Unless serious and economy debilitating strikes occur, I am not sure how much labor footage can be regained in the US. But I am really not sure how to convince millennials to unionize effectively.
Edit- I like your idea of antitrust laws but I also feel that small businesses do everything in their power to screw their workers over as well. Pick five restaurants at random and I bet you would find a significant amount of labor violations and unethical practices.
Well, the first step, which is something I'm actively trying to effect in my real life, is for people who do have bargaining power to prioritize personal well-being over salary.
My company overall is pretty good, but we have a few dysfunctional departments, including mine. I made a bargain with my employer after threatening to quit: I need to clean up our department's inefficient and stressful habits. We need to actually make stress reduction a priority, not something we give lip service to on our company newsletter.
There's a big part of me that wonders "should I have asked for a $10k/yr raise instead?" But the truth is that I don't need $10k more per year. I need to work someplace that doesn't give me an anxiety attack from conflicting priorities.
This isn't the first time I've worked for a dysfunctional department. But I couldn't have done this 20 years ago. I didn't have the bargaining power to say "we need to fix things, or I walk" and even if I did, I didn't have the workplace experience to know how to fix things. I recognize that having this power in the first place puts me in a privileged position.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+18
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I feel like the only fundamental fix is to break the need to work to live. Regulations, unions etc can all help prevent abusive jobs but they all get subverted as well. Removing the coercive foundation of employment would have a greater impact.
Universal Basic Income could definitely be a great equalizer when it comes to employee/employer relations
Let me just say that I always HEAR that unlimited vacation is a terrible policy and how everyone takes less time off with it but I don’t see it in practice at all.
Everyone I know takes more time off once they start here. They take days off when they want to. They work from home when they want to. People take multi-week vacations. There’s no “internal pressure” unless you tell literally no one and just don’t show up for work.
What bothers me is how everyone is just SO SURE that it’s terrible. I wouldn’t go back for anything.
Has it ever occurred to you that you’re just an outlier?
Yes. But I still get shouted down for saying that unlimited vacation is great and can work. Even in this thread.
I see these articles and studies about how it’s worse for employees all the time. Usually when I click through there’s examples of companies that it works out for and people take more time off, like Kronos. And there’s companies that say no one takes more or less than before, like Gusto. Those aren’t in the headline though. They never are.
1. Going by headlines on any thing is a horrible idea unless your studying headlines.
2. You get shouted down because people are looking for solutions that work for the majority. If more people are hurt than helped then the policy is trash. Regardless anyone’s positive anecdotes.
Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business, says companies are completely missing the point. Offering lunchtime yoga to stressed-out workers ignores the real reason why workers are so stressed out in the first place—management practices like long work hours, unpredictable schedules, toxic bosses, and after-hours emails. It’s not individual workers making bad choices about their health that’s making them so sick. It’s the way corporate America expects workers to work.
My take: this book is a good exploration of the problem but doesn't offer much to an employee in search of solutions. That's not necessarily a criticism: employees may not have any power to enact any real solutions.
The author hopes that by sounding the alarm loudly enough, employers will change their practices if for no other reason than sick employees are unproductive employees. Personally, I'm pessimistic. Getting employers to change is like getting candy out of a pinata: you're not getting anything out of them unless you whack them repeatedly with a big stick.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Let me just say that I always HEAR that unlimited vacation is a terrible policy and how everyone takes less time off with it but I don’t see it in practice at all.
Everyone I know takes more time off once they start here. They take days off when they want to. They work from home when they want to. People take multi-week vacations. There’s no “internal pressure” unless you tell literally no one and just don’t show up for work.
What bothers me is how everyone is just SO SURE that it’s terrible. I wouldn’t go back for anything.
Has it ever occurred to you that you’re just an outlier?
Yes. But I still get shouted down for saying that unlimited vacation is great and can work. Even in this thread.
I see these articles and studies about how it’s worse for employees all the time. Usually when I click through there’s examples of companies that it works out for and people take more time off, like Kronos. And there’s companies that say no one takes more or less than before, like Gusto. Those aren’t in the headline though. They never are.
Furthermore, I hate it when the examples they use are for companies with <100 people. I don’t care what your raw number is when it doesn’t even hold muster because of your sample size.
It can work - if you line up all the cards right. That means not only making sure that the policy is understood by employees, but that managers are kept under supervision to make sure that they don't undermine the program. It doesn't take much for unlimited leave systems to fail,and when they fail, it's employees that suffer.
I feel like the only fundamental fix is to break the need to work to live. Regulations, unions etc can all help prevent abusive jobs but they all get subverted as well. Removing the coercive foundation of employment would have a greater impact.
Universal Basic Income could definitely be a great equalizer when it comes to employee/employer relations
This is precisely why it will be opposed, demonised, delayed and sabotaged to the bitter end
I dunno what you do about being contacted and asked to work after hours. I’m pretty much on call 24/7 and I’m not compensated like it. Even when I went on vacation to the Ozarks with barely any cell signal I was still getting calls from people asking how to make this contraption work.
You know what would strip away a lot of incentive for shitty management, refang the SEC and close a bunch of shitty corporate practices that deinsentivize labor investment.
Basically everyone saw the movie Wall Street and still haven't figured out Gecko is the bad guy.
Let me just say that I always HEAR that unlimited vacation is a terrible policy and how everyone takes less time off with it but I don’t see it in practice at all.
Everyone I know takes more time off once they start here. They take days off when they want to. They work from home when they want to. People take multi-week vacations. There’s no “internal pressure” unless you tell literally no one and just don’t show up for work.
What bothers me is how everyone is just SO SURE that it’s terrible. I wouldn’t go back for anything.
Has it ever occurred to you that you’re just an outlier?
Yes. But I still get shouted down for saying that unlimited vacation is great and can work. Even in this thread.
I see these articles and studies about how it’s worse for employees all the time. Usually when I click through there’s examples of companies that it works out for and people take more time off, like Kronos. And there’s companies that say no one takes more or less than before, like Gusto. Those aren’t in the headline though. They never are.
1. Going by headlines on any thing is a horrible idea unless your studying headlines.
2. You get shouted down because people are looking for solutions that work for the majority. If more people are hurt than helped then the policy is trash. Regardless anyone’s positive anecdotes.
1. Ok. They’re usually not even in the article. They’re in the linked PowerPoint at the bottom. Sorry I said the word headline.
2. I haven’t seen a study that does say the policy doesn’t work for the majority. I have seen studies that reference 70 person companies and say that can translate to the entire population. It’s such hilariously garbage mathematics. Kronos and Gusto aren’t anecdotes. They’re hard examples that the companies have case studies on.
Aphostile on
Nothing. Matters.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Let me just say that I always HEAR that unlimited vacation is a terrible policy and how everyone takes less time off with it but I don’t see it in practice at all.
Everyone I know takes more time off once they start here. They take days off when they want to. They work from home when they want to. People take multi-week vacations. There’s no “internal pressure” unless you tell literally no one and just don’t show up for work.
What bothers me is how everyone is just SO SURE that it’s terrible. I wouldn’t go back for anything.
Has it ever occurred to you that you’re just an outlier?
Yes. But I still get shouted down for saying that unlimited vacation is great and can work. Even in this thread.
I see these articles and studies about how it’s worse for employees all the time. Usually when I click through there’s examples of companies that it works out for and people take more time off, like Kronos. And there’s companies that say no one takes more or less than before, like Gusto. Those aren’t in the headline though. They never are.
Furthermore, I hate it when the examples they use are for companies with <100 people. I don’t care what your raw number is when it doesn’t even hold muster because of your sample size.
I'm assuming you don't have a brid's eye view on the overall useage? (or even if you did, might not be allowed to share in detail?)
Because in a system like this, I'd be interested to see if the usage amongst employees evens out. I can easily imagine in a system like this, lower level/newer or just less confident employees take less leave than the more senior/outgoing ones.
Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business, says companies are completely missing the point. Offering lunchtime yoga to stressed-out workers ignores the real reason why workers are so stressed out in the first place—management practices like long work hours, unpredictable schedules, toxic bosses, and after-hours emails. It’s not individual workers making bad choices about their health that’s making them so sick. It’s the way corporate America expects workers to work.
My take: this book is a good exploration of the problem but doesn't offer much to an employee in search of solutions. That's not necessarily a criticism: employees may not have any power to enact any real solutions.
The author hopes that by sounding the alarm loudly enough, employers will change their practices if for no other reason than sick employees are unproductive employees. Personally, I'm pessimistic. Getting employers to change is like getting candy out of a pinata: you're not getting anything out of them unless you whack them repeatedly with a big stick.
Yeah, I've said this here and there before but generally a lot of issues are that corporate culture is fundamentally run off random bullshit people experienced and learned when they were working earlier in life that they perpetuate without thinking. There are very few corporate cultures based on a studied consideration of how people actually behave or what makes people productive.
After reading the article on people having died at Amazon wharehouses, it's totally unclear to me whether the seven incidents since 2013 are above or below typical rates even when compared to a desk job. The lowest rate for an industry I could find is 0.7 per year per 100000 workers, in the educational and services industry sector; Amazon employs more than 500000 people, but not sure what's the distribution of wharehouse vs other jobs, or full time equivalent vs temporary jobs and thus inflating the numbers.
I really wish these articles gave some better researched numbers so we could make comparisons
Let me just say that I always HEAR that unlimited vacation is a terrible policy and how everyone takes less time off with it but I don’t see it in practice at all.
Everyone I know takes more time off once they start here. They take days off when they want to. They work from home when they want to. People take multi-week vacations. There’s no “internal pressure” unless you tell literally no one and just don’t show up for work.
What bothers me is how everyone is just SO SURE that it’s terrible. I wouldn’t go back for anything.
Has it ever occurred to you that you’re just an outlier?
Yes. But I still get shouted down for saying that unlimited vacation is great and can work. Even in this thread.
I see these articles and studies about how it’s worse for employees all the time. Usually when I click through there’s examples of companies that it works out for and people take more time off, like Kronos. And there’s companies that say no one takes more or less than before, like Gusto. Those aren’t in the headline though. They never are.
1. Going by headlines on any thing is a horrible idea unless your studying headlines.
2. You get shouted down because people are looking for solutions that work for the majority. If more people are hurt than helped then the policy is trash. Regardless anyone’s positive anecdotes.
1. Ok. They’re usually not even in the article. They’re in the linked PowerPoint at the bottom. Sorry I said the word headline.
2. I haven’t seen a study that does say the policy doesn’t work for the majority. I have seen studies that reference 70 person companies and say that can translate to the entire population. It’s such hilariously garbage mathematics. Kronos and Gusto aren’t anecdotes. They’re hard examples that the companies have case studies on.
Here's an interview with the head of Kronos on the subject. And it's very illustrative of what it actually takes to make the program work. The biggest thing is that you need buyin from the top down. It also requires monitoring leave usage, and being willing to tell workers that they are on leave and not letting them just not take leave. There also needs to be a culture of trust as well.
And if you don't have all that, the system breaks down quickly.
Let me just say that I always HEAR that unlimited vacation is a terrible policy and how everyone takes less time off with it but I don’t see it in practice at all.
Everyone I know takes more time off once they start here. They take days off when they want to. They work from home when they want to. People take multi-week vacations. There’s no “internal pressure” unless you tell literally no one and just don’t show up for work.
What bothers me is how everyone is just SO SURE that it’s terrible. I wouldn’t go back for anything.
Has it ever occurred to you that you’re just an outlier?
Yes. But I still get shouted down for saying that unlimited vacation is great and can work. Even in this thread.
I see these articles and studies about how it’s worse for employees all the time. Usually when I click through there’s examples of companies that it works out for and people take more time off, like Kronos. And there’s companies that say no one takes more or less than before, like Gusto. Those aren’t in the headline though. They never are.
Furthermore, I hate it when the examples they use are for companies with <100 people. I don’t care what your raw number is when it doesn’t even hold muster because of your sample size.
But something like 30% of the country is employed by companies of less than 100 people so it's pretty important to study
[*] Here, you get a salaried position! Did we mention that salaried positions aren't eligible for overtime? Yeah, we're gonna need you for 60-80 hours this week.
One of my previous jobs pulled this one, where they abruptly switched me to salary - at a rate based on my 40-hour week at the time - and the next day told me they needed me there 60 hours a week from then on. Not for a crisis, mind, just bam, that's gonna be my regular schedule from now on. When I mentioned compensation for that, I was immediately told that salaried employees don't get overtime, and besides, salary meant I was in management, and they don't get overtime either.
Fortunately provincial labour laws were entirely on my side, having a small list of exempt positions, specifically defining who was and wasn't considered a manager, and explicitly requiring overtime even for salaried workers besides. I'm still not sure if the company didn't know the law or if they just didn't expect employees to, but giving the comptroller chapter and verse shut that whole pursuit down quickly.
It's depressing how much employees are encouraged, and encourage each other, not to know their legal rights in employment. Employers take advantage of that super actively, and employees are so incredibly cowed when it comes to saying something even in super over-the-line situations. I was incredibly lucky in that case - I knew the regulations, and I was also in one of those keystone positions where everything would come crashing down in ruins if I left despite being at the bottom of the ladder.
People being too intimidated to even know their rights is almost as much of a problem as the way others abuse that fact.
I’ve been toying with the thought of making all paid time off equal. No excuse necessary, you need a day off for whatever reason? As long as you call in before a certain time, no questions asked.
Bad idea. This sort of policy encourages people to come in sick, lest they lose a day of actual vacation.
Indeed, I can assure you that if you give combine sick and vacation days I will come in EVERY time I am capable of dragging myself into the office. The company is paying me to do it.
Everyone should get 4 weeks vacation + Unlimited Sick.
When you guys say "unlimited sick", like here, are you meaning "unlimited in the number of days you can use, but you are unpaid"?
I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how Josh's idea of "all PTO is the same, just don't no-call, no-show" is bad, but "sure, you can not be paid" seems find and dandy. My company uses "all PTO is the same, you get 4 weeks", and I'm completely baffled that this, apparently, leads to more people coming in sick so as not to lose vacation time. The previous plan at my workplace was "3 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick" and we sure as heck had sick co-workers in the office more frequently than we do now.
If my options are "take 1 of your 20 PTO days, stay home, and get paid", or "use 1 of your unlimited, unpaid sick days, stay home, and lose 10% of your next paycheck" I'm certainly not choosing the one that means I'm suddenly going to have a harder time paying my bills, and am having a hard time understanding how or why others would prefer to take the 2nd option. What am I missing here? It's probably "human nature", isn't it?
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Another thing I want to see made into standard bennies is paid paternity leave. No, I am not literally birthing a child. But maybe I’m part of the family too and could use an adjustment period. And mom could definitely use the help.
I'm moving to Canada, and compared the US' policy (which is to say, the void), with:
Standard parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 35 weeks and must be claimed within a 52 week period (12 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The weekly benefit rate is 55% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 35 weeks of standard parental benefits.
Extended parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 61 weeks and must be claimed within a 78-week period (18 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The benefit rate is 33% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 61 weeks of extended parental benefits.
Note that you get these even if you adopt, which my wife and I are likely to do. I don't even want to think about how I'd conceive (ha) of having a child as it approached in the US.
I’ve been toying with the thought of making all paid time off equal. No excuse necessary, you need a day off for whatever reason? As long as you call in before a certain time, no questions asked.
Bad idea. This sort of policy encourages people to come in sick, lest they lose a day of actual vacation.
Indeed, I can assure you that if you give combine sick and vacation days I will come in EVERY time I am capable of dragging myself into the office. The company is paying me to do it.
Everyone should get 4 weeks vacation + Unlimited Sick.
When you guys say "unlimited sick", like here, are you meaning "unlimited in the number of days you can use, but you are unpaid"?
I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how Josh's idea of "all PTO is the same, just don't no-call, no-show" is bad, but "sure, you can not be paid" seems find and dandy. My company uses "all PTO is the same, you get 4 weeks", and I'm completely baffled that this, apparently, leads to more people coming in sick so as not to lose vacation time. The previous plan at my workplace was "3 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick" and we sure as heck had sick co-workers in the office more frequently than we do now.
If my options are "take 1 of your 20 PTO days, stay home, and get paid", or "use 1 of your unlimited, unpaid sick days, stay home, and lose 10% of your next paycheck" I'm certainly not choosing the one that means I'm suddenly going to have a harder time paying my bills, and am having a hard time understanding how or why others would prefer to take the 2nd option. What am I missing here? It's probably "human nature", isn't it?
Because when PTO is fungible, people are going to use it for when they can have fun, not when they're sick. And the idea is to have sick leave that is paid, so that people do stay home when ill.
Cafeteria coffee area was out of all creamer except soy.
Second is my company found a way to circumvent the "fire all the olds and hire youngs" that is so common in large companies. They rephrased it into a layoff of "stagnant" employees who haven't been promoted in x years (most were topped out!)
Cafeteria coffee area was out of all creamer except soy.
Second is my company found a way to circumvent the "fire all the olds and hire youngs" that is so common in large companies. They rephrased it into a layoff if "stagnant" employees who haven't been promoted in x years (most were topped out!)
I’ve been toying with the thought of making all paid time off equal. No excuse necessary, you need a day off for whatever reason? As long as you call in before a certain time, no questions asked.
Bad idea. This sort of policy encourages people to come in sick, lest they lose a day of actual vacation.
Indeed, I can assure you that if you give combine sick and vacation days I will come in EVERY time I am capable of dragging myself into the office. The company is paying me to do it.
Everyone should get 4 weeks vacation + Unlimited Sick.
This is essentially what I have. If a doctor doesn’t think I should work for X days they say so and that’s that.
Meanwhile if I don’t take all my allotted vacation time my supervisor’s review takes an automatic hit.
It's insane to me that the institution with the best leave/sick leave policies in this country is the fucking military.
My 1sg always would reiterate that you needed to take your leave. Like, it was a part of your assigned duties. Even if it was a week long staycation, your ass needed to take time off to recoup.
Another thing I want to see made into standard bennies is paid paternity leave. No, I am not literally birthing a child. But maybe I’m part of the family too and could use an adjustment period. And mom could definitely use the help.
I'm moving to Canada, and compared the US' policy (which is to say, the void), with:
Standard parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 35 weeks and must be claimed within a 52 week period (12 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The weekly benefit rate is 55% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 35 weeks of standard parental benefits.
Extended parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 61 weeks and must be claimed within a 78-week period (18 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The benefit rate is 33% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 61 weeks of extended parental benefits.
Note that you get these even if you adopt, which my wife and I are likely to do. I don't even want to think about how I'd conceive (ha) of having a child as it approached in the US.
I was talking to some americans and parental leave came up. They mentioned you got like, what, a month? I told them they lived like fucking savages.
American parental leave is a globally notable disgrace.
+21
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Cafeteria coffee area was out of all creamer except soy.
Second is my company found a way to circumvent the "fire all the olds and hire youngs" that is so common in large companies. They rephrased it into a layoff if "stagnant" employees who haven't been promoted in x years (most were topped out!)
Cafeteria coffee area was out of all creamer except soy.
Second is my company found a way to circumvent the "fire all the olds and hire youngs" that is so common in large companies. They rephrased it into a layoff if "stagnant" employees who haven't been promoted in x years (most were topped out!)
Another thing I want to see made into standard bennies is paid paternity leave. No, I am not literally birthing a child. But maybe I’m part of the family too and could use an adjustment period. And mom could definitely use the help.
I'm moving to Canada, and compared the US' policy (which is to say, the void), with:
Standard parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 35 weeks and must be claimed within a 52 week period (12 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The weekly benefit rate is 55% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 35 weeks of standard parental benefits.
Extended parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 61 weeks and must be claimed within a 78-week period (18 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The benefit rate is 33% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 61 weeks of extended parental benefits.
Note that you get these even if you adopt, which my wife and I are likely to do. I don't even want to think about how I'd conceive (ha) of having a child as it approached in the US.
My job was like, “Congratulations! Enjoy the rest of this week!
Come back on Monday. Since you left we’ve got lots of issues, so you might need to be here longer to handle all the stuff you’re missing this week.”
Cafeteria coffee area was out of all creamer except soy.
Second is my company found a way to circumvent the "fire all the olds and hire youngs" that is so common in large companies. They rephrased it into a layoff if "stagnant" employees who haven't been promoted in x years (most were topped out!)
That seems like obvious wrongful termination?
There is actually open litigation for people affected claiming age discrimination.
They are not winning in court last I heard but who knows.
Another thing I want to see made into standard bennies is paid paternity leave. No, I am not literally birthing a child. But maybe I’m part of the family too and could use an adjustment period. And mom could definitely use the help.
I'm moving to Canada, and compared the US' policy (which is to say, the void), with:
Standard parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 35 weeks and must be claimed within a 52 week period (12 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The weekly benefit rate is 55% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 35 weeks of standard parental benefits.
Extended parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 61 weeks and must be claimed within a 78-week period (18 months) after the week the child was born or placed for the purpose of adoption. The benefit rate is 33% of the claimant’s average weekly insurable earnings up to a maximum amount. The two parents can share these 61 weeks of extended parental benefits.
Note that you get these even if you adopt, which my wife and I are likely to do. I don't even want to think about how I'd conceive (ha) of having a child as it approached in the US.
I was talking to some americans and parental leave came up. They mentioned you got like, what, a month? I told them they lived like fucking savages.
American parental leave is a globally notable disgrace.
My wife gets 14 weeks, but she’s also a government employee (CPS)
The thing I think most corporations miss is that if you treat people less like a resource and more like, well, people, they’re more loyal, productive, and happier, so when you need them to do something a little bit above and beyond, they’re more than willing to do it for you.
+10
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
After I had kids of course, my company instituted bonding leave at 8 weeks paid. Applies for adoptions,too, and is not limited by gender.
IBM pays you like 15k towards fertility stuff.... or adoptions. It's super generous and when I was still thinking of living in the US that alone made it top tier for places I wanted to work.
I’ve been toying with the thought of making all paid time off equal. No excuse necessary, you need a day off for whatever reason? As long as you call in before a certain time, no questions asked.
Bad idea. This sort of policy encourages people to come in sick, lest they lose a day of actual vacation.
Indeed, I can assure you that if you give combine sick and vacation days I will come in EVERY time I am capable of dragging myself into the office. The company is paying me to do it.
Everyone should get 4 weeks vacation + Unlimited Sick.
When you guys say "unlimited sick", like here, are you meaning "unlimited in the number of days you can use, but you are unpaid"?
I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how Josh's idea of "all PTO is the same, just don't no-call, no-show" is bad, but "sure, you can not be paid" seems find and dandy. My company uses "all PTO is the same, you get 4 weeks", and I'm completely baffled that this, apparently, leads to more people coming in sick so as not to lose vacation time. The previous plan at my workplace was "3 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick" and we sure as heck had sick co-workers in the office more frequently than we do now.
If my options are "take 1 of your 20 PTO days, stay home, and get paid", or "use 1 of your unlimited, unpaid sick days, stay home, and lose 10% of your next paycheck" I'm certainly not choosing the one that means I'm suddenly going to have a harder time paying my bills, and am having a hard time understanding how or why others would prefer to take the 2nd option. What am I missing here? It's probably "human nature", isn't it?
No, unlimited in the number of days you can use, AND you are paid AND you can use it for your kids being sick too. If you take too many, and aren't getting your job done, your boss can ask for doctors notes or fire you. But, the new guy also gets unlimited sick days.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The thing I think most corporations miss is that if you treat people less like a resource and more like, well, people, they’re more loyal, productive, and happier, so when you need them to do something a little bit above and beyond, they’re more than willing to do it for you.
Yeah but that's long-term thinking, something modern American companies are notoriously horrible about doing.
I am a lucky dude with where I am, as far as employee treatment. There's tradeoffs (new customer deployments are HELLISH), of course, but I'm at a place where the CEO is a good dude without any pretension or fake bullshit.
This is quite literally the only job I've ever had where I've felt this way.
My company has for a long time talked the talk of diversity and gender non-discrimination but it's only been about 5 years of us actually making real changes.
But the layoff "algorithm" from 2 years ago will haunt us for a while. That was such a dastardly deed. As we have to absolutely nobodies surprise rehired to previous headcount using RCGs.
I’ve been toying with the thought of making all paid time off equal. No excuse necessary, you need a day off for whatever reason? As long as you call in before a certain time, no questions asked.
Bad idea. This sort of policy encourages people to come in sick, lest they lose a day of actual vacation.
Indeed, I can assure you that if you give combine sick and vacation days I will come in EVERY time I am capable of dragging myself into the office. The company is paying me to do it.
Everyone should get 4 weeks vacation + Unlimited Sick.
When you guys say "unlimited sick", like here, are you meaning "unlimited in the number of days you can use, but you are unpaid"?
I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how Josh's idea of "all PTO is the same, just don't no-call, no-show" is bad, but "sure, you can not be paid" seems find and dandy. My company uses "all PTO is the same, you get 4 weeks", and I'm completely baffled that this, apparently, leads to more people coming in sick so as not to lose vacation time. The previous plan at my workplace was "3 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick" and we sure as heck had sick co-workers in the office more frequently than we do now.
If my options are "take 1 of your 20 PTO days, stay home, and get paid", or "use 1 of your unlimited, unpaid sick days, stay home, and lose 10% of your next paycheck" I'm certainly not choosing the one that means I'm suddenly going to have a harder time paying my bills, and am having a hard time understanding how or why others would prefer to take the 2nd option. What am I missing here? It's probably "human nature", isn't it?
Set vacation days, unlimited paid sick time. It sets a floor for vacation usage while still telling everybody they can stay home if sick. Abuse is unlikely and you can require doctor notes for frequent or mass recurring sick time if you are really concerned.
I’ve been toying with the thought of making all paid time off equal. No excuse necessary, you need a day off for whatever reason? As long as you call in before a certain time, no questions asked.
Bad idea. This sort of policy encourages people to come in sick, lest they lose a day of actual vacation.
Indeed, I can assure you that if you give combine sick and vacation days I will come in EVERY time I am capable of dragging myself into the office. The company is paying me to do it.
Everyone should get 4 weeks vacation + Unlimited Sick.
When you guys say "unlimited sick", like here, are you meaning "unlimited in the number of days you can use, but you are unpaid"?
I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how Josh's idea of "all PTO is the same, just don't no-call, no-show" is bad, but "sure, you can not be paid" seems find and dandy. My company uses "all PTO is the same, you get 4 weeks", and I'm completely baffled that this, apparently, leads to more people coming in sick so as not to lose vacation time. The previous plan at my workplace was "3 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick" and we sure as heck had sick co-workers in the office more frequently than we do now.
If my options are "take 1 of your 20 PTO days, stay home, and get paid", or "use 1 of your unlimited, unpaid sick days, stay home, and lose 10% of your next paycheck" I'm certainly not choosing the one that means I'm suddenly going to have a harder time paying my bills, and am having a hard time understanding how or why others would prefer to take the 2nd option. What am I missing here? It's probably "human nature", isn't it?
Because when PTO is fungible, people are going to use it for when they can have fun, not when they're sick. And the idea is to have sick leave that is paid, so that people do stay home when ill.
Fair enough. That's one way to get everyone at work to hate your guts, but they're your days to use (or not).
Unlimited sick pay's going to require the same system of trust and whatnot that everyone's saying doesn't work w/r/t unlimited PTO though, won't it? Otherwise, without the trust system, you're gonna need a doctor's note, and then we're forcing the sick employee to both incur the cost of a doctor's office visit as well as going out while sick (which is part of what we're trying to avoid, I think).
This thread's a weird mix of "you can't do <time off/sick policy>! That'd require complete trust and everyone buying in to the system!" and simultaneously "yes, unlimited, paid sick time, where you only need a doctor's note if you're abusing it."
I would think they could also argue its an inappropriate policy if there is no clear path beyond their current position.
Part of the issue that is siding with the corporate goons: management had been unofficially taught to use their limited "exceeds" ratings for the year for employees that they could promote as giving a topped out technician a great eval did Jack squat for pay raise.
But then corporate says , "hey old guy if you didn't deserve a layoff why were you only satisfactory for 8 years straight?"
I would think they could also argue its an inappropriate policy if there is no clear path beyond their current position.
Part of the issue that is siding with the corporate goons: management had been unofficially taught to use their limited "exceeds" ratings for the year for employees that they could promote as giving a topped out technician a great eval did Jack squat for pay raise.
But then corporate says , "hey old guy if you didn't deserve a layoff why were you only satisfactory for 8 years straight?"
Oh I am aware of how bullshit yearly evals are. It was a significant skreed in my last exit interview.
Posts
Well, the first step, which is something I'm actively trying to effect in my real life, is for people who do have bargaining power to prioritize personal well-being over salary.
My company overall is pretty good, but we have a few dysfunctional departments, including mine. I made a bargain with my employer after threatening to quit: I need to clean up our department's inefficient and stressful habits. We need to actually make stress reduction a priority, not something we give lip service to on our company newsletter.
There's a big part of me that wonders "should I have asked for a $10k/yr raise instead?" But the truth is that I don't need $10k more per year. I need to work someplace that doesn't give me an anxiety attack from conflicting priorities.
This isn't the first time I've worked for a dysfunctional department. But I couldn't have done this 20 years ago. I didn't have the bargaining power to say "we need to fix things, or I walk" and even if I did, I didn't have the workplace experience to know how to fix things. I recognize that having this power in the first place puts me in a privileged position.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Universal Basic Income could definitely be a great equalizer when it comes to employee/employer relations
1. Going by headlines on any thing is a horrible idea unless your studying headlines.
2. You get shouted down because people are looking for solutions that work for the majority. If more people are hurt than helped then the policy is trash. Regardless anyone’s positive anecdotes.
https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062800930/dying-for-a-paycheck/
From Slate: https://www.slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/is-your-work-killing-you.html
My take: this book is a good exploration of the problem but doesn't offer much to an employee in search of solutions. That's not necessarily a criticism: employees may not have any power to enact any real solutions.
The author hopes that by sounding the alarm loudly enough, employers will change their practices if for no other reason than sick employees are unproductive employees. Personally, I'm pessimistic. Getting employers to change is like getting candy out of a pinata: you're not getting anything out of them unless you whack them repeatedly with a big stick.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It can work - if you line up all the cards right. That means not only making sure that the policy is understood by employees, but that managers are kept under supervision to make sure that they don't undermine the program. It doesn't take much for unlimited leave systems to fail,and when they fail, it's employees that suffer.
This is precisely why it will be opposed, demonised, delayed and sabotaged to the bitter end
Basically everyone saw the movie Wall Street and still haven't figured out Gecko is the bad guy.
1. Ok. They’re usually not even in the article. They’re in the linked PowerPoint at the bottom. Sorry I said the word headline.
2. I haven’t seen a study that does say the policy doesn’t work for the majority. I have seen studies that reference 70 person companies and say that can translate to the entire population. It’s such hilariously garbage mathematics. Kronos and Gusto aren’t anecdotes. They’re hard examples that the companies have case studies on.
I'm assuming you don't have a brid's eye view on the overall useage? (or even if you did, might not be allowed to share in detail?)
Because in a system like this, I'd be interested to see if the usage amongst employees evens out. I can easily imagine in a system like this, lower level/newer or just less confident employees take less leave than the more senior/outgoing ones.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Yeah, I've said this here and there before but generally a lot of issues are that corporate culture is fundamentally run off random bullshit people experienced and learned when they were working earlier in life that they perpetuate without thinking. There are very few corporate cultures based on a studied consideration of how people actually behave or what makes people productive.
I really wish these articles gave some better researched numbers so we could make comparisons
Here's an interview with the head of Kronos on the subject. And it's very illustrative of what it actually takes to make the program work. The biggest thing is that you need buyin from the top down. It also requires monitoring leave usage, and being willing to tell workers that they are on leave and not letting them just not take leave. There also needs to be a culture of trust as well.
And if you don't have all that, the system breaks down quickly.
But something like 30% of the country is employed by companies of less than 100 people so it's pretty important to study
One of my previous jobs pulled this one, where they abruptly switched me to salary - at a rate based on my 40-hour week at the time - and the next day told me they needed me there 60 hours a week from then on. Not for a crisis, mind, just bam, that's gonna be my regular schedule from now on. When I mentioned compensation for that, I was immediately told that salaried employees don't get overtime, and besides, salary meant I was in management, and they don't get overtime either.
Fortunately provincial labour laws were entirely on my side, having a small list of exempt positions, specifically defining who was and wasn't considered a manager, and explicitly requiring overtime even for salaried workers besides. I'm still not sure if the company didn't know the law or if they just didn't expect employees to, but giving the comptroller chapter and verse shut that whole pursuit down quickly.
It's depressing how much employees are encouraged, and encourage each other, not to know their legal rights in employment. Employers take advantage of that super actively, and employees are so incredibly cowed when it comes to saying something even in super over-the-line situations. I was incredibly lucky in that case - I knew the regulations, and I was also in one of those keystone positions where everything would come crashing down in ruins if I left despite being at the bottom of the ladder.
People being too intimidated to even know their rights is almost as much of a problem as the way others abuse that fact.
When you guys say "unlimited sick", like here, are you meaning "unlimited in the number of days you can use, but you are unpaid"?
I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how Josh's idea of "all PTO is the same, just don't no-call, no-show" is bad, but "sure, you can not be paid" seems find and dandy. My company uses "all PTO is the same, you get 4 weeks", and I'm completely baffled that this, apparently, leads to more people coming in sick so as not to lose vacation time. The previous plan at my workplace was "3 weeks paid vacation, 1 week paid sick" and we sure as heck had sick co-workers in the office more frequently than we do now.
If my options are "take 1 of your 20 PTO days, stay home, and get paid", or "use 1 of your unlimited, unpaid sick days, stay home, and lose 10% of your next paycheck" I'm certainly not choosing the one that means I'm suddenly going to have a harder time paying my bills, and am having a hard time understanding how or why others would prefer to take the 2nd option. What am I missing here? It's probably "human nature", isn't it?
I'm moving to Canada, and compared the US' policy (which is to say, the void), with:
Note that you get these even if you adopt, which my wife and I are likely to do. I don't even want to think about how I'd conceive (ha) of having a child as it approached in the US.
Because when PTO is fungible, people are going to use it for when they can have fun, not when they're sick. And the idea is to have sick leave that is paid, so that people do stay home when ill.
Cafeteria coffee area was out of all creamer except soy.
Second is my company found a way to circumvent the "fire all the olds and hire youngs" that is so common in large companies. They rephrased it into a layoff of "stagnant" employees who haven't been promoted in x years (most were topped out!)
That seems like obvious wrongful termination?
It's insane to me that the institution with the best leave/sick leave policies in this country is the fucking military.
My 1sg always would reiterate that you needed to take your leave. Like, it was a part of your assigned duties. Even if it was a week long staycation, your ass needed to take time off to recoup.
I was talking to some americans and parental leave came up. They mentioned you got like, what, a month? I told them they lived like fucking savages.
American parental leave is a globally notable disgrace.
Obviously.
You got the money to take them to court?
the NLRB might!
My job was like, “Congratulations! Enjoy the rest of this week!
Come back on Monday. Since you left we’ve got lots of issues, so you might need to be here longer to handle all the stuff you’re missing this week.”
There is actually open litigation for people affected claiming age discrimination.
They are not winning in court last I heard but who knows.
My wife gets 14 weeks, but she’s also a government employee (CPS)
IBM pays you like 15k towards fertility stuff.... or adoptions. It's super generous and when I was still thinking of living in the US that alone made it top tier for places I wanted to work.
No, unlimited in the number of days you can use, AND you are paid AND you can use it for your kids being sick too. If you take too many, and aren't getting your job done, your boss can ask for doctors notes or fire you. But, the new guy also gets unlimited sick days.
Yeah but that's long-term thinking, something modern American companies are notoriously horrible about doing.
I am a lucky dude with where I am, as far as employee treatment. There's tradeoffs (new customer deployments are HELLISH), of course, but I'm at a place where the CEO is a good dude without any pretension or fake bullshit.
This is quite literally the only job I've ever had where I've felt this way.
But the layoff "algorithm" from 2 years ago will haunt us for a while. That was such a dastardly deed. As we have to absolutely nobodies surprise rehired to previous headcount using RCGs.
Set vacation days, unlimited paid sick time. It sets a floor for vacation usage while still telling everybody they can stay home if sick. Abuse is unlikely and you can require doctor notes for frequent or mass recurring sick time if you are really concerned.
Fair enough. That's one way to get everyone at work to hate your guts, but they're your days to use (or not).
Unlimited sick pay's going to require the same system of trust and whatnot that everyone's saying doesn't work w/r/t unlimited PTO though, won't it? Otherwise, without the trust system, you're gonna need a doctor's note, and then we're forcing the sick employee to both incur the cost of a doctor's office visit as well as going out while sick (which is part of what we're trying to avoid, I think).
Part of the issue that is siding with the corporate goons: management had been unofficially taught to use their limited "exceeds" ratings for the year for employees that they could promote as giving a topped out technician a great eval did Jack squat for pay raise.
But then corporate says , "hey old guy if you didn't deserve a layoff why were you only satisfactory for 8 years straight?"
Not having any clear path beyond getting rid of what we currently are doing hasn't stopped conservatives before.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Oh I am aware of how bullshit yearly evals are. It was a significant skreed in my last exit interview.