re: EDIT: Should employees be allowed unpaid leave if their work is covered?

Boomers don't fricking get it. They treat our generation like shite and then complain when we get an attitude.

Starting April 1, my company will offer unlimited vacation :)

How in the hell does that work?

You sound like a coddled pussy to me. No way in hell will you make it.

Basically they don't track any time off. Obviously, I can't decide to take 2 months off tomorrow.

Certain level employees have had this for the past year. Nice that if you occasionally want a long weekend you don't worry that you won't have enough vacation later at the holidays, etc.

Most people take some time off after a big release, slow work times before ramping up for the next one.

It also keeps all that liability for GE off the books since they would never have to "cash out" vacation on termination, etc

If the best candidate for the job has a week vacation planned shortly after they would begin work, it's usually not a big enough deal to warrant taking the next best candidate.

At the end of the day, a company will downsize you or terminate your position without any hesitation if need be. Companies have no true loyalty to their employees. So why shouldn't employees be focused on maximizing their own benefits. Trust me, practices like Mad Dog are scraping bottom of the barrel people.

Vacation and Time off are a must. The job I took as a sales rep for a regional supplier included at least 12 days of PTO and 2 weeks of vacation. Not to mention home by 5 and weekends off. I left a job with better insurance and retirement plans but a lot worse on the time off and vacation and schedule.

Apart from money, time off is the most important factor for employees.

quote:

---

How in the hell does that work?

---

I was interviewing with a company that had this policy. You can't just up and leave one day for a month without warning, but it allows the employee the ability to come and go more freely.

It's a smart move for the early adopting companies because they've found that employees don't take any more time off than previously (spouses are still on standard plans, performance goals still need to be met, etc.) and they don't have to carry vacation time on the balance sheet to pay out when an employee leaves.

If my boss posts or lurks here and sees this, trust that I say this as respectfully as possible...

I started my job on 6/1/2015. I made them aware prior to hiring that I had plans to take off time in November for a previously planned vacation. It happened to be two working days I missed, but I don't even count this since it was discussed and approved prior to my employment.

A few days ago I made my boss aware that I'd like to take 3 days off in April for a vacation I have planned. We talked today and he begrudgingly allowed me to do so, but made it clear that I already get half of the year off (12 hr rotating shift work), that I had not accrued vacation yet (40 hrs after 1 year employment), and that I had already taken days off (the 2 days I missed but were approved before hiring).

He still approved me to take off, but he was hesitant and only really said yes after I made him aware I had already gotten the ball rolling on making plans.

Now I'm not mad at the situation, he let me take off in the end so
I'm grateful. But I'm just like, it's 3 days out of 9 months of employment. Is that horrible that I'd ask for that? And it's unpaid. And I expect it to be unpaid. But he griped that the company was watching its OT that they'd have to give to someone to cover my shifts.

I know, I know, tl;dr

quote:

---

If someone is the ideal candidate for the job, choosing not to hire them because they have a vacation planned is stupid as hell. Sounds like something an out-of-touch old school white haired company president halfway on his death bed would do.

---

This probably holds true for some jobs, but not all.

I have a couple of teams under my leadership, one of which is an entry level position. The job is 24/7/365. Perfect example, I just started this job recently, and it was woefully understaffed. Shortly after, i had a team member on the already short night shift ask for 1 week off. Great employee, been here 10 years, but I had to decline as PTO is given based on business need, and basically it just wasn't possible for me to just give her the time off based on the staffing. No more than 2 weeks later, I offer a night position to a candidate, and she says upon hire that she needs that exact same week off. I wouldn't be able to justify not giving the tenured employee off then giving the new employee off, that wouldn't fly with the team member or HR if she took it there. I wouldn't have won that one.


And FWIW, with the tenured team member, it wasn't a 100% that she couldn't have the time off, I just couldn't approve it at that time, until I could guarantee staffing would be in a better place during that timeframe she needed off.