> protected by law (no bullshit "unlimited vacation" policy can take it away).

I've worked at two places who had this policy and it was remarkable how many people just burned themselves out by NOT taking a single day of vacation. There was always pressure from management to NOT take vacation, then you add in pressure from your co-workers to continually work late, push to get projects done on time, all at the cost of your sanity and physical well being.

My thought has always been if you're going to join a company who has an "unlimited vacation" policy, it's probably a good indication there's an expectation you're going to work yourself into the ground, then burn out and will need an extended amount of time to get yourself right.

If a company champions this policy during an interview, it's a huge red flag for me.

I viewed this as a red flag too until I landed at a company where the unlimited vacation policy was sincere. It was actually a great experience.

At risk of sounding like a management consultant, it was very much a matter of corporate culture. People at upper levels took vacation regularly and actively encouraged their reports to do so. One-on-ones often included asking about recent and planned time off, and "none, none" produced real pressure to use the policy. The lack of set days did save money when people left, which probably helped it stick around, but I think the initial adoption of 'unlimited' instead of some generous allowance was basically just a matter of not wanting to formally track vacation time. (One other significant point, especially for tech: there wasn't an expectation of having grand plans, and people who weren't taking time off would even be reminded that they didn't need any "good reason" to do so. I've definitely heard of places where taking a month off to hike the Andes is fine, but taking two days to catch up on sleep and errands is frowned on.)

I still don't take "unlimited vacation" seriously when I see companies advertise it; I'd want an account of the real policy, minimally from Glassdoor reviews or preferably from an employee I knew. But I almost never see US companies advertise 20+ days of paid vacation as a starting allowance, so if the goal is to maximize time off I suspect searching for 'real' unlimited might still be the best bet.

This is weird to me, because I work at a UPTO company and most of my co-workers take at least 3-4 weeks off a year of vacation time and they don't have to worry about it cutting into their sick leave. Whereas, I've worked at other companies and you may start at 15 days PTO and it's one bucket for sick time and vacation.

This always throws me off, too.

I've definitely heard horror stories about UPTO meaning "no time off", especially in crunch-happy industries where requests are simply denied. But people criticizing UPTO seem to describe it as an all around bad deal compared to allotted PTO.

Meanwhile, I mostly see companies (even successful, generous-benefits ones) offering extremely restrictive PTO. "Two weeks PTO for all uses, and you gain one extra day every few years" isn't an appealing offer in the slightest. I've definitely watched friends with graduate degrees and many years at one company try to decide whether to work sick or give up pay.

That doesn't make UPTO a reliable offering, but I'm not convinced that it's worse on average than the levels of set PTO on offer in the US.

I think it also exists to save money when it comes time to cash out PTO when somebody leaves.

> I think it also exists to save money when it comes time to cash out PTO when somebody leaves.

Thinking adverserially: what's to stop someone from taking a month off then turning on notice on return?

To add alternate experience to the children of this post, I worked for a company w/ unlimited vacation, and while I took very little vacation, there was no pressure from outside to limit it. Other people tended to work less than I did and took vacation more or less in line with what they would have done elsewhere.

I wouldn't take unlimited vacation as a sign of anything other than "we expect you to be reasonable and we don't want to micro-manage everything." Although if my experience had been different, I might think different.

I currently work for a multinational with an unlimited vacation policy and it's pretty obvious people in places where PTO is protected by law (i.e. not the US) take far more.

It's also yet another way to ensure people who know they can just walk into another job (or that they won't get fired/laid off/never promoted) take loads of vacation, while people who _really_ need to be sure they stay employed or who might be having a harder time at work are always afraid to ask for it.

Buddy of mine worked for a company with unlimited PTO until recently. He would take 2, 3 months off because, as he put it, "I had them over a barrel" (he is extremely good at what he does). His colleagues, for the most part, did not.

> I wouldn't take unlimited vacation as a sign of anything other than "we expect you to be reasonable and we don't want to micro-manage everything."

In truth, though, the sole reason companies use unlimited vacation policy is that, in the US at least, it means unused vacation time does not accrue as a liability on the balance sheet, and companies aren't required to pay out for it if you leave.

It also alleviates the company from ever having to pay out unused vacation time. That is a disadvantage for the employee, but with a tremendous upside.

I also have unlimited PTO and I definitely prefer it. No more worrying about hours, rollover limits, accumulation rate, how far I can go negative, etc. No more wading through vacation schedules wondering if the office is open on New Years Eve.

Same thing with free lunches - yeah, of course it keeps people in the office and possibly causes them to subconsciously work longer. But also...I get a free freaking lunch and I don't have to worry about it.

Perhaps we're just completely opposite. When I have free lunch I just get fat. I also like to squeeze in a workout on my lunch break, and the quiet pressure to stay in the office and have your free lunch opposes that.

If you didn't take much vacation you basically cut your own salary by 10% compared to "limited vacation" though?

Good point, I suppose I did. When considered that way, I wonder of the option value of unlimited was worth it? Hmm.

Good for you! Where in the EU? There is quite a bit of variation in work regulations and norms (e.g. minimum wage and salary variance) depending on the member states.

Ireland - which is a mixed bag in some senses (if nothing else, work culture in tech here is HEAVILY influenced by the US) but still far better than California. Also, I don't mean to toot my horn but I may start a company in a year or two and even though I wouldn't necessarily have picked Ireland in the first place, their comparatively welcoming immigration policy (they have working holiday visas!) means it's where I've built my life.

> Life is better here.

But Europe Socialism bad.