"Flexible time off"

[throwittoblythe]

That is a failure in leadership, not the system. Also, I assume you were compensated at a better rate as well and received bigger raises.

You nailed it. No one says in these programs that everyone is compensated equally. If you produce more than your coworkers, you should be paid accordingly. Is that rewarding people for overworking? You could look at it that way, but that's capitalism. On the other hand, this model lets employees find their balance instead of the company trying to mandate it.

 

[throwittoblythe]

If you think that people aren't going to be obligated to spend a minimum of 40 hours still I've got a bridge to sell you. Especially for anyone who works in an industry that bills your hours to a customer, which is a lot of industries.

I work in one of those industries and I don't have this problem. It's a change in mindset, which some struggle with.

 

[agrabes]

That's why this only works in the right company culture setting. In your case, your employer would have to buy in to the fact that they can't work you like that and expect you to be productive. Eventually, you would just burn out and quit. If your company recognizes that we all need time off to rejuvenate ourselves, they would help you find resources to lighten your workload (or off load) to others so you can take time off.

It's about trust and about a team approach. If you say "I need 2 weeks off at the beginning of December" your team would, ideally, say "ok, we can cover that" and its done. Instead of your boss saying "well, you already used your 2 weeks of PTO this year, so I'm sorry it's not possible."

I've worked for 3 companies now and I've never had anyone ever say "no" to a PTO request. So, if they never say no, what's the point of having a policy in the first place?

I agree, we all need time off to rejuvenate ourselves. I get three weeks off from work and I take all that time every year. I also have never had anyone say no to a request for time off. But that's the policy: I'm allowed 3 weeks and I take 3 weeks. The purpose of having a policy is to set up rules and define what is allowed. At my work, the rule is I have 3 weeks of vacation time, plus various paid holidays throughout the year which are my time to rejuvenate. That's the agreement that my employer and I have set up and we both hold up our end of the bargain.

On the other hand if the policy was that I could only take time off when I was done with all my work, in theory I should very rarely be able to take time off. That type of policy just doesn't make sense unless employees have regular idle time. If my coworkers have to cover for me, it means I'm not getting my work done. If there is always work for me to do, then it comes back to the company deciding how much time off is acceptable to them. So, in my view the company should just tell me how much time they are OK with me taking. That way we are on the same page and everybody knows what to expect.

 

[dahliaclone]

Our company PTO policy is awesome. From the day you start it's unlimited PTO. As it turns out, people really don't abuse it whatsoever and get the time off whenever we want. I love it.

 

[CyArob]

The PTO already accrued doesn't just disappear into thin air, right?

 

[Gunnerclone]

The PTO already accrued doesn't just disappear into thin air, right?

Well I doubt they are going to be paying it out as that would defeat the entire purpose?

 

[Tre4ISU]

For me personally, going to that type of system would be horrible. I have dozens of projects which I am responsible for, lined up from now until 2020 and beyond. Even if one project may reach a lull where I don't have any immediate tasks I can do without work being done by others, there are always other things that need doing. It seems like if there is an employee who has the capability of regularly completing work and having days where they have nothing to do, they need to take on more work or their department is overstaffed.

If my work ever went to that type of system, I'd probably get to take 2-3 days off per year. I can't think of a time when there has not been a task I could be doing. I definitely prefer them to define the amount of time that they are OK with us taking off, because work will always be there.

I think the point should be more about getting that flexibility because your stuff is done on time rather than looking forward at what you have to do. I always have stuff I could be doing as well but if I just worked on everything that could be getting done then I'd work 100 hours a week every week. Some of those things, though, aren't pressing. Now, in the spring, I work 80 hour weeks and there isn't really an option not to do so. It would be nice to have those hours back in the summer.

 

[michaelrr1]

Anyone who is caught up with their work doesn't have enough work to do. There is never a time where I haven't had anything I could be working on. The reward for completing a project? More work.

That's where this policy fails (for the employee). Studies have shown that with this type of system, people take less time off than when they have PTO to use. It's all for the benefit of the company and increasing productivity as employees put in more hours without the use of PTO.

 

[CyArob]

Well I doubt they are going to be paying it out as that would defeat the entire purpose?

You'd think the older people would revolt losing out on thousands of dollars though.

 

[BCoffClone125]

I personally really like this concept even though my current company doesn't use it, but I can see why it would be more appealing to somebody my age (mid 20's) and less appealing to somebody who has a lot of years and vacation built up.


What I and many others my age struggle with, is that we want to travel, go out and see new things, try new experiences, etc. but we only have so much vacation we can use and may be limited on when we can use it. I know I personally travel much more often on weekends, holidays, etc. than the older workers in my office because most of them are married, have kids and are a little less flexible with traveling. These often are the same people that have a whole bunch of PTO built up and in some cases have to “use it or lose it.””

IMO, you still need to reward the people who have been at your workplace the longest with more time off as a sign of merit, but I think you should be willing to be flexible with all your employees so that the ones that do want to travel and do more outside of work can do so if they chose. Long story short, I would much rather be self employed

 

[Gunnerclone]

You'd think the older people would revolt losing out on thousands of dollars though.

You would also think we never left the "great recession" by the way that large corporations are acting right now.

 

[KnappShack]

Well I doubt they are going to be paying it out as that would defeat the entire purpose?

They paid put the accrued PTO prior to the conversion here.

They also cut back the PTO hours earned per pay period and the numbrr of hours you could accrue for the employees not under the new plan. This place really took advantage of the state mandating sick time to bend us over on PTO.

All in the name of life balance or something

 

[NickTheGreat]

I wouldn't like that system either as I'd probably never take the time off.

In the Engineering/Architecture/Consulting world you never "get done" with your work. A project might have 500 hours of time (or more) for it to be done. 40 - 500 is always a negative number.

And even in the simplest of examples, once that project is done there's another 400 hour project waiting for you.

At least with the current PTO system you plan and take time off in advance, trying to coordinate that with deadlines and schedules along the way.

 

[cyhiphopp]

I'll chime in here a little bit since I assume you also work at PFG.

The new FTO plan only covers exempt employees. Hourly employees still get PTO.

My personal opinion on it is that it will vary widely from department to department and pretty much ***** on people that have a lot of years with the company. On the other hand I understand why they didn't want employees banking 300+ hours of PTO.

My company has just cut how much PTO we can carry over for the past few years. Used to be able to carry over 180 hours, they've cut it the past few years and we'll only be able to carry over 40. I've lost hours the past few years because I couldn't carry it over and we were too busy in Nov/Dec to allow time off.

 

[CyArob]

You would also think we never left the "great recession" by the way that large corporations are acting right now.

I found out they are making it so the PTO has to be used by end of year 2017 and then it disappears. I imagine there will be a lot of early retirements.

 

[Mr Janny]

There are a ton of industries where I don't think this would be a good fit. Medical, for example. There's never a time when most people in the medical field can say "Well, I'm all caught up on my work, guess I'll take tomorrow off." Just doesn't work that way. Count me in the category of folks who think think is nothing more than a cost savings measure by employers, dressed up as a "benefit" for employees.

 

[harimad]

It really is a person-to-person thing. I work with 2 women who have FMLA. One has maybe taken an extra 3 weeks off (she just had a baby), while the other one hasn't worked a full week since early July for "anxiety" issues. Not to demean anyone who deals with anxiety, but the job isn't very stressful.

I can understand both sides, difficult to have a balance when you have people who abuse it all.

This is easy. Stop worrying about other people and whether they are abusing the system and just worry about yourself.
Problem solved.

 

[19clone91]

Honestly every company should get rid of PTO, like European (and some American) companies are doing. Let people take off the time they want to. It is as simple as getting your work done. If you arent living up to your workload or expectations, the company can talk to you and fire you eventually if it becomes a problem. The current American PTO model is built for irresponsible people or people that companies need to keep tabs on. Why should everybody else adhere to that system? And if you dont think that it would work than you have been in the normal system too long and simply haven't ever worked in an environment that works the other way. Trust me, it works if you have responsible people, and you should have responsible people at your company anyway so it shouldn't be a problem.

At my company people dont take any more time off than they would with PTO, but knowing we have the freedom to miss tomorrow if something comes up without having to mess up my future plans or sick day makes everybody happier and more relaxed at work. Why should I have to cancel my vacation later in the year if there is a death in the family earlier in the year which forces me to take unplanned days off?

Big corporations just dont like this model because its more work for them.

 

[agrabes]

I think the point should be more about getting that flexibility because your stuff is done on time rather than looking forward at what you have to do. I always have stuff I could be doing as well but if I just worked on everything that could be getting done then I'd work 100 hours a week every week. Some of those things, though, aren't pressing. Now, in the spring, I work 80 hour weeks and there isn't really an option not to do so. It would be nice to have those hours back in the summer.

I think that's fair to say if you have to regularly work extra hours in one part of the year that you should either be paid extra accordingly or get extra time off in other parts of the year. I think good management makes that happen even under the traditional system and bad management probably wouldn't even under the "FTO" system.

But as to your other point, it sounds like you are saying that if you are doing a good job and getting your work done on time, then you should get more time off than others. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but it still doesn't work with the idea that you should get to leave when your work is done. I think we can agree that if an employee's work load is balanced properly (at least in a salaried type position) they are very rarely in a position when they have no tasks to do, so you're basically just choosing which tasks you will do.

I'm not saying it doesn't get slow sometimes to where you might have only lower priority things to work on, or you just have an unproductive day. I get that, and I don't see a huge problem with it. I mean I wouldn't be on CF right now if I did. My view on it though is that my company is paying me for the equivalent of a 40 hour work week. If there are things I can be doing which are part of my job and would be a benefit to the company, I'd better be there at least 40 hours even on a slow week because I'm being paid for all work, not just the high priority tasks. It doesn't seem right for me to say that I'm just not going to come into work until the next high priority job comes up, because those low priority jobs need to be done too. I also look at that from the other side of the coin though: there is always work to be done. I don't put in much overtime unless there is a specific deadline I have to hit that requires me to put in extra time.

 

[jsb]

The PTO already accrued doesn't just disappear into thin air, right?

Yes, with principles new policy any banked PTO goes away now.