Seeing this more and more. Anyone have experience with this policy? I've heard negative things and that employees end us taking less time off on average. Seems like it might make sense in a small company?
We have unlimited PTO and I have found people take less time off than they did with a set number of weeks. Managers must be more aware of people on their team not taking time because there is no balance building up and no "use or lose" fear. Also, I think people are less likely to ask for time if they can't justify it by their PTO balance.DripDeW23 said:
Seeing this more and more. Anyone have experience with this policy? I've heard negative things and that employees end us taking less time off on average. Seems like it might make sense in a small company?
I might be wrong, but I think employers have to have cash flow to account for all the PTO hours their employees have saved up. Moving to unlimited PTO and not having to pay it out means they only need regular payroll.Petrino1 said:
Employers are going towards this model because they don't have to pay out PTO if an employee leaves the company. Most employees are better off getting a defined 3-6 weeks of PTO since they will typically get paid out their remaining PTO balance if they leave the company.
Even if an employer offers you unlimited PTO, chances are they wont approve more than 4-5 weeks anyway.
Captain Winky said:
I just changed jobs and it was nice to get 3 1/2 weeks paid out because I had unused PTO.
Absolutely. As previously mentioned, a lot of states have laws that require employers to pay out unused PTO when an employee exits, and a lot of large companies have this policy as well. Every company Ive ever worked for paid out unused PTO when I left.htxag09 said:
First, I'm not a fan of unlimited PTO, so not intending it to come across that way. But is the not having to pay it out really a reason companies are switching to this policy? I mean, just because you get a defined number of days doesn't mean the company has to pay them if you leave. I've been at a couple companies where it was specifically outlined in the policies that vacation would not be paid out. Unless they just effed me over.....
htxag09 said:
So how long until someone with "unlimited PTO" in a state that requires it be paid out sues their employer for something like 8 weeks of PTO after being laid off/resigning?
Agreed. I keep 2 weeks in my back pocket for random days. But I take all 5 weeks and the comp time I get each year, we can only carry 80 over a year anyways.Premium said:
If you use your PTO as a piggy bank so when you leave you make money, because you didn't take vacation, you're doing it wrong.
powerbelly said:
I think it is a liability on the balance sheet that goes away.
DripDeW23 said:
Seeing this more and more. Anyone have experience with this policy? I've heard negative things and that employees end us taking less time off on average. Seems like it might make sense in a small company?
500,000ags said:
"Unlimited" PTO - code for 2-3 weeks and no payout.
In tech, the only people it really benefits is those data and engineering sprint-oriented roles where they are willing to work like a dog (50-60 hours a week) and then go on a 3 week vacation every six months.
bmks270 said:
I've had unlimited PTO the past few years.
I like it.
Generally yes, people take less time off, but that's also a mindset and culture as these are fast moving startups. Employees want to work and move fast. PTO is there when needed, but generally the type of people employed are very high performers who care about getting work done, not maximizing time away from work. They don't value huge amounts of PTO, they value meaningful work.