Hacker News Reader

Comment by butwhy | Hacker News Reader

Why do companies even try out these weird policies? They've gone from having unlimited days (then admitted it was a mistake for 2 whole years) and are now blindly trying out another unusual strategy. I don't see why they don't just offer a standard solution which seems to work for most companies, instead of trying to be extremely controlling of people.

View on HN

Uh, having 20-25 (almost mandatory) days of per year is implemented by law here in most countries of EU. How is that a "wierd" policy?

(By "almost mandatory" I mean that at least here, you must use up your vacation days until end of next year.)

20 days is mandatory where I live and I don't need to take them all if I don't want to (they still accrue). I get along just fine.

Laws in France state that employers have to make sure every employee takes at least 2 consecutive weeks (ie 10 work days) between June & September. So, yes, mandatory.

Taking vacations only outside summer is forbidden in France?

No, they have to take at least a summer vacation. They get another 5 or so weeks off to use during the rest of the year

That's an infantilizing policy. Why should the government decide when you take some of your vacation?

It's the result of populism, not government scheming

No. The whole is 4 or 5 weeks.

In the US that's weird because the mandatory days off per year are 0. A good amount for most people in the US is 10 days per year (or two weeks). I get 4 weeks which is pretty great but many of the people I work with end up not taking all of those days or taking days and also working on them due to culture. It's ridiculous.

I think the US is the only country with a 0.

> In the US that's weird because the mandatory days off per year are 0.

Only if you assume that a nation-wide law is the only condition under which non-zero vacation days will emerge.

Most people get some time off but a significant amount of people still get no time off and work on holidays.

5 days is pretty common actually (the week between Christmas and New Years).

I don't think these are weird policies anymore. I work at a major software company and one year ago, we went from having a set of number of vacations days to an "unlimited vacation" policy. Many companies are already doing this or following suit.

In California at least, I suspect this has something more to do with accounting than experimentation, i.e. the companies don't have to have on their books the money owed if people were to leave without using all their vacation.

While that liability is nice, I think the world is better off without it. If people know they can't take their vacation with them, they'll actually take it when it's appropriate.

The liability situation is a lose-lose one. You take less vacation because you're comfortable you'll get it and the company gets a liability on the books because you work too hard.

Without the liability, you'll see a lot of people take vacation during layoffs though.

> Without the liability, you'll see a lot of people take vacation during layoffs though.

Not necessarily -- quantitatively unlimited vacation doesn't mean that the vacation can be taken without management approval of the specific timing, it just means that its not held to a fixed limit.

I don't think the traditional model (in the US, at least) is an ideal solution. MasterCard recently aired a commercial taking advantage of the fact that Americans have so much unused, paid vacation time each year.

The only way for us to come up with a better solution is for people to test things out.

There's a major problem in the US when it comes to PTO. I don't think you can really fault people for trying to work it out a bit better.

PTO is a bit pathological at my current company, for instance, and if I could change anything about my job, it'd be this. But I've found this is representative of a ton of jobs in the US.

First, basically everybody works when taking PTO. The founders work full-time when they take PTO, but just from home or the beach or whatever. Regular employees, with a few exceptions, don't work that much, but are generally expected, via some unspoken convention, to be available for any emergencies and to reply to emails and bug reports, etc.

You have no separate queue of "sick days". So you definitely don't want to use all your PTO for actual vacation time, because then you're in a pickle if you actually get sick. Or what if you have kids, and your kid unexpectedly gets really sick? You have to use PTO for that. There's nothing quite like using PTO when you're sick and still being generally available for emails and emergencies.

Mandatory vacation time would set a precedent of not being afraid to take true vacations during which you truly don't work.

I disagree that the standard solution works. At least in the US, the standard solution is to offer very few vacation days, compared to other countries. And with the presenteeism work culture, you can't even get people to use all their vacation days. So I'm not surprised companies are trying out new policies.

What is "extremely controlling of people" using their current approach? What is "extremely controlling of people" using their previous approach?

A minimum vacation policy is the same as a normal one. You just don't have to get special approval or get your pay docked if you go over.

I agree. This policy certainly sounds better than the unlimited policy, but it's still fairly silly. Will they actually fire or discipline someone if they take less than the minimum vacation days?

Mandatory vacation is hardly weird and is recommended in several high-security jobs and industries.

given is a .de maybe authorities got wind of what was happening and thy had to change to avoid "legal entanglements"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com