So, a years or two ago I carried over about 160 hours of vacation time. This was July. All of a sudden, our next paychecks were cut, and I only had 47 hours of vacation time. They decided employees could only carry 80 hours over, and reset mine, retroactively, to 80. Of course, thinking I had 160, I was very liberal with my vacation time, taking far more vacation than usual (I usually take the minimum amount, keeping my balance as high as possible). So I had used up 33 hours by July. 80-33 = 47. So in one day, I went from 127 to 47. That really pissed me off.
Now I am finding out that the 80-hour carry-over wasn’t company policy. They just decided to implement the policy, retroactively, taking away vacation. I don’t even think that should be legal — and it wouldn’t for normal corporations — but this is an under-50-person company. Being under 50 persons complete changes the rules of business, and my company has gone close to 50, but purposely never exceeds 50 people. So anyway, I am displeased by this. Originally I thought they had failed to implement policy, and were simply fixing 6 months of mis-stated balances. But now I see that it was just a plain money grab, to reduce the amount of vacation used/paid-out to people. It reeks of bullshit. I want my 86.25 hours vacation leave back… that’s over 2 weeks of my life that I will never, ever get back. And I will indeed remember this 50 years from now.
Claire's blog 
October 31, 2007 at 9:57 AM
TGAW’s old company pulled similar BS with vacation time. I also think it should be illegal. Vacation time is a quantifiable benefit, just like salary. I would even be open to them having an option to convert some of it to extra pay, though not all of it. But to just take it away is criminal.
October 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM
LM is doing something similar but their approach is luckily not as draconian. I don’t know what it *used* to be prior to 07 but I know as of this year, employees are allowed to carry over up to 400 hours a year (I think it’s set so high because they know it’ll take a million years for someone to accrue that much). Once you hit 400 you quit accrueing until you start getting your balance back down.
For those who were at or over that amount this year, I think they are giving those employees X amount of time to get it back down to 400 or less instead of just taking it away. I think the time span is one or two years. It’s actually one thing they are doing that I think makes sense.
I agree it’s criminal to just take away your vacation without giving you a chance to use it. Some people accrue vacation in lieu of sick leave because a lot of companies only give employees 5 or 10 days per year. I know the HR person I assist hordes vacation hours because she has medical problems.
To say we have a flawed system is putting it mildly.
October 31, 2007 at 10:50 AM
PS – I just thought of something. I think a big reason companies are cutting back on vacation accrual is so that people aren’t using the extra hours as “early retirement”. For example, 400 hours is 10 weeks of vacation. Technically somebody who is looking at retirement could go on vacation for 10 weeks and still have money added to their 401(k)….
just a thought…
October 31, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I would think if they are going to change a policy, they at least have to send out a memo informing everyone and giving them a chance to use their vacation. And to just arbitrarily decide to change the policy in the middle is bogus.
It’s your turn to get a new job!!! (Well, maybe I better start mine first….)
October 31, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I’m thinking about it. But I’m very comfortable here, and paid extremely well (more than others here) for the amount of work I’m doing. I’m going to ride that comfort out as long as possible, and then ride out 6 months of unemployment benefits, and THEN get a new job, and if that doesn’t work — sell the house and move somewhere cheaper and slower-paced than Northern VA.
Angel — that’s a good point, but companies should not pass on their operating expenses to employees. If a policy can be exploited, that’s the cost of doing business!! :)
October 31, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I agree, C–it shouldn’t matter whether someone has 10 weeks of vacation saved up and uses it right before they retire. It’s their time, to do whatever they want with it!
I’d be extremely angry, too. I’d feel like it was really unjust and unethical.
October 31, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Clint, where in Northern VA would it be cheaper and slower-paced enough for you to justify leaving where you live now which is pretty close to a lot of things? Just wondering. ;)
And yeah I wish I could take advantage of “early retirement”. ;)
It was cool when our company used to cover an unlimited amount of tuition expenses (well, in terms of tuition and books) and didn’t really check to see if your degree was related to your job function as long as your manager signed off on it. I never would have been able to get them to pay for me to finish undergrad if I tried to do it now.
October 31, 2007 at 12:32 PM
PS – Companies are all about passing their operating costs to employees. Why do you think medical benefits sometimes cost so much?
October 31, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Angel: Nowhere. It would probably be in another state, or, preferably, in another country. I have my eye on South America as the continent most likely to emmigrate to. I’d pick Australia, but they don’t really allow immigrants that much. Then again, if I sold my house, I might have enough cash to get in.
And yea, about passing operating costs to employees — it’s just a bunch of bullshit. Especially with the medical benefits. By making people pay, and corporations not, capitalism becomes the basis for a perpetuating and increasing exploitation of workers. This is exactly why unions were formed, but most unions jumped the shark as well! Stuff sucks!
October 31, 2007 at 12:40 PM
C: I know a few people who have lived in South Africa; if you seriously end up considering moving there, I might point you towards them to ask questions, regarding what living there is like, heh.
Random factoid that relates to other countries and costs–one coke in Japan cost $6, in 1999! I wonder if it’s any better or worse now.
October 31, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Money is evil. I’m not that hot about a universe that requires me to work in order to continue eating and living indoors, either. Can’t we just design a system that gets all life infinite resources?
[A lot of people hate this idea. To them I say, fine, go live in your restricted-resources universe and have wars over resources…]
As a consultant, I’m pretty much free to take vacation time whenever I want, but I won’t be paid for it. At the moment, because I’m in debt, I’m working 60-70 hours a week.. so it could always be worse..
October 31, 2007 at 7:56 PM
I’m more under the assumption that putting away money is smart, but that I’ll probably have to work til my dying day. I’ll take breaks in the meanwhile while I can, so that I can catch up on life in increments, rather than saving everything for retirement. My body’s already decrepit enough that I don’t know that I’ll even be able to enjoy myself then.
But my parents are also sitting on a $750K 12-acre house that is 100% paid, in Stafford, where development is picking up. I think it’s going to work out. (This is not meant to imply that I am looking forward to anyone’s death.)
November 1, 2007 at 6:35 AM
Hehehe….oops. Sorry I misread that, Clint!! >_<
I actually am pleasantly surprised to see that some feel the way I do, with regards to working vs. age. Why shouldn’t we be able to enjoy the younger years of our lives while we actually have the energy and motivation to try new things and go places? When I’m 65, I doubt I’ll have the same physical energy/strength I do now, and I probably won’t feel like embarking on any new sort of jobs, career paths, or huge trips then.
I said to a coworker recently: “We should be able to work for a few years after college or high school, then take a solid 10 years off to go explore the world and our own interest and pursue our own goals. Then we can come back when we’re 40, if we need to.” Of course, that’s in an ideal world, who knows if I could ever pull that off. ;)
November 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I understand the point about wanting to have more down time to enjoy life when you are young enough to really enjoy it, as opposed to when you are old and gray, but, what I worry about is the flip side: if I’m not being productive enough now while I’m young and fit and able to earn a living, I may put myself in a bad situation when I’m older and less able to do so. A lot of people assume they will be physically and mentally able to work into their 60s and 70s, but it doesn’t always work out that way. I’m more concerned about not building enough of a nest egg while I’m able to work than I am about working too much and winding up saving more than I need at the opportunity cost of relaxing more. Just my $0.02.
November 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM
True, but if you’re truly so decrepit that you can’t even hold a job mentally or physically — the pile of cash you’re sitting on isn’t going to make you feel happier or better. You’re still going to be old and decrepit either way.
The idea that when you’re old, you WONT be fucked, is a bit of a pipe dream.
I’m very fortunate for the 2 generations of inheritances I’m getting, but basically: The people who earned that money would have been better off spending it than dying and passing it on to me.
Also psuedo-semi-related: Needing to pay your doctors during your old age is strictly an American thing. . .
It’s pretty funny how my statements have been so thoroughly challenged, when all I said was that it might be advantageous [to society] to be lay people off instead of increasing their medical costs. I think I’m going to have to take the “Challenge Me” out of the top bar… :)
November 1, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Good point re: when your old and messed up, money won’t solve your problems. Kinda makes you realize whats truly important in life…health, family, friends…all the money in the world won’t buy that stuff and you can’t take it with you. Then again, I think about my grandfather…he’s 92, and his health is failing. I’m grateful that at least he has the money to afford medical care, and soon, room/board in an assisted living facility. Some people who make it to that age have no money, and more importantly, no family/friends, and they’re just really screwed. It would be great if it wasn’t that way, but like you said, needing to pay doctors in your old age is an American thing, and we’re Americans (for better or worse).
Anyway, I don’t really disagree on your main point, that you should enjoy yourself while your young enough to … enjoy it (didnt realize how dumb that sounded until I wrote it hehehe).
It’s funny how these discussions progress…I wasn’t even really commenting on the original topic of laying people off vs raising medical costs, but more on working til death vs. taking more leisure time. Anyway, I wasn’t really trying to challenge you or provoke an argument or anything, just wanted to present a different viewpoint.
November 1, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Yea… I think since I’m not planning on having children, it would be prudent that I emmigrate to a country with socialized healthcare before I get to that point :)
It sucks to be an old alone American far worse than to be old and alone in most other industrialized nations. Hell, in Japan they get robots to take care of them. (Though I wonder where the money comes from…)
But I may very well die destitute and homeless. I’m fine with that if it means living a freer life up to that point.
And your different viewpoint is appreciated. — Sometimes I just get exasperated. This blog takes a lot more time than it used to. I should probably view that as a good thing (I do)!
November 1, 2007 at 7:02 PM
I would like to enjoy my time now, but I also want to be prepared money-wise for when I am old. I don’t have any inheritances coming my way, so I need to make sure to save while I can. Which sucks, but is life.
November 1, 2007 at 7:20 PM
cough… Your uncle might help.
November 1, 2007 at 8:20 PM
I doubt that greatly. Why would he give me his money?
November 1, 2007 at 8:28 PM
If you were dying? And he was already dead? I mean: distant future?
November 2, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Oh, I was going to say, “There’s a long line of his children and his brothers & sisters before I get there.” Then I saw your last comment that implies you’re aware they get the money first, but that they’d be nicer and more willing to be generous with the money.
I just want to point out that my uncle is not stingy, and he’s very generous with his money. But that if he were to die, that money is not going to be inherited directly to me. My dad may get some, but then if my dad dies, I’d still have to share his share with my brothers & sisters (and maybe aunts/uncles/mom). Soooo, anyway, I’m not banking on any inheritances.
November 2, 2007 at 4:29 PM
You’d think there’d be enough to go around… :)
November 2, 2007 at 8:03 PM
That anonymous comment was from me, by the way.