I often found it discouraging to contemplate how much time and energy is spent thinking and arguing about PTO (paid time off) policies. It turns everyone into a FlyerTalk forum member. Worrying about how to game the system, or prevent it from being gamed. Worrying that someone else is getting a better deal. It's a huge time and morale suck.
Sometimes I wonder how much of the problem is the "P" in PTO. When you're paid not to work, you're effectively getting a bonus -- being paid more for the time you do work. This also makes it a hot button for labor law -- if you leave with unused PTO, you need to be paid for it. Because it was never really about the time off. It was about the money.
Instead, what about simply having "UTO" -- unpaid time off? Take as much time as you need or want. Everyone will understand you're not getting something "extra" they're not getting. You're simply choosing to work somewhat less and to be paid somewhat less.
And to be clear, if an organization switched from PTO to UTO, they should give a one-time equivalent raise to make people whole.
I definitely don't claim this will resolve all the issues (humans in an organization will always find something upsetting). But wouldn't it eliminate a very big chunk of the ill will?
I had a job in college that basically worked like that. (Technically I was a contractor). The idea was, I'd bill them for hours I worked, but since I was a student there was an understanding that some weeks I'd work more or less. I thought that system was GREAT for both parties. It was nice to be able to dial things back when I was stressed without feeling guilty about working only 20 hours or whatever, and my managers didn't have to worry about if I was working "hard enough". There was no concept of "vacation" because if I didn't want to work that week, I'd just send an email saying "I'm out for a bit".
The other thing is that being a salaried employee, I really hate the subtle implications in every communication that the company "owns" you (I mean obviously not really, but most things are phrased in a master-servant sort of context), or that you're "part" of a larger corporate "family". Fuck that. I'm here because you give me money. I probably like the people I work with, but I really have no interest in having the company I work for be a significant part of my identity. I actually like the contractor setup better, as I never really felt like where I worked was some important part of my identity, and I generally would like to keep the relationship casual.
A UTO plan sounds enticing, but it wouldn't address individuals who are reluctant to take time off at all, leading to burnout. This is listed as Jacob's first "Con."
Perhaps a combination? A minimum number of annually expiring PTO days, with an open policy of UTO beyond that?
I agree this would be a major problem. It's one of the biggest problems listed with unlimited vacation, and that's when you're still getting money for it.
I think the underlying problem is the conflation of hours worked with value to the company. I think most people will be more productive for a company working reasonable hours for at most 50 weeks a year than working all 52 (minus holidays in both cases).
Accordingly, I think it is appropriate for a company to pay you to not work some of the time. I think that fits with your suggestion pretty well: give an employee 4 weeks PTO (or whatever you think will optimize their productivity and happiness), with the option to take more UTO that might not be an upside for the company.
edit: There should probably still be some reasonable cap on the additional UTO. Not pay their salary during vacation still doesn't account for fixed costs like health insurance and office space. In practice I don't think most people would take enough UTO for this to be a real issue, especially with the work culture in the U.S.
> Your pay is not tied to how many hours you work as we are overwelmingly talking about sallried profesionals on HN.
Maybe not hours. But definitely some unit. There is always a pay rate, whether the denominator is "hour" or "month" or "year".
PTO is a way to diddle the denominator -- a way of saying that a "year" isn't 52 weeks, it's 50 (or 46 or whatever) -- without changing the numerator. It increases the rate, but not how much money you get.
UTO just keeps the rate fixed.
Admittedly PTO is better HR "marketing" or "optics" -- the company and/or politician can say they're "paying you even when you're not working", which sounds wonderful. Yet people burn time worrying about how it works, and is it fair. And the economic reality is you're only getting paid for working.
Admittedly I don't know if UTO would actually help. It may be the case that people inclined to agonize over HR stuff or game the system will still find a way.
You are conflating a pay schedule with a pay rate. The GP's point is that a salary is meant to be a fixed pay schedule where competing your duties to your enployer's satisfaction entitles you to continue getting paid an agreed-upon amount on a defined schedule. If it's metered by time, that's really just an hourly worker with a multiplier on his punchcard.
Just offering unpaid time off would mean people who are tight on money would take exactly 0 days off. Because at the end of the month your paycheck is going to be that many days smaller.
Unpaid time off is an interesting approach, but companies generally consider Unpaid time off not as neutral, but as a loss (due to missed opportunities, rent, and equipment cost).
Sometimes I wonder how much of the problem is the "P" in PTO. When you're paid not to work, you're effectively getting a bonus -- being paid more for the time you do work. This also makes it a hot button for labor law -- if you leave with unused PTO, you need to be paid for it. Because it was never really about the time off. It was about the money.
Instead, what about simply having "UTO" -- unpaid time off? Take as much time as you need or want. Everyone will understand you're not getting something "extra" they're not getting. You're simply choosing to work somewhat less and to be paid somewhat less.
And to be clear, if an organization switched from PTO to UTO, they should give a one-time equivalent raise to make people whole.
I definitely don't claim this will resolve all the issues (humans in an organization will always find something upsetting). But wouldn't it eliminate a very big chunk of the ill will?