A guaranteed amount of time off means the company has to pay me for unused vacation if and when I depart. So for those of you who are offered unlimited time off, get a guaranteed and generous minimum, in writing.
After all, if it's unlimited, they shouldn't mind putting "a minimum of four weeks a year" in writing, should they? If they won't, they're probably going to shame you into working all the time and then won't pay you for the vacation you didn't take.
Compare that to the startup I used to work which had an "unlimited time off" perk, it was always a struggle to get actual time off, we were always rushing to get things done, or it was a difficult time, or another engineer was already on leave, it caused more stress than anything else.
I'm all for just giving a generous amount of annual leave, in my contract, with remaining days paid out.
It's nice not to stress about PTO balances, though.
> You obviously can't take 100% vacation time, so it's not unlimited.
This is the part that gets me. Everyone knows that it is limited, you just don't know what the limit is until you hit it.
If vacation were truly unlimited, sure, it would be a perk. Absent that, knowing what the limit is is a perk.
This must be a California thing. It's not generally true in most states.
And in a lot of companies, even when they specify an amount, it is a "recommended" amount. My company, for example, says 3 weeks, and many managers follow this religiously. But when you read the actual rules, it says that 3 weeks is the guideline, and not a promise. This is also used as an argument against giving 4 weeks: "3 weeks is just a guideline. You can work out more if the manager agrees."
Thankfully the way my current company handles this is about as good as you can get - they cash out balances that are too high a couple times a year at prespecified dates.
No you don't win. If you leave 100K on table, you lose.
I don't want "a good salary for my area". If I'm entrusted to deliver a million dollar feature for a Bay Area company, I want the max payout for that responsibility regardless of whether I delivered it from Iowa or Vietnam.
I want to have options for my family, for myself. We want to travel the world, own a home in a great neighborhood with great schools, have experiences that few others get. And you don't get those options in life with being content with "a good salary for my area" and then denying yourself coffee from Starbucks because you're still living on a budget.
But in a very fundamental way, I disagree with you. The reality is that you as a job-seeker have options and constraints when you are looking for a job. If a company isn't willing to pay you what you'd get if you were in Boston, but you aren't willing to move, then you have an impasse. If another company is will to pay that, then you take that offer. You have a set of offers and you take the best one available - not one that measures up to a hypothetical ideal.
You may want things, but that is totally immaterial to an employer. It depends on how valuable your skills are and how rare they are, regardless of location.
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pr...
If you are calling yourself and marketing yourself as "labor", you have already lost the game.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you learn to negotiate?
Any resources you could recommend?
You might be thinking "hey, wait a minute, that sounds like negotiating!". Well... You have to have something to negotiate with.
So the question is how can you generate leverage?
Also, FWIW: of the vast multitude of ways in which programming creates value for companies, probably only a tiny minority of them lend themselves to the kind of contracting arrangement that he describes. All other programming gets done by labor. Which means that most programmers are labor. How you decide to describe yourself doesn't change that.
the idea that "woke labor" is non-labor is hilarious. first, this isn't possible for the vast majority of people who actually provide value to capital - you know, the people pouring coffee, or stocking shelves, etc. try being "woke" about your value at a grocery store and let me know how it goes.
second, once enough of your class is "woke" you're back at square 1, trying to beat up people below you to pander to capital. (aside: this sort of "get yours and get out" is emblematic of america generally, and not flattering imo)
that the game is stacked against those who labor is more of a pathological outcome of labor not being very powerful. this is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. it's a bandaid over cancer.
fix the system: organize.
Source: remote worker for over a decade residing in a relatively cheap country
I have been working and hiring remotely for years, and that is generally false.
First, if I have a perk, I will list it. It is a competitive market for talent. This is just another tool at my disposal. Would you say that about "unlimited time off" or "generous benefits" being advertised in job posting? The same pool of money pays salaries as team outings and office beer taps, catered lunches, and other perks. On a basic level everything is zero sum.
Second, as for your "across the river" example, to the extent that actually happens, that view is a bit SV-centric. For talent that wants to avoid overpriced homes and soul destroying commutes, their frame of reference is local salaries that are guided by local costs of living. As a prospective remote, I don't care if you pay +20% in SFC. I am in another place, and if you can outbid my next best offer by 10% I win.
Definitely everyone should negotiate and be aware of salaries in NYC, SFC, Seattle, and DC.