Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Woods on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:45AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the I-am-on-vacation-right-now-and-loving-it dept.

According to Glassdoor's Q1 2014 Employment Confidence Survey, the average U.S. employee (of those who receive vacation/paid time off) only takes half (51%) of his or her eligible vacation time/paid time off. In addition, when employees do take paid time off, three in five (61%) admit doing some work. Each quarter, the Glassdoor Employment Confidence Survey monitors four key indicators of employment confidence: salary expectations, job security, the job market and company outlook. This quarter's survey also took a look at employee vacation time, including the percentage of eligible vacation time/paid time off employees actually take, how much they work and why while on vacation, among other realities.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:00AM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:00AM (#37456) Homepage

    The Joke's on them -- I take a day off as soon as I save up 8 hours of sick or vacation time. That way they can't screw me out of it if I get let go on bad terms.

    Hahahah. BAAhahahah. WaaaHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

    Filter Error: shut the fuck up, you loud obnoxious asshole!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:13AM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:13AM (#37459)

      were you born yesterday?

      they legally have to give you all your earned vacation time, in pay, when you leave.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by redneckmother on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:20AM

        by redneckmother (3597) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:20AM (#37499)

        Yeah, right... all of your "earned" time... except for all the "off the books, unofficial 'comp' time" that you accumulated from the 72 hour weekend implementation gigs. Eff 'em.

        --
        Mas cerveza por favor.
        • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:44PM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:44PM (#37620) Homepage

          Or you've used their tuition reimbursement program and they've decided to give a very generous take-it-or-leave-it 40K/yr offer after you graduate your computer science or engineering coursework.

          That nice Mr. Tate down the street is offering me 60K, so I'll pay you back whenever I feel like, haha. Thanks for the free college, but no thanks!

          • (Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:28PM

            by TK (2760) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:28PM (#37670)

            I don't know how yours is set up, but for all the tuition reimbursement programs I've seen the setup is usually like this.

            1. Pay for class(es) and book(s)
            2. Finish class with C or better
            3. Get reimbursed up to a limited dollar amount based on grade and/or yearly limit set by HR.

            Then you have two options, with two sub-options.

            A. Keep working there for some period of time (2~3 years)
            B. Ditch those losers are go work for $CoolCompany
              a) Pay back original company the cost of all tuition reimbursement within the period of time specified in A. Possibly prorated.
              b) Have $CoolCompany pay you all or part of that money as a signing bonus.

            I've never seen a program that allows anyone to take the "thanks for the free degree, see you suckers!" route.

            --
            The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
      • (Score: 2) by darinbob on Wednesday April 30 2014, @02:51AM

        by darinbob (2593) on Wednesday April 30 2014, @02:51AM (#37960)

        Unless they're out of business and can't even make payroll.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by strattitarius on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:10AM

    by strattitarius (3191) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:10AM (#37466) Journal

    So I have worked for years for places with the two most common policies: use it or lose it, and accrue up to around 2-3 years worth of accruals.

    At use it or lose it companies, most employees take a majority of their vacation. Some take none or little; some take a day as soon as they get 8 hours accrued. Most take a few days to make 4 day weekends, around major holidays and for a week of vacation or stay-cation.

    At accrual companies, there is still the same mix and extremes, but the curve is slanted/shifted well towards employees taking little or no vacation. Many will take the day here or there. Many fewer take traditional vacations. As an unintended consequence, when I left the accrual company I got nearly a two month bonus for unused vacation.

    If I were setting a policy today, I would make vacation use or lose in the calendar year. You get it all on 1/1. This encourages employees to use vacation to take some time off and relax, and doesn't give them a bonus (maybe as big as they will ever get) for leaving the company. It would be interesting to see if those that take 8 hours as soon as they get it, would take the first XX days off...

    --
    Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:55AM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:55AM (#37489)

      'use it or lose it' is stupid. it punishes the employee and literally steals from him. money does not 'age' and you can't just negate a debt due to time expiring on some stupid arbitrary interval like you can with UIOLI. its completely a for-company benefit and this is never in your best interest, as an employee.

      what right do you have, as an employer to say that I should not take double my vacation next year if I'm willing to skip it this year? maybe I'm going to get married in a year or 2 and want to save up for an extended period of time. or there is a sick relative. lots of reasons why I should have the FREEDOM to save my time and use it when and where I see fit. its MINE and its really wrong for anyone to 'expire' my time.

      in california, in a related topic, it was several years ago that they ruled that many coupons and gift certificates could not 'expire'. it was a scam for business to have things expire. you paid for them, why WOULD they expire? what an absurd concept! and so, at least in some places, they see this as the scam that it is and they don't let money 'expire' just because you bought a GC and are holding it.

      I worked for a company in the 80's for about 5 yrs and I saved up my vacation time. when I left the company I got it all back and - oh boy - did I really enjoy that lump sum. it was mine, I earned it and I got it all when I left. why should I have left *value* on the table each year due to some arbitrary period of time?

      its wrong and any company that does this is a cheapscate, plain and simple. this is never in your interest to lose things you earned and are due you.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:06AM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:06AM (#37493)

        "Use it or lose it" causes an entire company to take the last week of the year off since they had to save it "just in case" they get sick or something. One of two things happens, either a company realizes this is stupid and allows employees to save vacation days (up to a reasonable limit), or more usually they say "nope, too many people requested off first, you cant take the days off, fuck you."

        That second one ought to be illegal, but with right-to-work states, I am sure they can get away with it anyhow by trying to blame the employee because their policy was shortsighted.

        The company I work for actually does the first option in a way better than anyplace else I have worked. Reasonable vacation saving policy, and the entire company takes the last week of the year off. Obviously this only really works for a very small company, and an on-call schedule is maintained to make sure no fires occur while we are out, but we get pretty rare support calls over the holidays anyhow.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by khchung on Tuesday April 29 2014, @06:10AM

          by khchung (457) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @06:10AM (#37539)

          "Use it or lose it" causes an entire company to take the last week of the year off since they had to save it "just in case" they get sick or something.

          No, it is the stupid and exploitative idea that employees should give up an entitled day off if they got sick.

          Sick Leave is for sickness. Your leave days are yours to use at your discretion. This may sound miraculous to long-abused Americans, but in Europe and many Asian countries, workers are entitled to many sick leave days, most companies only require proof from doctor if you take, say, more than 2 days consecutively, or are obviously abusing the system.

          If I were sick, I can just give my boss a call at 9am and tell him I will take a sick day off. No questions asked, and no impact to my remaining leave days. Obviously, I don't work in the US.

          People might keep 2-3 days until year end to cover for other situations, but that's only because HR is too stupid to put the "lose it" cutoff at year's end. Put it at end-February so there are 2 months overlap, then no more problem.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Jerry Smith on Tuesday April 29 2014, @06:52AM

            by Jerry Smith (379) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @06:52AM (#37543) Journal

            No, it is the stupid and exploitative idea that employees should give up an entitled day off if they got sick.

            Sick Leave is for sickness. Your leave days are yours to use at your discretion. This may sound miraculous to long-abused Americans, but in Europe and many Asian countries, workers are entitled to many sick leave days, most companies only require proof from doctor if you take, say, more than 2 days consecutively, or are obviously abusing the system.

            Yes, when I first heard of this US policy I thought I was taken the piss. However it's true: if you're sick it's in your own time. Consequence: sick people will show up, hardly do anything worthwhile except exchange viruses (virii?) with colleagues.

            Reason why 'use it or lose it' is used, is because a free day NOT used by the employee is considered asset for the company hence will be taxed as such. People that work in schools (for instance) get the same amount of free hours as the other employees (teachers, up to 50 days a year) but maintenance people in that school hardly ever get to use them all. Sure, they can have them exchanged for money but then it will get heavier taxed, as it is not considered normal salary.
            So maintenance personnel exchanges one year of left-over free days (20 days approx, $1400) and the next year invests that in a looong holiday in Brasil. Or new toys or other expensivish stuff.

            --
            All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
          • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:20PM

            by mojo chan (266) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:20PM (#37616)

            In the EU if you get sick on vacation you can convert those days to sick days, and get the vacation days back to use again.

            --
            const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 29 2014, @11:39PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @11:39PM (#37922) Journal

            If I were sick, I can just give my boss a call at 9am and tell him I will take a sick day off. No questions asked, and no impact to my remaining leave days. Obviously, I don't work in the US.

            All depends on the company in the US. At my office we generally only use sick days for really severe illnesses -- only if you actually NEED to see a doctor or something. If you're well enough to lay there with the laptop open while you watch TV, you login from home and make yourself available should anyone really *need* you, and they count that as working.

            So *technically* I haven't taken a sick day in almost two years...

          • (Score: 2) by darinbob on Wednesday April 30 2014, @03:07AM

            by darinbob (2593) on Wednesday April 30 2014, @03:07AM (#37966)

            A lot of companies have combined vacation and sick days. This has a big advantage because there are some employees who refuse to take a sick day if they're not really sick, and some who won't take them if they don't feel sick enough, because to them they feel like this is cheating. While other employees will readily take a "sick" day and spend it at the beach. So it's encouragement to actually take the day, use it for extending a bereavement leave or other family emergency, and so forth.

      • (Score: 1) by jelizondo on Tuesday April 29 2014, @04:42AM

        by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 29 2014, @04:42AM (#37517) Journal

        money does not 'age' and you can't just negate a debt due to time expiring

        Well. I got news for you! Debt does expire, if you don't take action to collect, it becomes unrecoverable, i.e., you lose your right to collect it. The limit depends on the type of debt and where you live [creditinfocenter.com] but it does expire.

        Now, I do agree with you. Mostly people don't take vacations because they don't want them, but because they can't meet employer-set deadlines: so you can argue that the employer prevented you, tacitly or expressly, from taking them and so, you should not lose your vacation time.

        It should not be a 'when-I-get-fired fund' but it shouldn't be a loss because I stayed put to see a project thru.

        • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 29 2014, @05:19AM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @05:19AM (#37527)

          what does it matter what you use it for? the 'if I get fired' (or more like *when*, in today's world) does not enter into it. what you earned is yours and they should not be allowed to steal it from you under funny terms and hand waving.

          our grandparents (or even another gen back, for some of us) fought for workers rights and companies taking away our EARNED RIGHTFUL vacation time is disgusting. war on the worker, plain and simple. and we mostly let them get away with it, too.

          we certainly can't count on pensions or retirement funds anymore. I see nothing wrong with opting to take my time as a lump sum at the close of my employment if I see fit to use it that way. if you want to spend your earned time off at a hotel in a foreign land, fine. if you want to take it annually, fine, its your choice. I might choose some other timeframe or method to use my earned 'time' or money. its really no one's business and what is earned should not be stolen. under any other terms it would be called theft, proper.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 1) by scruffybeard on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:44PM

        by scruffybeard (533) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:44PM (#37619)

        its completely a for-company benefit and this is never in your best interest, as an employee

        Vacation policies (and company ethics) do vary, however most employers implement a use it or loose it policy for two reasons. The first can be for the benefit of the employee. If they fear loosing it, they are more likely to take it, which generally makes them a healthy, well rounded worker. Both employee and employer win here.

        The second is to prevent the employee from banking too much, creating a liability on the business since vacation is generally cashed out at the employee's current pay rate, rather than the rate at the time it is accrued. That 5 year old vacation time you cashed out cost the company extra money since you probably received raises, making it more valuable to you, costing the company more money.

        How is your employer is a "cheapskate" for wanting to limit is total costs? Imagine if a bank could defer the repayment of a debt. This might be better for their bottom line since interest rates may go up, and they could compound the principal and accrued interest of the debt longer. Any one of us would say that the bank is ripping us off, so why shouldn't our employer be able to say the same of us.

        • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:26PM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:26PM (#37632)

          the employer does not OWN the pay that I earn, I OWN IT!

          3 things come from my labor: work output which the employer gets to 'keep', payable salary which I get to keep and also payable/accruable vacation time off which I ALSO OWN.

          how is this not stealing when, each paycheck has hours I work that belong to me and vacation that belongs to me?

          suppose they said 'you waited too long to cash your paycheck, so we took it back. you didn't use it, so you lost it!'. would you ever put up with that?

          then why put up with losing another asset that you EARNED and OWN?

          handwaving about 'cost savings' is just shifting the profit from the employee to the employer. anyone who suggests the employee does not own his own vacation time is a corporate cocksucker or one-percenter asshole. what's our is ours! theft is not acceptable when criminals do it and its not acceptable when white collar criminals do it, either.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 1) by scruffybeard on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:12PM

            by scruffybeard (533) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:12PM (#37658)

            You are correct. You did earn it. So take it. Why is it wrong for your employer to say take it or leave it, after a reasonable amount of time has passed? And yes, depending on the local laws, you could forfeit your paycheck if you fail to cash it in a reasonable amount of time. This is not hand-waving. We all want to control our costs, and clear our debts. This is the same as me asking you to hold on to $1,000 for me, and then charge you interest until I come get it.

            • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:50PM

              by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:50PM (#37713)

              I don't know why I have to keep explaining that what I own, I OWN. you and others keep trying to argue on behalf of piggish companies who can't ever seem to have enough and keep trying to find ways to STEAL from their workers. we once all had full benefits but now, the common thing is to start as a contractor with NO benefits, let the company have a good easy first 3 months (or more) benefit-free (saving them money but costing YOU more than it should) and then, maybe they bring you on with benes.

              this is the new way and there's no good way to cough it in terms of how it affects employees. nothing good comes from this.

              most of us hate drm. we hate the expiration notion on files that we should own. this is similar: expiration on assets (time=money) that we worked for and earned.

              its up to me if I take time off or if I take the time in the form of money.

              you have all the right to convert your money to a house or car. I should have all the right to convert my time into money and leave it there.

              tl;dr: if you argue for a use-or-lose style of work, you are a corporate bootlicker and a traitor to your fellow workers, no different than a scab who crosses a picket line.

              --
              "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 1) by WillR on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:23PM

          by WillR (2012) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:23PM (#37666)
          That 5 year old vacation time you cashed out cost the company extra money since you probably received raises, making it more valuable to you, costing the company more money.
          Implementing a LIFO queue for vacation time and accounting for each chunk at the employee's equivalent wage when it was accrued across a huge 100k+ employee company is probably less computationally complex than a single game of Candy Crush. "It makes the accounting hard" is still a common excuse for stupid corporate policies, but it's not very convincing reason anymore.
      • (Score: 1) by quacking duck on Tuesday April 29 2014, @05:16PM

        by quacking duck (1395) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @05:16PM (#37750)

        in california, in a related topic, it was several years ago that they ruled that many coupons and gift certificates could not 'expire'. it was a scam for business to have things expire. you paid for them, why WOULD they expire? what an absurd concept! and so, at least in some places, they see this as the scam that it is and they don't let money 'expire' just because you bought a GC and are holding it.

        Hopefully they'll apply (or are looking to apply) the same idea to pay-as-you-go phone top-up cards (expire after a few months, a year at most), and pre-paid credit cards (monthly deductions from balance even if you don't use it, plus per-use fees).

      • (Score: 1) by codemachine on Tuesday April 29 2014, @06:25PM

        by codemachine (1333) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @06:25PM (#37779)

        If you get a large raise, you could game it so you're paid a lot more money for taking days off than what those days were worth when you banked them.

    • (Score: 2) by darinbob on Wednesday April 30 2014, @03:02AM

      by darinbob (2593) on Wednesday April 30 2014, @03:02AM (#37964)

      Right now we no longer have vacation accrual where I work. It's basically take as much as you want if your manager approves (and I presume managers have some sort of guidelines to go with that). Mostly this policy is to get vacation off the books so that it's not a negative line in the financial reports.

      Overall though for me it has been only a small difference, with me taking LESS vacation than normal. That's because I don't normally take a lot of vacation unless I'm in danger of losing it. So typically it's vacation at holiday time. My real problem is that I don't plan ahead a lot and tell the boss "I will definitely be on vacation in two months time", so I wait until there's a lull in the work and that very rarely happens. When I do have vacation I'd rather just stay home and be a vegetable than have all the stress of taking a trip and getting no sleep and trying to do as much sight seeing as possible in a short period of time and then return to work exhausted. And let's face it, I'd still want to head to work just to eat the free lunch and then go home again, but someone would stop me in the halls.

      At a previous company I did get all vacation granted on 1/1. It was sort of nice since you could use it any time, instead of using it as a huge block in december or remembering to always have a 2 week buffer accrued. But you got the pressure from HR to spend it (and there was a cap which meant you couldn't just let it roll over like phone minutes). When I was laid off there it was February so they still had to pay me the full year's worth of vacation, which was pretty sweet.

      As opposed to a previous company where they had a forced shutdown day once a week for a summer, before I had accrued any vacation at all, so I ended up with a negative vacation balance (was never really sure what that would mean if I left the job still owing them some days).

  • (Score: 3) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:57AM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:57AM (#37490)

    Only takes, or is only allowed to take. Big distinction there.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:41AM

      by Tork (3914) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @03:41AM (#37501)
      That distinction also means the law is being broken.
      --
      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday April 29 2014, @04:15AM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @04:15AM (#37509)

        Many places have cut staff so far back that there are not so subtle penalties for employees that take their time off, law or not.
        Instead of there being someone to cover for an employee taking off, the work just piles up and when the employee returns they have to work twice as hard to catch up, negating any rest gained by a vacation.
        Bosses might frown upon those who take time off at the the "wrong" time and punish the employee in other ways.
        In several places I have worked, certain times were off limits for taking vacations even if they are prime vacation times, leaving you with a choice of less desirable times.
        The problem is the entire cultural attitude towards vacations in the US. It is considered a paid reward graciously handed out by an employer instead of what it really should be, something that benefits both employees and employers by creating happier, more productive workers.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday April 29 2014, @05:08AM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 29 2014, @05:08AM (#37522) Journal

          something that benefits both employees and employers by creating happier, more productive workers.

          Except it doesn't always do that. Maybe for simple "process" jobs, factory jobs, etc.

          But for software development, scientific projects, creative endeavors, architects, etc being forced to take two weeks, might cost the project 4 weeks, because it often takes that long to bet back "into it" to the point you are productive again. If the project moves along in your absence, you have to catch up, or undo the nonsense that they sneaked in while you were in Maui. But chances are, if you are lead, they sat on their asses waiting for you to return. Some production.

          Often, everybody will be more productive when key people wait till they are at a transition point, and that might not happen on a convenient year boundary.

          Use it or Lose it hurts employers, projects, and employees. Accrual forever can represent a financial liability to the employer, and an incentive to leave.

          A happy medium exists in many companies, which allows accrual but not forever, two years is a common boundary.
           

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 29 2014, @11:47AM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 29 2014, @11:47AM (#37601)

            One problem with that you described a piecework repetitive job situation as being creative. As though digging coal is creative because each time you swing a pick you never know quite what you'll find.

            Actual creative work usually accelerates after a vacation. Subconscious evaluation, new directions, new ideas.

            What you described is "we call IT devs "creative" for the irony, and assign CRUD website of the month #1351 which takes exactly 4 weeks of LABOR (not creativity, often none of that at all), and assign another every 4 weeks, so taking a week off naturally means being a week late.

            There are also natural rhythms in non-sweatshop environments. Everyone's either on vacation or retired in place or basically phoning it in from thanksgiving till new years, and everyone knows it, so that's when:

            1) A lot of vacation gets burned, especially when the kids are out of school

            2) A lot of blue sky research project experiment stuff is done, along with vaguely speculative infrastructure work/experiments.

            3) Any final catch up to make the annual review look good gets done. Hopefully just individual busywork and checkboxing that doesn't require external cooperation.

            Similar rhythms exist in accounting / tax work, where you'll work 80 hour weeks right before quarterlies and annuals and audits, but the week after you might literally have nothing to do, so aside from nerf gun fights at work, lots of vacation gets burned.

            Then there are things like freezes due to external-ish events. If all I do is change things, eventually I've spooled up so many changes on -dev that I can't do anything until I see how it runs in production, so I may as well take time off during a freeze.

          • (Score: 1) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday May 06 2014, @02:59AM

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday May 06 2014, @02:59AM (#40009)

            Except it doesn't always do that...

            While I agree with your idea in theory, the problem is that there is always something happening that needs to be worked on. If you are truly a conscientious worker, in the U.S. you are almost always going to feel guilty about taking a vacation. Unless of course, you take a deep breath and realize that it is quite likely that the world is not going to end while you are away and if the company is managed properly (yeah, I know...) things will be O.K. without you for a week or so.

  • (Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Tuesday April 29 2014, @10:08AM

    by mmcmonster (401) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @10:08AM (#37579)

    Where I work, we're allowed to accrue and hold over up to 200 hours of vacation at the end of the year. Anything more than that gets sold back. The first 40 hours get sold back at your normal pay grade. Anything more than that is paid back at half the pay grade.

    And it's the end of April and I have 228 hours of vacation time to burn. This year I'm going to have to force myself to take extra time off so I stay under 240 hours at the end of the year. Which is silly for the obvious reasons.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29 2014, @01:02PM (#37627)

    I worked at a company where the policy was if you had more than 2 weeks of vacation earned, you had to take at least 1 week of contiguous time off during the year. At 4 weeks or more earned, you had to take at least 2 weeks of contiguous time off during the year.

    It was geared toward employee well-being as well as determining where coverage issues and 'work-silos' may exist, encouraging cross-training in all areas.

    Also makes it harder for any nefarious 'embezzlement' schemes to survive...