year.
We're all just hunkering down.
Maybe next they’ll give you housing from the company property, and sell groceries from the company store, and see a company doctor.